HL Deb 14 May 1980 vol 409 cc331-44

6.23 p.m.

Lord INGLEWOOD

My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time. Like the noble Baroness's Bill, this Bill is short and clear and meets a real need. It passed through all its stages during the last Parliament and was a victim of the Dissolution. I believe that had it been a Government Bill instead of a Private Member's Bill, the rules would have allowed it to go through. As it was, it failed by a matter of seconds. I hope that this evening we shall not delay it further but see it on its way to the Statute Book. There is no difference of view, to the best of my knowledge, between the parties either in the other place or in this House, either in the last Parliament or in this Parliament. There has been no major difference between the Back-Benchers and the department; and Home Office Ministers of the last Government and of this Government have both been as helpful as possible. I do not think it is giving away any secrets to say that they have drafted several of the necessary amendments to help the clarity of the Bill.

Hence, there is no reason for a long speech from me— and even less of a reason because I have a cold and have all but lost my voice. But I must explain very briefly what this Bill intends to do. We all live today in an age of increasing violence and of some uncertainty as to what we can do and how we can help. This Bill, I maintain, offers one way. It is concerned with one problem and one problem only; and that is violence or threats of violence committed on licensed premises where such trouble can start all too easily. There are too many instances, tragic instances, as we all know, of harm to licensees, to staff and to guests.

The Bill has the enthusiastic support of the licensees and is in step with a resolution carried at the Trades Union Congress in 1976. Although it is not a police Bill in the narrow sense, I understand that it has their support, too, for it makes a part of their task easier. In short, what this Bill does is to empower a court in certain circumstances to impose an additional penality called an exclusion order, which may be for a period as short as three months or up to two years, where a person convicted of an offence on licensed premises has resorted to violence or has threatened violence. It lays down a further penalty where a person fails to comply with such an order; that is, enters premises from which he is excluded by such an exclusion order.

This is something new and there was a little uncertainty during the earlier stages as to whether the powers for making an exclusion order were drawn too widely or too narrowly; but after the discussions that we had during the last Parliament— and the noble Lord, Lord Boston, will bear me out in this— we arrived at probably the best solution, which is one that has been accepted by most of those concerned; although some would like a little more and others thought a little less would have been sufficient. It allows a court, whether a Crown court or a magistrates' court, to impose this additional penalty on a person convicted of an offence on licensed premises where violence was used or threatened.

I would submit that this proposal should be looked upon as a clear-cut, practical, first step. It could be that, in the light of experience, others may wish to take this further; but I am sure that it would be wrong today to make it more complicated than need be. It could so easily prove difficult to operate if it were made more complicated and, more importantly in my view, it could delay the passage of the Bill because, if this question were opened up again and the Bill had to go back to another place and further amendments had to be considered, it might find itself a long way down the ladder and unable ever to reach the top.

There is no question in this Bill of redefining any existing offence or reassessing penalties set out in existing statutes. All that it does is to make it possible for this additional penalty to be imposed. I would submit, too, that it attempts to make the job of a police constable a little easier. A police constable's task when called by a licensee to his premises where there is a threat of trouble or actual trouble can be confusing. They are private premises. Is the constable dealing with a clear offence or is he assisting the licensee in response to his call for help to remove a trespasser from his premises? It is not easy. An experienced police constable knows how to handle such situations but a young one often does not. Under this Bill, where a man subject to an exclusion order goes into licensed premises from which he has been excluded, he there and then commits an offence. If the licensee telephones a police station and says, I believe that Joe Bloggs, who is subject to an exclusion order, is back in this place of mine ", then it is not a case of waiting for trouble but one of, "Will you please come and remove him?" The police constable will go to those premises and, having identified him and being certain he has committed an offence, can require him to leave. If this Bill becomes law, the trouble-maker who breaks an exclusion order automatically commits an offence.

But there is no additional power of arrest in this Bill, which has been drawn so that it is in step with much of the law already affecting licensed premises. It has been drawn to make it as simple as possible. It refers to Scotland, and some noble Lords who studied the Bill during the last Parliament and now see it again may notice certain drafting amendments dealing with the application of the Bill to Scotland.

