HL Deb 28 March 1979 vol 399 cc1638-45

5.36 p.m.

Report received.

Clause 1 [Suspension order]:

Lord INGLEWOOD moved Amendment No. 1: Clause 1, leave out clause 1 and insert the following new clause:

Exclusion orders

(".—(1) Where a court by or before which a person is convicted of an offence committed on licensed premises is satisfied that in committing that offence he resorted to violence or offered or threatened to resort to violence, the court may, subject to subsection (2) below, make an order (in this Act referred to as an "exclusion order") prohibiting him from entering those premises or any other specified premises, without the express consent of the licensee of the premises or his servant or agent.

(2) An exclusion order may be made either—

  1. (a) in addition to any sentence which is imposed in respect of the offence of which the person is convicted; or
  2. (b) notwithstanding the provisions of sections 2, 7 and 13 of the Powers of Criminal Courts Act 1973 (cases in which probation orders and absolute and conditional discharges may be made, and their effect), in addition to a probation order or an order discharging him absolutely or conditionally; or
  3. (c) notwithstanding the provisions of sections 182, 183, 191, 383, 384 and 392 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1975 (cases in which probation orders and absolute discharges may be made, and their effect), in addition to a probation order or an order discharging him absolutely;
but not otherwise.

(3) An exclusion order shall have effect for such period, not less than three months or more than two years, as is specified in the order, unless it is terminated under section 2(2) below.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the first Amendment standing in my name on the Marshalled List. Last week we had a full discussion during the Committee stage of this Bill and I sensed general agreement in all quarters of the Committee that it was a worthwhile Bill and that noble Lords wanted to see it on the Statute Book. A number of Amendments mainly concerned with clarification and precision were accepted by your Lordships without any dissenting voice. We ran into only one difficulty which was in my redrafting of Clause 1. The original Clause 1 was said to be defective in language and my redrafting was said to be equally defective and in need of further amendment. In addition, the Government were not happy with the powers given to magistrates in my then Amendment to make an exclusion order refer either to the premises where the offence was committed or to all premises in the particular licensing district.

Sensing a week ago that noble Lords opposite were as anxious as we were to find common ground so that we could return this Bill whence it came, I then withdrew my Amendment, and since then I have been in touch with the noble Lord, Lord Boston of Faversham, and I hope and believe that together we have found common ground. That common ground is reflected in the Amendment which I now ask your Lordships to consider. It follows in many ways the Amendment that we had before the House last week but the more advice that someone sponsoring a Private Member's Bill seeks—and good advice is always necessary—the more complicated the language of the Bill appears to become.

A close reading of this Amendment will show that it follows very nearly the lines we discussed last week but with three differences. I will mention them briefly. The first is a different scope of an exclusion order which a court may make. Under this draft an exclusion order may prohibit a man who has been convicted of an offence committed on licensed premises from entering those premises or any other specified premises". This leaves the magistrates (if they wish to make such an order at all) with the decision to make the exclusion order, either referring to the one premises where the offence was committed or to a number of others as well, if they feel this latter has advantage. They are in no way required to make an order which covers all licensed premises in any one licensing district.

I have been told that that could lead to great complications in the centre of big towns where the licensing district may contain a very large number of licensed premises. I feel sure that, even if there are some who would have liked this Bill to go wider, today when time presses if this Bill is to reach the Statute Book, your Lordships will be prepared to accept this common ground.

The second point is in the words: without the express consent of the licensee of the premises or his servant or agent". That is something novel in our draft, but I have been advised that if those words were not there it would be possible for Her Majesty's Government to find themselves hauled before the International Court for a breach of The European Convention on Human Rights; I feel that those saving words are probably better in than that Her Majesty's Government should be at risk in this way.

Thirdly, there is reference to Scotland. We took Scotland out of the Bill last week because I was told that the Bill as drafted would have applied automatically to Scotland. But apparently it does not. Instead, we put in the phrase that it did not refer to Northern Ireland. I have since been told that that advice was wrong. We must be very precise about the reference to Scotland, where the legal position is somewhat different from that in England. Hence, your Lordships will find references to Scotland in the new Clause 1 and in later Amendments. There is nothing in this beyond drafting and being quite sure that it refers in Scotland in the way that we should like. I beg to move.

