HC Deb 03 February 1982 vol 17 cc409-24

Question again proposed, That the clause be read a Second time.

10.4 pm

Mr. Raison

Before the House turned its attention to other matters I was answering the important debate that had been taking place since the early afternoon on the question of sex shops. I was commenting on the views of the hon. Member for Halifax on fines and a number of other matters. I had made the point that not only did we regard the fine of £5,000 as heavy, but that it could be repeated if the offence were repeated. What I did not say was that there was also power to revoke an operator's licence. That means that if someone persists in operating a sex shop in a way that is unlawful he can lose his licence and he cannot reapply for another 12 months. In the last resort, if he still persisted, an injunction could be taken out against him and he could be required to desist from the activity on pain of imprisonment.

Hon. Members have argued that the operators of sex shops may well be wealthy people out to make a great deal of money, and on the -evidence quoted they may sometimes have done so. Nevertheless, if the House thinks about, the matter it will see that it would not be possible for a sex shop operator, however wealthy, to persist in defying the law.

The right hon. Member for Lewisham, East (Mr. Moyle) argues that we should have a licensing system but says that certain activities covered by the scheme should not be permitted. That cannot make sense. This is not simply a technical problem that the draftsmen can sort out. One cannot introduce a scheme for licensing activities and then say that they cannot after all be permitted.

I believe that the House as a whole recognises that, whatever the feelings of hon. Members about sex shops, the Bill is not the vehicle by which we can apply a blanket ban on them. That point was made by a number of my hon. Friends, including my hon. Friends the Members for Peterborough (Dr. Mawhinney) and for Southend, East who both accepted the limitations on what we can do in this provision. We must consider in common sense terms what we can do under the scheme. I believe that we have it broadly right.

The right hon. Gentleman also raised a specific point about reasonableness. All the powers granted to local authorities under the schedule must be excercised reasonably. The same is true of all licensing powers, both under the Bill and elsewhere. It is clear that in applying the ground provided by paragraph 11(3)(c) for refusing an application for a licence a council must act reasonably. It must exercise its discretion under the paragraph on the merits of each case. The courts are the right place to test the reasonableness of an authority's decision.

My hon. Friend the Member for Essex, South-East (Sir B. Braine) made his points forcefully, as he always does, but spoke with a good deal of compassion, as he also always does on moral questions. We in the House respect him for that. It is important that his views should be made known. We know that they are advanced with deep sincerity. We would always be reluctant not to go along with him completely. However, he perhaps envisages that we can place a greater load on the Bill that it will bear. I hope that, having listened to what I have said about punishment, he will feel that the Bill's provisions are not derisory in their effect. Ultimately, they will hurt severely.

Nor can I accept my hon. Friend's argument that the waiver provision is an open door to corruption. It is of specific use and, if a local authority did not want to have a scheme of control, it would not. There are no grounds to believe that this would be abused. If the local authority was permissive, it would not enter the business of licensing. The reasons for the waiver provision make good sense.

The hon. Member for York (Mr. Lyon) raised a number of points. I do not go along with his picture of judges overturning local authorities which knew their own area, although I understand why he advanced that point of view and what he had to say about the past. I listened to the arguments of the hon. Gentleman on the likelihood of the present appeal provisions resulting in an unlooked for increase in the number of sex shops. I appreciate the grounds for this concern, although he does overlook a number of safeguards in the Crown courts, where a judge is helped by magistrates two of whom must be local and who would at least know the local area.

The hon. Gentleman argued that the decisions of local authorities on numbers and suitability of premises are inherently of a nature that ought not to be subject to fresh review on appeal on the merits of the case. I shall consider the matter in the light of these arguments before the Bill is considered in another place. These arguments do not have the same force in relation to decisions by local authorities on the personal suitability of an applicant, on which it could not be argued that there should not be a right of appeal. We will, however, consider the hon. Gentleman's argument on the other matters, and I hope that he will be content with that.

Several hon. Members spoke of the need for authorities to have what might be called a power of total ban and the desirability of a local authority being able to say that it will not have any sex shops in its area, for whatever reason. The answer must be that the licensing scheme is deliberately directed at the suitability of applicants and premises. The fundamental question about whether these activities should be allowed is a matter for general statutes on obscenity. The general law may or may not be unsatisfactory, but to try to tackle it by what is inevitably a back-door means is not the right way to go about it.

