ENFORCEMENT BY POLICE (Hansard, 18 June 1976)

§ Sir Bernard Braine
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Those who seek to tamper with our licensing laws at a time when drunkenness, alcohol-related offences, and alcoholism are all on the increase, are under some obligation to ensure that the relaxations that they propose are properly controlled. The purpose of this new clause is to ensure that, as the Bill proposes longer drinking hours, and permits, for the first time, unaccompanied children under 14 to enter licensed bars, there should be adequate powers of surveillance by the police.
The underlying purpose of the Bill is very clear. It is to increase levels of consumption of alcohol, and it does so directly in Clause 1 and indirectly in Clause 2.
It is true that no licensee is forced to apply for an additional hours order or a children's accommodation order unless he thinks that these are wanted by his customers and he can expand his trade as a result. That being so, it is important for hon. Members to grasp at the outset of this debate that experience in this country, in Europe, in North America and in other societies comparable with our own, shows very clearly that an increase in the levels of consumption of alcohol is co-related with an increase in drunkenness, alcoholism, and the toll of death and injury on the roads, and a great deal of marital unhappiness, ill-treatment of wives and children and the break-up of families.
1044 3.15 p.m.
All this spells out a huge cost in economic terms, in industrial and business efficiency, in sickness, in human misery, and in demands upon our overburdened social services. I make no complaint that my hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) talked about my long speeches in Committee. It was necessary to acquaint members of the Committee, the wider membership of the House and the public with certain facts of social life in this country today.
Clearly, therefore, any proposal which would have the effect of increasing levels of consumption should be examined closely. Any proposal for longer drinking hours and for familiarising young children with the atmosphere in which licensed drinking takes place should be examined with the utmost care.
Let me quote from the controversial Erroll Committee Report, which said that the sale of intoxicating liquor is not like that of any other commodity. It is not necessary to delve into history in order to establish that alcohol has effects on human behaviour which may be socially undesirable. The patterns of anti-social behaviour … embrace a whole range of reactions from minor brawls. to violent crimes committed under the influence of drink". Why is it that, by and large, the British public house is an admired institution, well entrenched in the affections of our people? Why is it that it is widely regarded as a place of refuge and refreshment, of warmth and friendliness, and why is it that serious studies have shown that the peculiarly British habit of drinking in pubs has been a factor in the relatively low level of excessive drinking in this country compared to countries like France, Germany, Italy, the United States and Sweden?
The recent study of our system of control by the Canadian Alcoholic Beverage Standing Committee revealed that it is this British habit of sober drinking in pubs in familiar surroundings which has been a major factor in our relatively low levels of heavy drinking.

§ Mr. Kenneth Clarke
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I hesitate to draw your attention to the matter, but I have the advantage of having heard my hon. Friend's speech several times before. 1045 It seems to me that so far my hon. Friend has not addressed a solitary word to the right of a constable to enter premises, which is the subject matter of the new clause about which he is supposed to be talking. My hon. Friend's review of Canadian experience of liquor licensing control takes a considerable time, as I well recall.
I invite you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to give a ruling about what is comprised within the clause, so that we may have an ordered debate dealing with specific point by specific point, and have guidance as to why my hon. Friend thinks it necessary to move the Second Reading of a clause giving a constable power to enter premises in the way he advocates.

Mr. Deputy Speaker
I have no doubt that the hon. Member for Essex, South-East (Sir B. Braine) is experienced enough to know that the argument must be related to the clause. I had hoped that he would come to the clause very speedily.

§ Sir Bernard Braine
I am already on the clause, Mr. Deputy Speaker. This is yet another example, which will not be lost on hon. Members or on a wider public when they read what I say, of what happened in Committee, where the only contribution my hon. Friend and his supporters could make to serious discussions within the parameters of order was continually to sabotage those of us who had something serious to say on the subject. The irresponsibility of my hon. Friend does him no service.

§ Mr. Donald Stewart (Western Isles)
I assure the hon. Gentleman that the point with which he is dealing is of great interest in Scotland as well,. We have a Licensing Bill going through the House at the same time. The hon. Gentleman has referred to the British story of the drinking problem. It is more serious in Scotland than in England. As a Scot—

Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. The clause does not apply to Scotland. Therefore, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not proceed along that line.