These are in the interests of clarity and nothing more. There are no further powers of any kind and I think I am right in saying that they were checked by the Home Office, even if not drafted by them. I do not want to overdo the argument, but I should like to make the point that this is a Bill which has now been before one House of Parliament or the other for some time and has always received help from the authorities. Further, there is nothing in this Bill to discourage private enterprise blacklisting procedures for men who are not wanted on any particular premises. The Scots, I am led to believe, have this procedure more highly developed than we have in England.

I am confident that the country will welcome this Bill as a step against unnecessary violence. It is a short Bill and clear, and I ask the House to give it a Second Reading. I beg to move.

Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.— (Lord Inglewood.)

6.30 p.m.

Lord AUCKLAND

My Lords, amid the tremendously important national and international debates that we have had in the past few days, this Bill may seem very modest. My noble friend Lord Inglewood— not for the first time— has brought up a measure which I believe deserves the widest possible support. Any of us who know people who are publicans— and I have relatives of my own family and my wife's family who are engaged in the licensed trade; and my wife is a magistrate and sits in the licensing court— will especially welcome this Bill.

Anybody who has been to the Licensed Victuallers' Association's home for retired licensees in Buckinghamshire, and has seen pictures of some of the horrific injuries inflicted upon some publicans and those who work in pubs by hooligans, who have either had too much to drink or been asked to leave the premises at the appropriate time, will realise the absolute necessity for this Bill.

We all recognise that there is too much drinking by people under age. It is very often under-age drinking which is responsible for incidents which involve injuries and affrays towards publicans and those who work in these places. The British pub is something which is renowned and respected nationally and internationally. Those who have guests from over the Atlantic, from the Antipodes and else where, like to take them to a British pub, the majority of which are extremely well run. It is unfair to those who run and manage these pubs if they are going to be affected by a small but dangerous element of hooligans— whoever they may be and of whatever age— who arc going to disrupt the life of the pub, and threaten, frighten and injure the publicans, some of whom are quite young. I believe this Bill is just about what is wanted.

Of course, there are those, among whom I am one, who would like to see certain things strengthened. As my noble friend Lord Inglewood said, it is essential that this Bill gets on the statute book. I certainly wish it well on its way. I believe that it will be a valuable asset on the statute book and a lever to keep the very high standards which public houses in this country enjoy. The sooner that this Bill gets Royal Assent the better for the country as a whole.

6.35 p.m.

Baroness HORNSBY-SMITH

My Lords, I too welcome the introduction of this Bill again into your Lordships' House, though in a slightly different form. I should like to congratulate my noble friend Lord Inglewood on his persistence in sticking to his guns after the loss of the Bill that he endeavoured to get through last year. It would be an impertinence to add to the lucid explanation that he has given. I personally hope very much that your Lordships will pass the Bill in its present form today. I must confess I am one who thinks that last year's Bill has been watered down a little; but, nevertheless, half a loaf is better than none.

I should like to deal with some of the effects that have been suffered as a result of violence and hooliganism in pubs. In many ways the problems of violence at football matches and in pubs are complementary. In both cases, only a small minority of the public are involved. In both cases, the main cause is excessive drinking, invariably invoked by defendants as an all-pervading excuse if they come before the courts. Often football supporters, already drunk, invade the local pubs after a match to celebrate or to drown their sorrows, and too often they go on the rampage. In both cases, I believe that all Governments have been tardy in coming to grips with this increasing violence as a result of drink. Many magistrates— again, this is not merely my personal view, but that of many— have been dramatically lenient, particularly in the case of serious physical injury to publicans, some of whom have been maimed for life.

A broken bottle or a broken glass is an ugly and lethal weapon. Some 40 or 50 years ago this was a very common weapon in Glasgow, and a distinguished chief constable went to town on those who smashed bottles or glasses and attacked their victims with them. We should not forget our duty to the vast majority of decent citizens whose regular pleasure is to enjoy a visit to their "local", or those going to and staying sober at a football match who seek to avoid the getaway traffic congestion by visiting a nearby pub after the match, only to find rival team supporters throwing obscenities and beer at one another, if not actually indulging in a "punch-up".