Mr. Bob Cryer (Keighley)

One item that has concerned hon. Members on both sides of the House is the definition of sex cinemas and sex shops, which involves acts of force, restraint, violence or cruelty which are associated with sexual activity. I understand the Minister's point of view that everything must be included in the definition so that that sort of sadomasochistic activity could not operate unlicensed but if a local authority decided, under the terms of a licence, that under paragraphs 2(1)(i) and 2(1)(ii) of the schedule

acts of force, restraint, violence and cruelty which are associated with sexual activity should not be involved in the sex shops to which they give licences, would that meet the point? Could the Minister clarify whether a local authority could do that?

10.15 pm
Mr. Raison

The answer is "No". I do not think that it is possible to use that conditional provision, if I may so express it, for that particular purpose. While there can be provisos to deal with the balance between a shop selling magazines on the one hand and sex-related articles on the other, together with other conditions that could be imposed, I do not think that it would be possible to go down that path. I had intended to deal with this matter in replying to the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough, who asked whether it would be possible to examine again the wording of paragraph 2(1)(ii). Hon. Members on both sides of the House have expressed concern. They do not like passing a law that refers to things of this kind. I have already stated that I believe these words are necessary. According to the advice I have been given, they are needed for technical reasons.

We must not pass law that is obscure. These words fill in the picture. They give detail that I have been advised is necessary if the provision is to work effectively. If those words were dropped, we would be giving carte blanche to those who indulge in what are widely regarded as the most offensive of all the activities while retaining licensing control over activities that are marginally less offensive. That is the problem.

The Government understand the anxiety that has been expressed. I cannot give any commitment. I cannot say that the wording will be changed in another place. I give the assurance, however that the Government will think about the matter carefully. If there is any way of redrafting the Bill to avoid these words, we shall be happy to consider it. I am not sure that a way will be found. I am, however, prepared to see whether there is a possibility of that happening.

Dr. Mawhinney

I thank my right hon. Friend for that assurance, which removes one of the concerns that have been expressed. I am sure that I speak for the whole House when I say that hon. Members are grateful to my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Raison

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I wish to refer to the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East, which again were helpful. My hon. Friend understood the dilemmas that face the House in legislating.

Mr. Terence Higgins (Worthing)

I should like to return to the stage that had been reached before the interventions. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it would be reasonable for a local authority, in deciding whether to license any such shops, to take account of the situation in surrounding areas?

Mr. Raison

Yes, although I am not sure what my right hon. Friend means by "surrounding areas". Does he mean other districts?

Mr. Higgins

Yes.

Mr. Raison

I confess that I have not thought about that. I had assumed, instinctively, that the Bill was dealing with the locality under the jurisdiction of the local authority. I shall inquire into the matter. If my rather tentative answer proves wrong, I shall write to my right hon. Friend.

Sir Bernard Braine

Would not that point be covered if the Minister were ready to accept amendment (g), on which my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Dr. Mawhinney) and myself are seeking an assurance? We are listening carefully for it. I hope that my right hon. Friend will be able to say something about it.

Mr. Raison

I do not think that I can give my, hon. Friend that assurance. It would not be right—I have already given the reasons—for the House to pass amendment (g). We are, however, trying to approach this matter in a sensitive manner. We have listened carefully to the debate. If, on consideration, we feel that there are ways of meeting some of the remaining anxieties of hon. Members, we shall try to do so.

My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East asked, what is a reasonable fee? This would be a matter for each local authority to decide. The authority would aim to cover its costs. It would revise its fees from time to time in the light of experience. The short answer to what the Government have in mind is that the fee should cover the cost of the licensing operation and its enforcement That is normal practice in licensing fees. That is what we intend by "reasonable".

My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Thanet., West (Mr. Rees-Davies) also made an interesting and significant speech. He asked whether paragraph 11(3)(c) enables a local authority to say that nil is the appropriate figure for the number of sex shops in a locality. As I said earlier, but it bears repetition, nil could be the figure., provided that the local authority selected it and adopted such a policy in relation to particular applications in particular localities which it had properly considered. In other words, it is not the Government's view that the local. authority could simply decide that there will be no sex shops. It has to meet the conditions of the Bill, which means that it must have regard to matters such as the nature of the locality and the suitability of the person who seeks to run a sex shop. That is a somewhat qualified answer, but it is the position as I understand it.