§ Sir Bernard Braine
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Stewart). He is making a valid point. There are differences between the patterns of drinking in England and in 1046 Scotland. As the hon. Gentleman raised the matter, and as it is relevant to what I have to say, let me say that one reason why there is a more serious drinking problem in some parts of Scotland is that the number of public houses in relation to population is smaller than in England.
The English pattern is widely admired not only throughout the British Isles but throughout the civilised world. When my hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe sneers at the Canadian study, what he fails to recognise is that it praised the English system.
The reason why, by and large, the English and Welsh public house has been well conducted, and there has been a relatively low level of drunkenness in this country is that we have had a well-tried and well-understood system of control by permitted hours, until recently accompanied by a good relationship with the police and the local magistrates. Although my hon. Friend seems curiously ignorant of the fact, part of that control has been bound up with the relationship between the police and the licensee. I shall come on to that in some detail, because it is not a subject which was discussed in Committee.
It was not always so. Up to the First World War, the situation in this country was rapidly getting out of control. Drunkenness was increasing alarmingly. Licensing reform became necessary. Hours were shortened, and the alcoholic content of drink was reduced.

§ Mr. Kenneth Clarke
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I seek your protection for those who wish to have an ordered debate on the subject? We have Mr. Speaker's selection of new clauses and amendments, each of which appears on the Order Paper and clearly encompasses a particular subject. I am not trying to usurp the functions of the Chair, although my hon. Friend will say immediately that I am. What my hon. Friend is doing is an abuse of the procedures. It gives nobody else any chance to take part in an ordered debate if he enters into a long diatribe about the demon drink and the history of the licensing laws. I appeal to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to keep my hon. Friend in order, and ask him to address himself to the reason why he thinks the Bill 1047 does not give a constable adequate powers to enter premises.

Mr. Deputy Speaker
I have already asked the hon. Gentleman to pay attention to the point, and I am sure that he will address himself exclusively to new Clause 1.

§ Sir Bernard Braine
I am addressing myself to the question of licensing control in Britain.

§ Mr. Kenneth Clarke
That is not the point.

§ Sir Bernard Braine
I wonder whether, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you could advise my hon. Friend that he has no right to assume to himself the powers of the Chair. I am addressing myself to the question of the pattern of licensing control in Britain. Hitherto, under the present law this has involved the participation of the police. I am perfectly in order to describe exactly how that relationship works, and indeed how that relationship has deteriorated. In itself this is a powerful reason for rejecting the Bill.

Mr. Deputy Speaker
The hon. Gentleman is addressing the House not on the subject of the Bill, but on the subject of New Clause 1, which is related to a constable entering premises.

§ Sir Bernard Braine
That is true, but I am seeking to explain why it is that constables who used to enter premises no longer do so. This is part of the pattern of the reason why the licensing law has been put under considerable strain. Because it is relevant to proposals made in the Bill, I am entitled to make my speech in my own way within the parameters set down.
This is a new clause, and is not an amendment to the existing part of the Bill. In order to establish the case for a new clause, one has to explain the reasons why that clause is tabled. My hon. Friend is following a tactic which he followed repeatedly in Standing Committee. He could not defeat us by argument, and therefore his purpose was to interrupt one in the middle of a sentence before a thought had been properly developed and before the Committee could hear what one had to say. He was constantly on his feet with some 1048 point of order suggesting that the Chair was not doing its duty.

§ Mr. Ron Lewis
Does the hon. Gentleman also agree that I had only just started my speech when the hon. Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) moved the closure, and never allowed me to have my say?

§ Sir Bernard Braine
Yes. I think, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you should take cognisance of the irresponsible way in which my hon. Friend has behaved throughout.

§ Mr. Kenneth Clarke
Get on with it.

§ Sir Bernard Braine
I am now encouraged to "get on with it", the hon. Gentleman having disturbed the flow of my argument. But the Minister has sat patiently in Committee throughout our deliberations and will readily testify that—

Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. The one thing of which I cannot take consideration is what happened in Standing Committee.

