HL Deb 22 January 1976 vol 367 cc648-56

3.25 p.m.

Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.

Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Harmar-Nicholls.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

House in Committee accordingly.

[The Earl of LISTOWEL in the Chair.]

Clause 1 [Repeal of section 76(5) of Licensing Act 1964]:

Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS moved Amendment No. 1: Page 1, line 7, leave out (" section ") and insert (" Act ").

The noble Lord said: With permission, I will speak to both Amendments, which can be put separately. This may save the time of the Committee. They are purely technical and what I call tidying-up Amendments. So far as the first is concerned, Section 76 of the Licensing Act 1964 (which this Bill seeks to amend) refers not only to licensed premises but also to premises in respect of which a club is registered. The Long Title of this Bill at the moment refers only to "licensed premises". This should be amended by leaving out the word "licensed". It will then cover both premises referred to in Section 76. That means that this Bill is then put on all fours with the parent Bill of 1964.

The second Amendment deals with a similar situation. Clause 1 of this Bill contains the words: Subsection (5) of section 76 of the Licensing Act 1964 (which excludes any bar from premises in respect of which any special hours certificate may be granted under that section) … ". It is a fact that the special hours certificates are not granted under Section 76, which deals with permitted hours. They are dealt with under Sections 77 and 78. The best way of making this provision technically correct is to remove the word "section" here it appears (which is just before the closing of the bracket) and to replace it with the word "Act". It is a purely technical and tidying Amendment.

Lord WELLS-PESTELL

For the Government, may I say that we regard this as a purely drafting Amendment and consider it desirable that it should be in the Bill.

The Lord Bishop of LEICESTER

Obviously I have no strong feelings about this particular Amendment and I see no particular objection to it, but in the absence of my right reverend Brother the Bishop of London, who is in hospital, I feel I ought to express the feelings that I am sure he would express were he here: that there is some sense of disappointment that the Amendments which are before us do nothing to mitigate what he and others felt to be some more serious aspects of this matter. Obviously, we must not re-open a Second Reading debate on this matter, but I thought that I should reflect this feeling. It may be that in the final stages of the discussion of the Bill some further safeguards may be thought of which could be incorporated in the Bill.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

On Question, Whether Clause 1, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?

3.30 p.m.

Lord JANNER

Before this clause is passed I think it essential to point out again that without some amendment there is a real danger that a seemingly innocuous but undoubtedly well-intentioned Bill will have side effects of a most undesirable nature. I have gone into this matter carefully with the people who deal with licensing, such as magistrates and others.

With all due respect to the noble Lord who is introducing this Bill I agree it has the very best intentions and, in many respects, it is a very desirable Bill—nevertheless we ought to take this opportunity of pointing these matters out. I am of the opinion that this will have side effects of a most undesirable nature unless some amendment at a later stage is agreed between the promoters of the Bill and those who have these serious doubts about the effects of it. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London, to whom the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leicester referred, would have drawn attention to some of these doubts as he did in the course of the Second Reading debate.

It was probably difficult at the Second Reading stage for your Lordships' House to appreciate the strong grounds for the caveat which he raised, in view of the evident desire of the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, in introducing this Bill merely to regularise a common practice in certain established places of entertainment. There were, however, very strong grounds for what the right reverend Prelate said, and it is for this reason that it seems to me to be highly necessary at this stage to deal further with a situation which I feel led him to speak as he did. In passing may I—as did the right reverend Prelate a few moments ago—express deep regret, which I am sure the whole House shares, that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London is at present undergoing hospital treatment which prevents him from being here to pursue the matter further.

The noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, directed your Lordships' attention very effectively to the clubs and other centres of night entertainment which have held special hours certificates for some time. Generally speaking, these establishments are of a respectable nature far removed from the sleazy strip-tease businesses which so grossly disfigure some parts of the central London scene. Nor have the Soho strip-tease establishments made any conspicuous efforts so far to obtain special hours certificates. There is a very good reason for this, which needs only to be stated to be understood. It is simply that a preliminary hurdle had to be crossed before they could apply for such a certificate. In order to obtain one, they had to be in possession of two things; a music and dancing licence and a licence to sell intoxicating liquor. Without the possession of both these qualifications, a request for a special hours certificate is simply a non-starter. And at this point any aspirations they might have had in that direction were decisively blocked by the firm refusal of the Westminster licensing authorities to grant them liquor licences. A few years ago a number of these places made efforts to secure such licences, but they were consistently refused. That is the answer to the inquiry made by my noble friend Lord Wigg during the Second Reading debate, as to why strip-tease clubs had not been queueing up long ago to seek special hours certificates.