Lord LUCAS of CHILWORTH

My Lords, I should like to support my noble friend but I cannot understand under the new clause, with the additional wording regarding the consent of the licensees, at which stage that consent is supposed to be given. Is it at the time that an exclusion order is made, listing perhaps the one premises at which the offence was committed or others to which an exclusion order might apply? The way I read the Amendment, it seems that an offender could have an exclusion placed upon him but present himself at the door of the premises and, if the licensee says: "You can come in", that will be the time. I noted very carefully what my noble friend said, and it would be right for me to express my gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Boston of Faversham, for at an earlier stage I accused him of taking a rather soft option on this matter. It now appears he has been prevailed upon to take a rather harder line, for which I am grateful.

5.43 p.m.

The MINISTER of STATE, HOME OFFICE (Lord Boston of Faversham)

My Lords, briefly, may I thank the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, for the remarks that he has made and for explaining this clause. May I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, for the observations that he has made. I was not proposing to expand on what the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, said in his introduction to this Amendment. Regarding the matter raised by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, the reference is to the first part of the proposed new clause where it says: … prohibiting him from entering those premises or any other specified premises, without the express consent of the licensee of the premises or his servant or agent". As he said towards the end of his remarks, that would come into effect on the point at which the person concerned was in the process of entering the premises. That is the position there.

Lord LYELL

My Lords, I wonder whether the House will permit me to ask my noble friend how far spread the suspension order will be implemented? Will it be within one licensing district or within a chain run under the same management as the original public house in which the offence was committed or in respect of which the suspension order was placed? Would the suspension order itself be applicable throughout England and Wales, and possibly parts of Scotland too? Is there any specific limit? Does my noble friend have any specific idea how far or how narrowly the suspension order should be placed?

Lord INGLEWOOD

My Lords, as I understand it, an exclusion order can refer to one licensed premises or to 10 or even 110. What we are doing here is giving magistrates complete discretion. They will not want to attach a list of premises which is so long that it is virtually unenforceable. According to the geography where the offence may have been committed—say in the centre of a big town, a surburban area or a country district—there may be some purpose in putting half a dozen premises on the list as against one.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 2 [Penalty for non-compliance with suspension order]:

5.46 p.m.

Lord INGLEWOOD moved Amendment No. 2: Page 1, line 17, after ("conviction") insert ("or, in Scotland, on conviction in a court of summary jurisdiction").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 2 again is an explanation of how this refers to Scotland. I beg to move.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Lord INGLEWOOD moved Amendment No. 3: Page 1, line 22, leave out ("make an order terminating the exclusion order") and insert ("may by order terminate the exclusion order or vary it by deleting the name of any specified premises,").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, a week ago we accepted an Amendment which gave magistrates the power where an exclusion order was broken to vary the exclusion order, let it run or bring it to an end. We have since thought that we ought to add the power that they could vary it, not just bring it to a stop or let it run its full course. I beg to move.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Lord INGLEWOOD moved Amendment No. 4: After Clause 2, insert the following new clause:

Power to expel person from licensed premises

Without prejudice to any other right to expel a person from premises, the licensee of licensed premises or his servant or agent may expel from those premises any person who has entered or whom he reasonably suspects of having entered the premises in breach of an exclusion order; and a constable shall on the demand of the licensee or his servant or agent help to expel from licensed premises any person whom the constable reasonably suspects of having entered in breach of an exclusion order.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a new clause I have been advised that where we have created a new offence it would be correct for us to state the constable's powers and also restate the licensee's powers, because, in the circumstances of a broken exclusion order, his position is somewhat different from that if he just exercises his common law right and says to somebody who comes into his premises: "I am not going to serve you". There are only two words to which I should like to draw your Lordships' attention. They are in the second half of the Amendment: and a constable shall on the demand of the licensee or his servant or agent help to expel from licensed premises I am assured that those words "help to" do not mean that, before the constable can do anything effective to help the licensee, the licensee must himself have taken hold of the erring man and attempted to put him out. That would be unfair because the licensee might be an elderly woman or a man not in good health. The phrase "help to" means that the constable will play a real part if able to do so and, if asked to do so by the licensee, will be responsible for seeing that the man leaves the premises. I beg to move.