My hon. Friend also asked what unsuitable … for any other reason means in paragraph 11(3)(a). It is not a unique provision. It already appears in paragraph 3(6) of schedule 3. The licensing authority must direct its mind to whether the reason—whatever it may be—is such as to render the applicant unsuitable to hold a licence. A decision of this kind must not be capricious. It must be related to the running of a sex shop. A judgment must be made on whether the applicant is a fit person.

Mr. Michael English (Nottingham, West)

I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will forgive me for not being here earlier, but I was in Committee. Nottinghamshire county council and others are promoting Private Bills to retain their powers to license, among other things, sauna baths and massage parlours, where sex can occur—unlike cinemas and shops, where sex never happens.

Mr. Cryer

My hon. Friend should not be too sure about that.

Mr. English

I hope that the right hon. Gentleman wall go back to his Department and inquire why the Home Office does not wish that power, which Nottinghamshire county council has had for a long time, to be revived under the provisions to revive Private Acts. It seems odd that the Home Office should wish to encourage non-legitimate sauna baths and massage parlours in areas which do not yet have them, in spite of the fact that the hon. Gentleman is introducing this provision.

Mr. Raison

The hon. Gentleman has invited me to go back to my Department and inquire about our view of these matters in Nottinghamshire. I am happy to say that, while I do not intend to go back to my Department after the debate tonight to pursue the matter, I shall be happy to make inquiries and to write to him in the near future.

I think that I have covered some of the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough, who put his case in an understanding way which attracted the sympathy of the House. I am grateful to him and to my hon. Friend the Member for Essex, South-East for the way in which they have understood the purpose of the Bill and also its limitations. As I have said, we shall consider very carefully what my hon. Friend has said. I think that he accepts that there should be a licensing scheme but is anxious about some aspects of it. One aspect is the impression that is created—a matter on which I touched a moment ago. As I said, my Department will be happy to look at the wording of paragraph 2(1)(ii), which has caused particular anxiety.

We also propose to respond sympathetically to my hon. Friend's suggestion about paragraph 25, which provides that nothing in the Bill legalises anything that was unlawful before. For the avoidance of doubt, and so that people are quite clear on this important point, if putting that paragraph at the beginning rather than the end of the schedule will help to get the message across, we shall be happy to do so. I hope that my hon. Friend will find that helpful.

While local authorities must look at the so-called locality in terms of their own areas, as I understand it a change in a locality's character resulting from a sex shop could be a relevant factor. I hope that that also provides my hon. Friend with some reassurance.

I do not think that a strategy of mass appeals by sex shop owners refused a licence is likely to be successful. That fear has been postulated and we have heard what might be called threats. I doubt whether it will come to pass. Of course, those owners will not succeed so long as the local authorities have done their job properly and obeyed the requirements placed on them.

We have had a full debate on something' that has attracted much public interest and concern. I hope that the House will feel that the Government have adopted the right position. Earlier, I tried to say why I do not think it right to endorse the amendments moved by my hon. Friends and other hon. Members. On the other hand, we do not want to approach this in a rigid manner. We are all concerned to get the right answer. I therefore hope that the House will support our new clause and schedule.

Mr. Cryer

The Minister has given a number of helpful assurances. If he finds that the paragraph on violence or cruelty cannot be defined in a more acceptable way, will he look at paragraph 12 and try to ensure that if a local authority decides that articles and implements associated with violence should not be sold it will have the power to say so when granting the licence? That is an important element that I believe meets the approval of both sides of the House.

In an area where women were terrorised by the so-called Yorkshire Ripper for a considerable time, the connotation of violence is important, and local authorities will want the power to exclude the encouragement of violence that might be implicit in the legislation.

Mr. Raison

Once again, I do not wish to be unhelpful. I cannot give any undertaking, but, in line with the assurances that I have already given, we shall think carefully about these things. Even so, I have outlined a number of practical and fundamental difficulties, and I shall have to leave the matter there.

Mr. Douglas Hogg (Grantham)

This is the second time in 12 months or so that the Government have either introduced or endorsed a measure designed to control pornography. Last year, a Private Member's Bill received Government support. The House should welcome these proposals and express the gratitude of our constituents to the Government for the initiative they have taken.

I entirely agree with the tactics and strategy behind the new clause. It is entirely right to give the local authorities the power to exercise this control. Furthermore, it is right that the powers conferred by the new clause should be of a permissive rather than a mandatory character.

