LICENSING (AMENDMENT) BILL (Hansard, 14 June 1977)

§ Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS
My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. Almost exactly 18 months ago I invited your Lordships to give a Second Reading to a Bill initiated by me in your Lordships' House with a Title identical to the one before us now; namely, the Licensing (Amendment) Bill. The circumstances which justified that Bill 18 months ago were similar to the circumstances surrounding the present Bill. In the previous Bill, words in a Statute had for years been interpreted both by police and by licensing magistrates in a certain way which had proved in application to be both sensible and practical. Then, after 14 years, as a result of a court decision upheld by the Law Lords, it was shown that the words in the Statute had in law a meaning different from that previously accepted and acted upon. This meant that the generally accepted procedure over those previous years, while it was still sensible and practical, had been proved to be technically unlawful.
My Bill 18 months ago, now an Act, had the effect of making legal this "sensible" and "practical" application of the relevant Statute. So again today in this Licensing (Amendment) Bill initiated by my honourable friend Sir Bernard Braille in another place, we have the situation where over the years until 1971 the police were able to enter licensed premises during permitted hours, not only in circumstances where they had grounds for suspecting that an offence had been or might be committed, but they were allowed to walk in as part of their normal surveillance duties. Until 1971 it was thought by the licensed trade and by the police that Section 186(1) of the Licensing Act 1964, and the legislation that preceded it, gave the necessary powers to the police to make routine visits.
It had long been standard practice for the police to pay such visits at irregular intervals so that no one knew exactly when they would come, and the practice was welcomed both by the magistrates and by the licensees because it was a sensible procedure which helped everybody at every stage when applying the licensing 120 laws. Then suddenly, in 1971, all this was put in doubt by the judgment in the case of Valentine v. Jackson which held that a police officer could not demand admission to licensed premises under Section 186(1) unless he had reasonable grounds for suspecting that an offence was being, or was about to be, committed on the premises.
So once again we have a situation where the legal interpretation of the relevant Statute cuts across a procedure relating to licensing law which has in practice over the years proved to be both sensible and practical. This, I claim, is a situation which cries out for speedy rectification and this Bill, which was commended by all Parties and by the Government in another place, sets about rectifying the situation.
Clause 1 has the effect of reversing the Valentine v. Jackson judgment. There is one change from the law as it was understood to be before the decision in that case. Now Clause 1 does not allow the police to enter licensed premises on a purely surveillance exercise for more than half an hour after the end of "permitted hours". This is a very important safeguard, the intention of which is to enable the police to supervise the drinking-up period and, if necessary, to assist licensees to clear the premises. It is necessary to define this extra period in the Bill, because the drinking-up period does not constitute part of the "permitted hours". The periods of drinking-up vary between 10 minutes for ordinary public houses and 30 minutes for premises such as restaurants, hotels which serve meals, and premises operating under a special hours certificate. That is an alteration which was unanimously agreed in another place, and it is a safeguard which it is very sensible to have included.
I think it ought to be made clear that this Bill does nothing to alter the position regarding clubs. The police have no right of entry into a registered club unless there is a special hours certificate in force for such club premises. Where such a certificate is in force the effect of the provisions of Clause 1 is that the police may enter the club premises only during the hours added to the normal permitted hours by the special hours certificate and during the following half hour, which is similar to the provision I explained a 121 minute ago for public houses. If the police suspect that a licensing offence is being committed on the club premises they must apply for a justices' warrant in order to enter.
With those explanations I think I have given the essence of the Bill. It is merely making it lawful to revert to a tried and proved procedure satisfactory to all those who administer the law and those who are affected by it. I have every confidence that your Lordships will once again approve these modest provisions, with the safeguards, which merely restore the position to what it was before 1971, and which for years proved to be effective and satisfactory to all concerned. It is with that confidence that I now beg to move that this Bill be read a second time.

Viscount LONG
My Lords, may I begin by thanking and congratulating my noble friend Lord Harmar-Nicholls on producing this amendment of the 1964 Licensing Act. It has been discovered that there has been a breakdown in the law, and the police themselves believe—and I believe the Government will probably acknowledge this, too—that it needs reforming urgently. Although we are talking about the police and licensees, it does not mean to say that this particular trade has not got a good name. I believe that the licensees, the licensed trade, our inns and hotels, and the management, do an enormous job for our balance of payments and for the assistance of tourists who come over here wanting to know things, or to be fed or have refreshment of some sort.
My Lords, it is not for me to add anything to what my noble friend has said. He has given an explanation which I believe to be absolutely correct. My own investigations recently have shown that licensees completely agree with what we are debating this evening. Therefore, from these Benches we support the amendment of the 1964 Act.

§ Lord WELLS-PESTELL
My Lords, I wish to intervene only briefly. I should like on behalf of the Government to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, on bringing this Bill before your Lordships' House. He has quite properly 122 said that it has passed all stages in another place. It is the second consecutive Session in which the noble Lord has undertaken to pilot a short, but, if f may say so, significant, Licensing (Amendment) Bill through your Lordships' House. May I say that the Government fully share the concern which is being felt on all sides in respect of incidents of violence on licensed premises, of assaults on licensees, and, what is perhaps much more important, the increase in under-age drinking. The Bill is simple in effect, and seeks, as the noble lord has said, merely to reverse the decision in the case of Valentine v. Jackson. The intention is to return the law to what Parliament originally intended it to be. We have done that once or twice quite recently.
I would take this opportunity to commend, on behalf of my right honourable friend the Home Secretary—because he does feel rather keenly about this—the recent initiative on the part of the Brewers' Society in launching, with the co-operation of other bodies represented on the Working Party on Alcohol and Youth, the campaign aimed at reducing the problems of excessive drinking by young people. My right honourable friend has been particularly impressed by the educational aspects of the campaign, which we hope may lead to greater discussion and awareness among young people of the problems which excessive drinking can and in fact do bring. We have also been glad to know of the action being taken to provide licensees with material for distribution or display which will help to make details of the present law more widely known to young people. The campaign is a valuable contribution towards combating the problems of alcohol abuse among young people.
As the noble Lord knows, the Bill has the full support of the Government and has been widely welcomed by both the police and the licensed trade. If I may say so, on behalf of the Government, we hope that the passage of this Bill will have a significant effect in reducing the problems connected with the enforcement of the law in licensed premises. Again we are grateful to the noble Lord for bringing it before your Lordships' House.