I am still old-fashioned enough that I have never been in a pub unescorted; on the other hand, I enjoy going with friends to their "local", I have only once been in a pub when serious physical damage was threatened; although on another occasion in the quietest of country pubs I saw a drunk turn over a couple of tables and wrench the wall lights off a newly-decorated wall before he could be evicted.

On the first occasion— and this was in a small and admirably conducted pub where all the true "locals" were on Christian name terms with the licensee— we strangers were most civily greeted and served. The pleasant atmosphere was suddenly shattered by an enormous crash of glass. All conversation stopped dead. All eyes turned to the two aggressive strangers squaring up to one another, one with a broken half pint glass menacingly held dangerously near the face of his then terrified colleague. Mercifully, behind the chap with the glass, and with their backs to him, were two stalwart gentlemen who had been playing the fruit machine. They looked like full backs from the local rugger club. They moved in faster than the landlord could get round the counter and, kicking and screaming, the agitator went through the swing doors, down the steps and was left sprawling in the car park, with a bellowing voice telling him: "Get out and stay out!" Then with a "hit signal" the other gentleman said: "And you too, mate! "— and his colleague slunk out on his own feet.

You may well think: "Incident closed and successfully dealt with"— but not so, my Lords. The aftermath interested me very much. As the landlord drew two pints on the house for the timely helpers, a dozen people gulped down their drinks and left. I must admit they were mainly those with women in the party: potential lost customers, possibly for a long time.

Secondly, the landlord rang up his two neighbouring publican colleagues and said: "Watch out for a couple of drunks", and described them. As he turned to the bar, one of his supporters said: "Well done, George. That will keep them from doing any more damage around here for a bit." But the landlord rather gloomily replied: "It's not them I am worried about, it is my customers sneaking off to another pub. It will be all round the village in half an hour. That little spot of bother will be turned into an adjectival row in half an hour, and it is very bad for my business."

I believe the penalties proposed in the Bill— three months to two years according to the offence— will have a salutary effect, as will the penalties for defying an exclusion order. I believe that a "no- go" area is far more of an humiliation and a deprivation for a regular drinker than what is so often a very paltry fine. The latter means so little to the man in question.

I would remind your Lordships that not only the publican but the orderly customer is entitled to protection. They, too, can be casualties as well as the publican and his staff, when one of these incidents occurs in a pub. In the run-up to this "day of inaction", we have seen trade union leaders exhorting railwaymen and busmen to stop transporting us to work and lorry drivers to stop taking exports to the docks, but we have not heard a trade union leader telling pubs staff to lay off for the day. I suppose pubs are regarded as selective employment or as an essential service.

My Lords, the English pub is unique in the world: particularly it is the poor and the lonely person's club. Tens of thousands of individuals for various reasons may find themselves landed in a strange town, probably in digs, and they do not know a soul at their new job except the boss. They find a local that they like; they become a regular and they meet other locals. At the same time, for a stranger in town, the pub is a mine of local information. You can learn there what is in the town; you can discover where to pursue your favourite sport, where to find a locksmith, an electrician or a plumber: somebody will tell you. There you cease to be an isolated stranger, lonely in a new environment, and become yourself a local, with acquaintances and, ultimately, probably with new real friends.

I believe that if we allow a minority of people, whether they are full up with drink or not, to use violence and destroy the traditional warm and friendly atmosphere of our pubs, not to mention letting them get away with material damage and physical violence, then we shall have destroyed a very great institution in this country— one which brings pleasure and comradeship to millions of people, as we have in fact, certainly in some cases, tragically destroyed the friendly sportsmanship of much professional football. I earnestly hope that this Bill will have a speedy passage through your Lordships' House.

6.45 p.m.

