§ Amendment made: No. 76, in page 9, line 42 after 'constable', insert 'in uniform'.— [Mr. Arthur Davidson.]
§ Miss RichardsonI beg to move Amendment No. 77, in page 9, line 43, after "search", insert "for that person".
This is an attempt to clarify the clause and to make it as exact as possible. The clause states that
a constable may enter (if need be, by force) and search any premises".What I am trying to avoid is the possibility, however remote, that a constable might go into premises and, on the pretext that he is searching for a certain person, take the opportunity to search further than his duty would allow. I seek to insert the words "for that person" to make the intention behind the clause crystal clear.
§ Mr. CorbettOn a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order to proceed with our business when the Opposition Benches are empty?
§ Mr. Arthur DavidsonAs my hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Miss Richardson) rightly says, Clause 11 empowers a police constable to enter premises to effect an arrest under Clauses 6, 7, 8 and 10. As she knows, the Criminal Law Revision Committee proposed that there should be an express provision empowering a constable to enter premises to make an arrest in respect of an arrest-able offence as defined by that Committee. The Committee recommended the adoption of a distinction between felonies and misdemeanours. That provision is now in Section 2(6) of the Criminal Law Act 1967, and Clause 11 follows that closely.
Given the particular circumstances of the offence in this part of the Bill, it is inevitable that a constable will usually, if not invariably, need to enter premises to effect and arrest because of the very nature of the type of offence with which 716 we are dealing. It is essential that there should be an unequivocal and adequate power to enter premises to deal with public order offences.
I now come to Amendment No. 77. It would be highly undesirable to limit the scope of the power of search in the way that my hon. Friend intends. It would be absurd if a police officer who had entered premises and arrested the offender could not go on to search for a weapon which was temporarily concealed but still in the offender's possession. I hope that this clears up the points that my hon. Friend raised.
§ Mr. MikardoThe Minister has taken only one of many contingencies that could arise under the clause. Let me give him a different scenario. Suppose that the officer suspects that the man he wants to arrest is in a house. He goes into the premises, if need be by force. Nobody is disputing that he should have the right to do that. The officer looks all over the house and finds that the chap is not there. Under the terms of the clause, even when the officer has established that the chap for whom he is looking is not there he can search the house.
What happens then has nothing to do with whether the man whom the officer is trying to arrest is there. He can look in every cupboard, every safe, and every drawer, without any intention of effecting an arrest. He knows that he cannot effect an arrest because he has established that the man whom he is trying to arrest is not there. That is possible under the terms of the clause as it stands.
If what the Minister is seeking is the right of an officer to go in and make an arrest, no one is disputing that that right would be preserved precisely and totally in the terms of the amendment. My hon. Friend is resting on the argument used by the right hon. and learned Member for Wimbledon (Sir M. Havers) in another context a short while ago. He is resting on this bastard of a situation for the child who is 10 years old. It is not very good, is it?
§ Mr. Arthur DavidsonI assure my hon. Friend that, in the circumstances he outlines, if an officer acted in that way he would not be acting under the terms of the clause and he would be committing an offence. He could search only for the 717 purpose of arrest. That is clearly set out. I understand my hon. Friend's query and I can assure him that his fear is groundless.
§ Amendment negatived.