Recently however a totally new development has appeared, and it is to this that I would ask your Lordships to direct your close attention. It is the fact that in certain areas of London, at any rate, some public houses, already firmly in possession of licences to sell intoxicating liquor, have found business less flourishing than it was a few years ago. Despite this, a substantial number have bravely struggled on without stooping to anything of a disreputable nature; but others, unfortunately, have lowered the whole tone of the industry. I have a high regard for the industry; your Lordships will probably remember I raised a question about certain matters pertaining to their interests a few weeks ago. Others have lowered the tone of the industry and of the neighbourhoods in which they trade by offering the tawdriest of striptease entertainment as an attraction to customers.

The size of the advertisements announcing these activities on the outside of the premises concerned suggests that they are regarded as one of the principal inducements to draw in the casual passer-by. I have made full inquiries, and two-thirds of the window space of one public house is now occupied with announcements of "Lunch-time topless plus striptease" and "Male strippers ". Another announces: "Every Sunday-lunchtime striptease; Monday to Friday. topless Go-go ". Another until a recent change of tenancy, advertised "Topless Go-go and "Fantastic strip ". At least two public houses which had displayed advertisements of this type had applied to the Thames Division Licensing Court for special hours certificates before the decision of the Carter v.Bradbeer case. In considering the matter, the magistrates' hands were tied. I would point out to your Lordships that the magistrates in this country have a very high reputation, and are very well acquainted with the areas in which they work. Their part in so far as the granting of new licences is concerned, as your Lordships well know, is very confined.

Since the applicants possessed music and dancing licences. and also licences to sell intoxicants which had originally been obtained long before, the only grounds, under the provisions of the 1964 Act, on which they could have refused the certificate would have been that the premises were—and I stress this—not structurally adapted for music, dancing. and substantial refreshment; or that the applicant did not intend to provide these three facilities; and if the applicant declared on oath in evidence that that was his intention, it is difficult to see how a refusal could be justified on the latter ground. In another instance, faced with the same predicament, the same bench had no legal ground enabling them to refuse a special hours certificate to a public house where conditions proved later to be so bad that a murder occurred there, and the police then, after the murder, successfully applied for the certificate to be revoked. Surely it would have been better if the magistrates, who knew the circumstances so much better than the distant committee of the Greater London Council—and I place no aspersions on them, they have a large area to cover—which issued the music and dancing licence, had been able to refuse the late-night drinking there in the first place, without waiting for somebody to be killed.

However, while this sorry situation was showing up the weaknesses of Sections 77 and 78 of the 1964 Act, there came a respite—the Carter v. Bradbeer decision, which left the profitability of a special hours certificate so open to question that some public houses which had taken the initial steps towards obtaining them withdrew their applications. And now the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, for whom I have the highest regard, and who perhaps faces no analogous problems in his part of the world, asks us to put an end to that respite, and offers no means of equipping the magistrates with the means of preventing the increasing tide of applications from the less desirable public houses which may well result.

This is the reason for the deep concern felt by a number of Members of your Lordships' House, some of whom, unfortunately, have been prevented from being present this afternoon. For myself, and probably for most of them. I must make it clear that we see no objection to the legitimate service of drinks over a bar counter, which this clause is intended to legalise, provided that the most dangerous side-effect to which others as well as myself have drawn attention, is counteracted. We think it is reasonable to ask that it should be counteracted; for surely the dominant decision, where the right to sell intoxicants until 2 or 3 a.m. is concerned, should lie with licensing magistrates who are in a position to take into account all the circumstances, rather than with a committee of a local authority whose principal concern is simply to decide whether there is any valid objection to the music and dancing which may take place there. I do not wish to prolong this speech unnecessarily, but let me say that I am well aware that there are parts of the country where music and dancing licences are in fact granted by the licensing justices, but this is not the case in the most populous quarter of these Islands—the south-east of England, which includes London.

As to the means by which the magistrates' hands could be strengthened, there is room for discussion. At present they can refuse a special hours certificate only if they can show that the applicants are failing to supply one or other of the two licences and three facilities required. If they are supplying them they can in effect do what they like otherwise. What we say is that they should be able to refuse these certificates where it is clear that some of the other activities carried on during their currency are undesirable. This might he achieved by adding a subsection (c) to Sections 78 and 79 of the Act, so that the justices are required to grant the certificate only if they are satisfied with the conduct and the intended future conduct of the premises, or by modifying in other ways the statutory nature of those sections.

The matter, as I have indicated, is a deeply serious one. The dangers to which the right reverend Prelate referred at the earlier stage are real. What I think we would all ask. and what I ask, is that the Promoters of the Bill should consult with myself and others who are concerned with this problem, with a view to drafting an agreed Amendment at the Report stage. I ask this, while reserving my right, and that of the right reverend Prelate, to put down an Amendment at that stage if such consultations cannot take place or are unable to produce an agreed conclusion. I conclude by saying once again that it is not my intention at all to interfere with what the noble Lord has in mind, but I hope he will meet us with a view to seeing how these problems can be dealt with.