Lord LUCAS of CHILWORTH

My Lord, I rise also to support my noble friend and my honourable friend from another place, whom I see in the Gallery, from my own part of the world, in their endeavours in pursuing this matter from March of last year.

I regard the Bill only in so far as it is a punitive measure following an offence. I do not regard it in quite the same light as my noble friend Lady Hornsby-Smith. Indeed, it appears to me that a little too much accent is placed on pubs and bars in regard to hooliganism in or around sporting events. It is my understanding that the drunkenness which occurs on these occasions is rather as a result of drinking outside the premises.

Your Lordships are by custom extraordinarily indulgent on Second Readings, and if I may take up only a moment or two of your Lordships' time this evening, I should like to urge on my noble friend the Minister that in no way should the Home Office regard this Bill, or indeed the earlier one, as any palliative towards the problem of drunkenness. I am disappointed that Her Majesty's Government have not found time to examine and take action upon the Erroll Report on drinking and hours. I am frankly disturbed that in neither House of Parliament have we been able to tackle the problem associated with the ease with which an alcoholic beverage can be bought. I am particularly worried about the way in which beers and spirits can be bought in what are popularly called "supermarkets". There seems to me no let or hindrance as to who may go in and pass along the shelves, picking up a tin of baked beans with one hand and a bottle of gin, or whatever it may be, with the other. That I believe to be the danger of drunkenness.

The position can be exacerbated when one gets into a crowd, whether it is at a football match, a cinema or any place where people are gathered together and excitement runs high. The fever is now in the blood, excitement runs high and off we go to finish the evening in a pub. The publican may rightly say to someone: "No, my lad; you've had enough. I cannot serve you any more". Then we get into the kind of situation that my noble friends have described.

Let it not be said that I am going to attempt in this Bill to introduce any amendment, because that would certainly put it back. I hope the Bill goes forward in the manner in which my noble friend Lord Inglewood has suggested. But I do hope that the Home Office and my noble friend Lord Belstead will take note of the alarm raised over this question of drinking, not only associated with driving— I have mentioned this before on a number of occasions— but to do with hooliganism, the breaking of the peace, the upsetting of people's normal pleasures. That is a worry to people and I hope that the passing of this Bill will not allow the department to think that they can wash their hands of the problem. I wish my noble friend the success he so richly deserves in pursuing this Bill.

6.50 p.m.

Lord BOSTON of FAVERSHAM

My Lords, I should like to join other noble Lords in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, for having reintroduced this Bill and for having done so in his customarily clear and concise way. I would also agree with what noble Lords have said about the need to take every possible step that we can to curb violence both in public houses and elsewhere, and indeed to protect publicans and others.

My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, has said, this Bill is the same in all essential respects as the one which passed from your Lordships' House in March last year and which, but for the general election, as he said, would have passed into law more than a year ago. I feel it is probably only proper to recall that when that earlier Bill reached your Lordships' House from another place I expressed some misgivings about certain provisions. Happily, we were able to have some very valuable and constructive discussions, for which I was most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, and to others. Those discussions produced what I think we all felt was a very satis factory outcome, especially so far as Clause 1, as it is now in the Bill, finished up. It is in that form that the Bill now is, save for the technical changes which the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, has mentioned. So, my Lords, I would warmly welcome the reintroduction of this Bill. This is another of those measures about which it is customarily left to individual noble Lords to decide, but I would hope the Bill would receive your Lordships' support.

6.51 p.m.

Lord BELSTEAD

My Lords, your Lordships have all expressed gratitude to my noble friend Lord Inglewood for introducing this Bill into your Lordships' House this evening, and we are grateful also, of course, to my honourable friend Mr. James Hill in another place. May I just say that my noble friend is being absolutely consistent in introducing the Bill this evening because, of course, it was he who was responsible for introducing the similar legislation last year which passed through all its stages and was in another place when the general election intervened.

My noble friend is being consistent in another way in that he is always ready to show his concern for the maintenance of law and order in this country. I should like to make it clear that the Government share my noble friend's desire in this respect and we are ready to respond to particular initiatives which, while concerned with a limited aspect of a more general problem in this case, offer none the less some prosect of contributing to the fight against crime.