§ Sir Bernard Braine
I accept your wise guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Suffice it to say that, after a long pattern of sensible drinking hours which followed the licensing review which became necessary at the outbreak of the First World War, we set a model which was praised by the rest of the world.
We are now in a new situation. We now have coming before the courts the highest number of drink-related offences since before the First World War. In the 10 years from 1964 to 1974 the figures jumped from 76,842 to over 103,000. What is particularly significant—and this is relevant to the surveillance and policing of public houses—is that out of those figures the proportion of offenders under 21 rose from 12 per cent. of the total in 1964 to almost 20 per cent. of a far larger total in 1974. In the same period there was a huge increase in the per capita consumption of beer, wines and spirits. I have no doubt that the relaxation of licensing procedures from 1961 onwards has been a contributory factor to this deterioration.
3.30 p.m.
Another factor has been the change in police surveillance, which this new clause seeks to remedy. What is particularly 1049 alarming in this context is the effect of the new permissiveness upon our society and upon the drinking habits of young people. Since the police have to deal with the consequences of this it will soon become apparent, if it is not so already, that police surveillance is a matter which we ought to discuss.
The figures that I have quoted should shock the House, though they may not have shocked my hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe. They provide ample justification for rejecting the Bill although all that I can do this afternoon is to seek to improve it by asking the House to add this new clause to it.
Among schoolchildren, for example, surveys have shown that the proportion who felt that drunkenness was wholly wrong had fallen significantly between 1963 and 1970. The fall in that proportion is continuing. It is against that background that the Bill's proposals to liberalise—if that is the word—still further our licensing laws must be judged. It is against that background that the imperative need for this new clause and for later amendments must been seen, although I devoutly hope that the House will reject altogether this miserable, ill-timed and socially irresponsible Bill.
The Bill's two purposes—and I must reiterate them in the context of what I am about to say—are to permit the extension of drinking hours and to admit children under 14 years of age to what is called a family room in a licensed bar.

§ Mr. Kenneth Clarke
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I apologise to you, but not to my hon. Friend the Member for Essex, South-East (Sir B. Braine), for intervening yet again in his speech. I am in no way seeking to usurp your function. We had a debate on this new clause in Committee. I know that you are not concerned with what went on in Committee. The issue enshrined in the clause, which without presuming too much I am sure was in the mind of Mr. Speaker when he selected it, is whether the present powers of police to enter licensed premises are adequate in the light of the Bill. That was the parameter of the debate in Committee. My hon. Friend has prepared a long time ago—he has delivered it before—a long speech on the merits of this Bill, the history of the licensing law, and alcoholism 1050 among the young and adults. His occasional references to police surveillance in no way make his speech remotely relevant to the new clause.

Mr. Deputy Speaker
I have listened with great care to what the hon. Member for Essex, South-East (Sir B. Braine) has been saying. As soon as I find that he is out of order I shall say so.

§ Mr. Mike Thomas
Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Forgive me for intervening yet again, but I think that I should draw to your attention that throughout the proceedings on this Bill—this is another example and it is why I seek your guidance—the hon. Member for Esesx, South-East (Sir B. Braine) has slipped in occasional, peripheral references which appear, in passing, to make his speech relevant. I appreciate how difficult it is for you to deal with these matters. I appreciate that it is always the wish of the Chair to protect the rights of individual Members. I point out that other hon. Members have rights too. Throughout the proceedings I have been abused for not intervening in the debates. May I make it clear to you that because of this sort of behaviour by the hon. Gentleman I have never had the opportunity to do so?

Mr. Deputy Speaker
I have been listening carefully to what the hon. Member for Essex, South-East has been saying. He said that he had two points which he wanted to make initially to lay a foundation for a further point. I would like to hear what he has to say.

§ Mr. Donald Stewart
Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have listened to the arguments very carefully. The hon. Gentleman has been subjected to continual interruptions. Of course, I am subject to your ruling, but, in my opinion, what he has been saying has been a perfectly relevant development of his argument on the new clause.

§ Mr. John Mendelson (Penistone)
Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I submit to you with respect that the hon. Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) has no right to arrogate to himself the power to make constant interruptions as he has done. We are accustomed to awaiting guidance from the Chair. He is wasting the time of the 1051 House by arrogating to himself powers which he does not possess.

§ Mr. Neubert
Was it in your hearing and understanding, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that the hon. Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) said that the same new clause had been considered in Committee?

Mr. Deputy Speaker
I had not noticed that. In fact, this new clause has been selected by Mr. Speaker for debate, and the hon. Gentleman has been elaborating his arguments on that new clause.

§ Mr. Ron Lewis
Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. This point of order, which was raised by the hon. Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke), is indicative of his action throughout the whole of the Committee proceedings when the hon. Member for Essex, South-East (Sir B. Braine) was speaking.

