COMMONS AMENDMENT (Hansard, 25 October 1990)

§ Lord Strathclyde
My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 164. Clause 46 deals with police powers of entry into clubs. Following reservations expressed by honourable Members in another place, the Government decided not to pursue that clause and it was consequently negatived at the debate that the clause stand part.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 164.—(Lord Strathclyde.)

§ Lord Macaulay of Bragar
My Lords, for the record perhaps I may say that reservations were expressed also in this House on two occasions. The matter was stoutly defended by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate on the basis that the power of entry sought was the same as the power of entry to a public house. The matter went to the other place and we welcome the omission of this provision. It appears that people power in the other place was sufficient to make the Government forget about that matter for a while.
Your Lordships may recall that the working men's clubs association represents 7 million people 1626 throughout England in particular, perhaps in areas where marginal seats will be at stake in the not too distant future. I should not be too cynical about that and say that the Government have responded for purely political reasons because I know that they would not do that. I accept that they have dropped the provision on good grounds.
However, I trust that they will not bring back this matter in another form without very substantial and substantive evidence that ordinary and decent clubs are acting improperly. I welcome the disappearance of that clause.

The Earl of Selkirk
My Lords, what is the position now? Can the Minister tell us in two sentences?

§ Lord Strathclyde
My Lords, we have dropped the whole clause so that the previous provision of police powers of entry into clubs has disappeared altogether. I must say to the noble Lord opposite that this proves the power of persuasion, discussion and good debate.

§ Lord McCluskey
My Lords, is the noble Lord expecting us to believe that? This proves something entirely different; namely, the power of the Government Back-Bench Members who revolted in Committee. They did not want this clause and so they said that they would filibuster. That is what we should have been told. I put that on the record because I am sure that that is what happened.