This Bill reflects, I think, just such an initiative. The Bill protects a group of people who are open to violent assault— licensees and their staff. They are convinced that a power made available to the court to ban from licensed premises customers who have committed offences involving violence on these premises will offer them a measure of additional protection.

There is also another argument, I think, which perhaps my noble friend would like me just to remind the House of at the end of this debate; namely, that the availability of the power in this Bill could be said also to act as a deterrent. The Government recognise the concern of the licensed trade to protect their members from violent offenders, and I was grateful to my noble friend for acknowledging that my right honourable friend's department has responded to this initiative by giving this Bill the consideration required to make its provisions compatible with the existing criminal law and the rights of licensees, although I must say all the really hard work on this was done by the noble Lord, Lord Boston of Faversham, when he was Minister of State at that department before the general election.

If my noble friend Lord Lucas will forgive me, I will not follow him down the road, important though it is, of talking about the problems of alcohol in the context of the Erroll Report, if for no other reason than that I have ventured to touch on it in reply to parliamentary Questions about the Licensing Compensation Fund over the last few months. But, my Lords, I think perhaps your Lordships would like me to say this about the Bill. At present the owner of any licensed premises which are not an inn has a common law right to decide who he will admit to those premises, and he can eject any unwelcome customers. This right is in effect the same enjoyed by any citizen in relation to his own home.

In addition, Section 174 of the Licensing Act of 1964 permits a licensee to refuse to admit or to expel anyone who is drunken, violent, quarrelsome or disorderly and to call upon the police for assistance for this purpose. Thirdly, the police have the right, restored by the Licensing (Amendment) Act 1977, to enter a public house for the purposes of routine visits, whether or not they suspect an offence is being committed or is likely to be committed.

Now this Bill supplements those provisions and the normal penalties available under the law for violent offences by enabling the court before which a person is convicted of an offence involving violence, or the threat of violence on licensed premises, to make an order excluding that person from those premises and any other specified premises for a period of between three months and two years. I say no more about the details of the Bill because my noble friend has explained it all, and your Lordships, particularly my noble friend Lady Hornsby-Smith with her experience of the Home Office, have all supported it, and that is enough for one evening.

One thing is important— that is, that people who may have been taking an interest in this Second Reading should appreciate that the offence which this Bill is creating is committed simply by crossing the threshhold of the licensed premises in question without the express consent of the licensee. Any other conduct amounting to a criminal offence will be subject to the other provisions and penalties within the existing criminal law.

So, my Lords, the Government support this measure as an appropriate addition to existing powers and penalties and share the hopes of the licensed trade that it will help to curb violence in one of this nation's traditional places of enjoyment and relaxation.

Lord INGLEWOOD

My Lords, I rise only to thank noble Lords who have supported this Bill so generously and who also have said such kind things about me. I did not start describing what happens when you break a glass or break a bottle and put in in somebody else's face as I thought other noble Lords would almost certainly do so. I was not disappointed, for they have spoken about it.

I must make one point clear, in case it has been missed. This does not stop the first blow in licensed premises; it simply means that where somebody has been convicted of an offence where violence has played a part or has been threatened, he can be excluded from those premises. This means he is, like as not, excluded from drinking with his mates, which is part of the whole scheme. In other words, it is a deterrent, as has been said, and if he wants to have his drink he has to go some distance into a strange land which will be far, far less attractive.

My noble friend said he was not going to go down the road. I can assure any noble Lord who wants to see more of the problem we have been referring to that he only has to go down the road tomorrow to Victoria Station, because there will be fans returning from Paris or Brussels where a match has been played today. I believe trains will be coming in from about 7 o'clock in the morning, so if anyone wants to check that we have not been exaggerating here tonight, I am sure he will find plenty of evidence at Victoria Station tomorrow.

My Lords, I hope this Bill will have an easy passage through this House and will very shortly find its way on to the statute book.

On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.