Mr. Deputy Speaker
That is not a matter for the Chair.

§ Sir Bernard Braine
By this time hon. Members may have lost the thread of my argument, and it may therefore be for the convenience of the House if I remind hon. Members that the Bill's main purposes are to permit the extension of drinking hours and to admit children under 14 years of age to what is called a family room in a licensed bar, although how one can use the term "family room" when such children can be admitted unaccompanied by an adult defeats my imagination.
These proposals reverse the trend in our licensing laws, which have been controlled satisfactorily by benches of magistrates and by the police for a long time. They also fly in the face of legislation designed to protect young children. They are advanced at a time of increasing rowdyism, hooliganism, drunkenness and violence in our society. It is no use the promoters of the Bill arguing that the Bill is permissive only and that no licensee would apply for either of the orders which the Bill would allow. The licensing trade is highly competitive, and many licensees have told me that even though they dislike the Bill's provisions—

§ Mr. Mike Thomas
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Gentleman is again entering into a 1052 general discussion of the merits or demerits, as he sees them, of the Bill. By doing so in the course of his speech on this new clause he deprives anyone else of the right to reply. I appeal for your protection, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

§ Mr. Tony Durant (Reading, North)
rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker
May we have one point of order at a time, please? When I notice that the hon. Gentleman is straying from order I shall advise him of the fact.

§ Mr. Durant
Further to the point of order. I am listening very carefully to the debate, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have only recently entered the Chamber, and I want to hear the facts.

§ Mr. Kenneth Clarke
Further to the point of order. I have to reply to the debate and explain my views on this new clause. I should like your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker, on how you consider that the arguments advanced by the principal opponents of the Bill against a family room and about the history of increasing alcoholism among children and alcoholism in Canada are remotely relevant to the debate. May I have your guidance? What am I supposed to be replying to when this ludicrous diatribe comes to an end, which in my experience it usually does after three or four hours?

Mr. Deputy Speaker
I have already drawn attention to what is said in the new clause about a constable entering "any premises". It is to that point, I imagine, that these arguments are being directed.

§ Sir Bernard Braine
The routine entry of a constable on to licensed premises was an essential part of our system of control, which obtained for many years until 1971.
I am not going to be driven off the thread of my argument, which is leading to a logical conclusion, by the sabotage of the hon. Gentleman every time he rises to his feet. I have the utmost respect for the Chair and I can tell the hon. Gentleman that over the 26 years that I have been privileged to be a Member of this House I have never challenged the Chair. The hon. Gentleman does it every few minutes.

§ Mr. Kenneth Clarke
It is within my clear recollection—we only finished our Committee proceddings 30 hours age—theat my hon. Friend had to be called to order 20 times in his speech and that the Chairman in Committee finally ordered him to resume his seat because he was incapable of remaining relevant, and he is making the same speech now as that which then came to that inglorious conclusion.

§ Sir Bernard Braine
I shall persist despite this provocation, because it will be realised that there is very deep feeling on this subject. One reason why I put the new clause down was to ensure that there was proper police surveillance of licensed premises. What my hon. Friend is doing, among other things, is to open up licensed bars to unaccompanied children under the age of 14. He does not want the argument against that brought out into the open. I think he has now got cold feet and is frightened. Perhaps he does not realise what he has done.
The truth of the matter is that in this House there are 634 other hon. Members who care desperately about the health and welfare of our children. If the children cannot be safeguarded under the licensing laws, which the hon. Gentleman seeks to weaken, somehow or other we have to put into the Bill a provision ensuring that the police resume the surveillance that they used to exercise over public houses. My hon. Friend is not going to deflect me. There is plenty of time ahead yet and he and other hon. Members can get on their feet. The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Thomas) has protested, but he never got to his feet to make a contribution in our debates in Standing Committee.
Here, I must strike a serious note. People outside this House look to us for a lead in these matters and look to us to safeguard the weak. Children have no vote. I think that in this case we should stand up for the children of our country. I shall give good reasons for saying that in due course.
If I cannot silence the hon. Gentleman I still hope to stir his conscience. Every time he opens his mouth he makes difficulties for himself in his own constituency. If his own constituents learn what he 1054 is proposing here he is inviting trouble for the future.
The truth of the matter is that the Bill does not take account of the fact that the licensing trade is highly competitive. Many licensees have told me that, even though they dislike the provisions in the Bill, they might be obliged to make applications in order to survive. The National Association of Licensed House Managers tells me there is a genuine fear that licensees will either have to conform or be driven out of business. If they conform, the increase in their overheads will undoubtedly put up the price of drink to the customers. The Bill puts new pressures and new responsibilities upon licensees.

Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. I think that the hon. Gentleman is getting rather wide of New Clause 1. I ask him once again to come back to the point, which is about the entry of a constable.

§ Sir Bernard Braine
Had you permitted me, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to continue for one sentence, I would have made it clear that if we put additional rseponsibilities upon a licensee to keep his house open longer we should increase the rowdiness, noise and in some areas violent brawls, of which we have enough already. In support of the police view, I will quote later from the annual report of at least one chief constable, although references could be found in the reports of most chief constables.
If these additional burdens are put on a licensee who has a duty to keep an orderly house—if, for example, he has to deal with the added responsibility of catering for unaccompanied young children until 8 o'clock—there may be moments when he will need the support of the police. Most hon. Members who are connected with the law or the social services will know that I am making valid points. Licensees who feel obliged to apply for such orders will not only face earlier opening, the disappearance of the afternoon break and closing at midnight but will now have to operate a closing time for children at 8 o'clock—just when the evening trade is beginning to mount up.
How does the licensee, who at present does not have the support of the police that he used to have for reasons that I 1055 shall give shortly, get rid of the children when, at 8 o'clock, he will have to cry, "Time, children, please."? Unaccompanied children are one problem that may involve the police. But what about children accompanied by irresponsible parents who wish to continue drinking or by a young man over 18 who then leaves the bar? How does the licensee deal with that on his own?
There is already a grave and worrying problem of young people under 18 breaking the law by buying alcoholic drink in bars. I am not surprised that my hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe has left the Chamber; he cannot face the realities of this situation. The number of prosecutions under this head in England and Wales alone—I do not know the situation in Scotland—rose from 4,374 in 1966 to 5,970 in 1973. I am told that the trend is continuing. Clearly there is need for greater vigilance in this respect alone.

§ Mr. Mike Thomas
The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that the opportunities for other hon. Members than himself to speak are somewhat limited in the context of these debates. If the worries that he is expressing are so legitimate, why did police organisations give evidence to Errol asking for changes on the lines of the Bill? Secondly, why have the sponsors of the Bill had no representations from the police on the lines of the hon. Member's arguments?

§ Sir Bernard Braine
I shall not be drawn down that path. I have had the honour of advising senior police officers for the last 10 years, and I am well aware of the police view. It would not go well with me and it would be quite improper if I said that there was police anxiety on a particular matter when there was not. The Under-Secretary of State, who represents the Home Office with such flair and distinction, would be the first to challenge me if I expressed a view about police anxieties that was not correct.
There is need for greater vigilance here. The lower age at which children will be able to enter bars unaccompanied under the Bill will exacerbate an already growing problem. What licensees require from Parliament is support, not sabotage. They need more, not less, help from the police.
1056 What about the increased difficulty the licensee will encounter in getting rid of customers at midnight instead of at the existing normal closing time? That extra hour of drinking can make all the difference between customers leaving the premises in a sober manner and going home in a decent condition and the rowdyism in the public house and outside, which is all too often the subject of reports from the police in our big cities.
I shall spare the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East accounts in the newspapers of his great city about the rowdyism inside and outside pubs late at night, and the way in which young people are involved in bloody assaults upon one another, the police and innocent bystanders. If I were drawn on this, I could give accounts of this nature relating to practically every major city. I do not think that is necessary, because hon. Members present are all assiduous in their constituency duties and are well aware of the facts of life.

§ Mr. Mike Thomas
I am glad to be able to assist the hon. Gentleman. Had it ever occurred to him—perhaps he would like to engage in discussion upon it now, as everything seems to be relevant according to his approach—that it might be in the nature of the present licensing laws to encourage such behaviour? For example, every public house closes at the same time and there is a rush to drink up before that time. Might that not accentuate the problems and might not the Bill help to solve them?