Lord BOSTON of FAVERSHAM

My Lords, it may be helpful if I add some additional points to underline what the noble Lord has said, particularly in relation to the power to expel a person subject to an exclusion order. This provision follows closely the provisions of Section 174 of the Licensing Act 1964, which enables steps to be taken to remove from licensed premises anyone who is drunken, violent, quarrelsome and disorderly. It therefore has the advantage that both the licensees and the police are familiar with the procedure which will be required in relation to someone who is subject to an exclusion order.

I should also add in further amplification and to underline what the noble Lord has said on this point that the term "help to expel" in relation to the action taken by the police on the demand of a licensee does not imply that licensees themselves are necessarily required to join with the police in physically expelling someone from the premises. There would no doubt be instances where the police would appreciate the physical support of the licensee in this respect; but he is not obliged to give it as indeed has already been indicated by the noble Lord in moving this Amendment. One can certainly envisage that, in the normal sort of circumstances that are likely to arise, the part that might be played by the licensee would be that when the officer comes, having been summoned to the public house, the licensee would point in the appropriate direction and say: "That's him!" My Lords, I do apologise to noble Lords for pointing in their direction. I intended no disrespect. That is probably the most familiar scene which would arise should any of these unfortunate events occur.

Having said that, I would join with the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, in commending these Amendments to your Lordships. If I am not trespassing too much on your Lordships' sense of order, perhaps I may add a word to what the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, said earlier, and say that I appreciate very much indeed the spirit in which he entered into the discussions. I should like to take this chance of thanking all those concerned.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 3 [Supplemental]:

5.52 p.m.

Lord INGLEWOOD moved Amendment No. 5: Page 2, line 2, after first ("premises") insert ("in relation to England and Wales").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, when the noble Lord, Lord Boston, pointed across your Lordships' House, I thought he had come to some arrangement with Black Rod and was going to give us a demonstration of how somebody might be ejected from premises. However, I am glad that is not so. Amendment No. 5, together with Amendment No. 6 which follows it, is directed to the same point, that of making sure that this Bill applies properly to Scotland. I beg to move.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Lord INGLEWOOD moved Amendment No. 6: Page 2, line 4, after ("1964)") insert ("and, in relation to Scotland, means premises in respect of which a licence under the Licensing (Scotland) Act 1976, other than an off-sales licence or a licence under Part III of that Act (licences for seamen's canteens) is in force").

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Lord INGLEWOOD moved Amendment No. 7:

Page 2, leave out lines 6 and 7 and insert ("holder of the licence granted in respect of those premises; and specified premises", in relation to an exclusion order, means any licensed premises which the court may specify by name and address in the order. ( ) In the application of section 1 above to Scotland, the reference in subsection (1) of that section to a person's being convicted of an offence shall, in relation to proceedings in a court of summary jurisdiction in which the court, without proceeding to conviction, discharges him absolutely under section 383 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1975 or makes a probation order under section 384 of that Act, shall be construed as a reference to the court being satisfied that he committed the offence.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 7. The first part of this Amendment follows on the first Amendment, where we now have power to make an exclusion order refer either to the premises where the offence was committed or to any other specified premises. In the interests of clarity, this Amendment defines "specified premises". The second part of Amendment No. 7 is once again a reference to the Scottish situation.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 4 [Short title and extent]:

Lord INGLEWOOD moved Amendment No. 8: Page 2, line 14, at end insert ("and this Act, in its application to Scotland, and the Licensing (Scotland) Act 1976 may be cited together as the Licensing (Scotland) Acts 1976 to 1979.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, again, Amendment No. 8 refers to the application of this Bill to Scotland. I beg to move.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.