Lord HARMER-NICHOLLS

The noble Lord has made it clear that he is not resisting the Amendments that I have submitted to your Lordships this afternoon; they are purely technical. The noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, has confirmed that they are technical, and they are needed to make this a clean Bill to pass to another place if it eventually gets through its later stages.

On the matters to which the noble Lord has referred and about which he feels so strongly, the situation is not affected in any way by the Bill that I am presenting to your Lordships. This Bill merely reverts the position to what it has been for 14 years. For 14 years it has been operated exactly as it will be operated if this Bill should become law. Referring to what the noble Lord has said about the goings-on in parts of London, which he finds so deplorable and against the best interests of the country, we cannot hamper the rest of the country because of possible marginal weaknesses which there may be in the capital. If I am not out of order, I would suggest that perhaps the best way of dealing with this is for the noble Lord to bring in his own Bill, adding to Sections 77 and 78 of the 1964 Act; but he would not be achieving what he seeks by delaying the Amendments I have submitted.

Lord JANNER

Before the noble Lord finishes, may I ask him one question? The fact is that we are attempting to legalise the bars in these places—it is true they have been legalised before, but the noble Lord now knows what is happening in certain public houses. If the bars are to be fully legalised—and people will sit by those bars to listen to all these things and see what is going on—they will do it legitimately now, instead of as in the past, merely believing it to be legitimate. I think we should deal with the problem at this stage.

Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS

Although it is marginally outside the scope of this discussion, I am grateful for the compliment paid by the noble Lord to the magistracy. I have been a magistrate myself for 30 years, and so I take my share of the compliment. I can assure the noble Lord that in other parts of the Bill the magistrates have a number of powers of discretion to cover many of the points mentioned by the noble Lord. But that is really out of order, since we are dealing at this Committee stage with points which are purely technical and of a "tidying up" nature.

3.47 p.m.

Lord WIGG

The noble Lord, Lord Janner, mentioned my name. I did not quite understand the context, but as my name has been mentioned perhaps I should make my own position clear. It might help the noble Lord to know what the Bill is about, because quite clearly he does not know that at the present time. This Bill does no more than put right something that for 14 years everyone had thought to be the position. I know that the noble Lord. Lord Janner, from the tips of his toes to the top of his head, is a reactionary. He always has been and he is now. This is an all-out attack on working men's clubs because they, after all, are the chief beneficiaries. Some £200 million has been invested in the belief that the law was as it was thought to be before a decision of your Lordships' House decided that it was different. Now it means that vast numbers of people who work hard not members of the legal profession—and who sweat their guts out in mine and factory, and who go along for a night's enjoyment. are to be prevented by the academic nonsense we have lust heard from the noble Lord, Lord Janner.

I hope that your Lordships will ponder just one question that I ask the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London: If it is thought that this Bill is an open cheque for strip-teasers, male or female, in cold or warm weather, why should they have waited until now? Why have not they done it before? This Bill adds nothing to the strip-teaser, male or female. All it does is to make it lawful for people to do what they have been doing for 14 years, that is to buy a drink from the bar.

The right reverend Prelate introduced for emotive reasons the idea that people would go and lean on the bar. Why should they? They go to a bar not to lean on it but to buy drinks. The law now provides that people must have a drink and must have it brought to them. The law decided that you had to be served by a waiter or a waitress, and in working-class circles that is not common. When people wanted a drink, they went and bought one. This Bill allows people once again to go to the bar and buy a drink if they want to. It does that and nothing more; and if anyone wanted to take off their clothes before they could. If they want to take off their clothes now, they can. This has nothing to do with strip-tease at all and it is emotive humbug to say that it does.

Lord WELLS-PESTELL

I wonder whether I can help your Lordships, because we have wandered a long way from the Amendment. This is a drafting Amendment, and as at present drafted the clause refers to subsection (5) of Section 76—

Lord JANNER

Will the noble Lord allow me to interrupt? I thought we had finished with that Amendment and were on the Question, That the clause stand part?

The CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES (The Earl of Listowel)

The Question before the Committee, if I may repeat it, is that the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill?

Lord JANNER

That is right, and I spoke on that.

Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 2 agreed to.

In the Title:

Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS

I beg to move Amendment No. 2.

Amendment moved— Line 1, leave out (" licensed Lord ").—(Lord Harmar-Nicholls.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Title, as amended, agreed to.

House resumed; Bill reported with the Amendments.