§ Sir Bernard Braine
With the first part of the hon. Gentleman's remarks I am prepared to agree—for the first occasion through our long deliberation on the Bill. He spoilt it by his conclusion. The present situation is serious, as the Under-Secretary of State would agree and as every police officer knows. I am saying that the Bill will exacerbate that situation.
I have in my hand the annual report of the Chief Constable of Hertfordshire. I could have produced the annual reports of every chief constable in the country, but this one is interesting because it goes to the point. This is what the Chief Constable says: The level of public disorder continued to increase during the year with affrays and late night brawls occurring at public houses, discotheques, and places of entertainment. In 1057 some instances hundreds of young persons were involved presenting a difficult task for the police to restore the peace. As with assaults and woundings drink was often the underlying cause and in many instances offensive weapons were used. The display of open aggression is a very worrying feature of modern society and perfectly innocent people are terrified when swept up in running fights in the street. Against that background, is it surprising that the police service is not happy and is opposed to the proposal in the Bill for longer and later drinking hours?

§ Mr. Mike Thomas
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Must not the hon. Gentleman, if he is to remain relevant, explain how conferring the powers in New Clause 1 in excess of those in Section 68 of the principal Act will affect these matters? I have no objection to his making these comments so long as occasionally he relates them to the specific issue of the amendment.

§ Sir Bernard Braine
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman; he is helping me enormously.
It may come as a surprise to him and other hon. Members that in recent years, despite the deterioration in patterns of drinking behaviour—perhaps because of it—the powers of the police in regard to routine visits to licensed premises, includding clubs, have been gravely undermined. Throughout my lifetime, until 1971, it was customary for the police—the constable in the village, the inspector in towns—to visit licensed premises at intervals to ensure that the licensing hours were being obeyed. Obviously such visits were conducted when premises were reasonably full, and the presence of the officer was often the occasion for friendly banter with the patrons and the licensee.
It was generally recognised that such visits were valuable. They contributed greatly to the observance of the law. They ensured public order. They helped to promote good public relations between the public and the police. Most police forces required their officers to visit licensed premises at irregular intervals, and it was for the divisional commander, who would be a chief superintendent or his deputy, a superintendent, to ensure that such visits were maintained. Licensees were generally pleased to see the officers and regular patrons knew that such visits were to be expected, though 1058 not when they would take place. As a result, the police were able to make a reasonable judgment as to how licensed premises in their area were being conducted and what sort of people frequented them.
Unhappily, those arrangements were swept aside—this is the reason for the new clause—following the decision in the Valentine v. Jackson case, in the High Court in 1971. As a consequence, in many areas the police instructions for visits to licensed premises were withdrawn. Instead, in some instances they were replaced by positive orders from chief officers that such establishments were not to be visited at all.
That has remained the position up till now, and yet I am assured that the vast majority of licensees, whether tenants or managers, desire the return of routine police visits to their premises. For this reason alone, I cannot understand why the Home Office, which should know the facts, has not come out in strong condemnation of the Bill.
There is another point which I wish to make, namely, the uncertainty of the powers of the patrolling constable. Before the Valentine v. Jackson case, he had no qualms about entering licensed premises when called. Now he has to stop and think whether there has been a breach of the licensing law. I note that my hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe, who was so anxious that I should get to this point, is not paying the slightest attention to what I am saying.
If the Bill becomes law, it follows that the uncertainty in the mind of the patrolling police officer will still exist but the dangers will be very much greater. That can be avoided if the House accepts the new clause.
Hon. Members will realise the relevance of what I said earlier about the deterioration of standards of behaviour in and around licensed premises in many areas. There can be few among us who have not had complaints and petitions from constituents about rowdyism, noise, bad language and the slamming of car doors, to put it at its mildest, when licensed premises are close to their homes. Now we have to face the possibility of later drinking hours and intensification of these nuisances at a later hour. We face the dangers surrounding the entry 1059 to licensed bars of unaccompanied children below the age of 14.

§ Mr. Kenneth Clarke
rose—

Sir Bernard Braille
The purpose of the new clause is to strengthen the powers of the police in regard to the surveillance of licensed premises by providing an unfettered right of entry during the time that alcohol is being sold, consumed or supplied.

§ Mr. Kenneth Clarke
rose—

Hon. Members
Give way.

§ Sir Bernard Braine
No, I will not. My hon. Friend has repeatedly tried to sabotage my case.
Senior police officers who are gravely concerned about the present situation and the way in which it will be worsened by the Bill tell me that since the Valentine v. Jackson case—