Closely related to this is the position of those engaged in these activities. Most hon. Members would say that those who manage these enterprises or engage in the production of their wares are doing something essentially distasteful and are guilty of a high measure of moral turpitude. We should not be unduly sensitive either to their commercial interests or to the representations that they might choose co make in this place or elsewhere.

I think that the attitude taken by the Front Bench in rejecting the suggestion that the control should be by way of the planning permission law is entirely right. I do not think that it would be helpful to use planning control as a means of regulating sex shops. There are variety of reasons but two stand out.

10.30 pm

First, the grant of planning permission involves considerations of a planning kind and does not embrace the wider considerations contemplated by the new clause.

The second and much more important point is that planning permission is particular to the site and not to the operator of the site, whereas a licence under the new clause is a licence to the operator.

If we use planning control as a means of regulating sex shops, we shal I find it extremely difficult either to revoke a licence or to refuse to grant it on the grounds that the operator's conduct or demeanour is unattractive for one reason or another. Therefore, the decision of the Front Bench not to use planning control as a means of regulating sex shops is, I think, entirely correct.

There has been criticism of the new clause to the effect that the penalties and sanctions are insufficient. Those criticisms were voiced by the hon. Member for Halifax (Dr. Summerskill) and by a Liberal Member, the hon. Member for Croydon, North-West (Mr. Pitt), who is not now in his place.

The criticisms were unfounded for three reasons. The first and perhaps the most important is that the hon. Members who made the criticisms overlooked the fact that the local authority could secure an injunction to restrain unauthorised or non-conforming use. Therefore, there are already powers to prevent non-conforming use.

Secondly, the maximum penalty of £5,000 relates to a specific offence. Taking, for example, a week, every day on which the offence is committed represents a separate offence. In respect of a non-conforming use for a week there is a maximum fine of £35,000 for the nonconforming branch.

Lastly, and perhaps most significantly, where a branch, part of a wider chain, is not conforming to the law in various respects, that fact would itself be a reason for another local authority to revoke a licence in respect of another branch owned and operated by that chain, so the sanction is considerable.

The other major criticism of the Bill was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Essex, South-East (Sir B. Braine). I am sorry that he is not here now because I have to say that his speech in criticism of the Bill was among the least generous of the speeches, at great length, that I have ever heard him make. I usually listen to his speeches with respect, but his speech this evening was ungenerous.

My hon. Friend said, in effect, that the Bill was to be denounced because it conferred some form of legitimacy or respectability upon activities which this House regards as disagreeable. First, I regard that criticism as utterly unfounded. It ignored the fact that the new clause makes it perfectly plain on its face that it does not make lawful what is already unlawful. Secondly, and much more to the point, he has to face the fact that for the most part these activities are already unregulated. The only way in which we can control them now is by the new clause before the House. The effect of the new clause will be to reduce the number of sex shops. Furthermore, it will impose restrictions on the operation of others. To pretend that it is not control that we should praise is to make a nonsense of fact and to turn a truth into obscenity. I am sorry that my hon. Friend tried to do it.

I wish to answer an important criticism made by the hon. Member for York (Mr. Lyon). He said that the appellate procedure contemplated by the new clause enables justices and Crown courts to substitute their own judgment for that of local authorities. He is right, because that will happen. That raises two questions that the House must consider now or later. First, should we try to impose a fetter on the right of local authorities to make a policy decision not to have sex shops? I take the view that there should be no such fetter. I am sorry that my right hon. Friend the Minister of State takes a different view.

Mr. Raison

I take a different view, as we do in the Bill. However, I made it clear that I am prepared to reconsider the matter.

Mr. Hogg

I am grateful. If the House or my right hon. Friend is to agree with the proposition that there should be no fetter on the power of local authorities to make such policy decisions, where lies the appellate procedure? In those circumstances, one could not have an appeal to justices or to the Crown court. If the local authority has an unfettered right to make a policy decision, one cannot have a position where anyone can substitute his judgment for that of the local authority. The only appeal available would be to the High Court to determine one of two matters—first, whether the enterprise is within the scope of the prohibited activities or, secondly, whether the local authority approached the matter bona fide and within the powers conferred by statute. Those are the only points that can be the subject of appeal. If my right hon. Friend adopts the view that I urge upon him, he must substitute appeals to justices and the Crown court with appeals to the High Court and none other.

Let us assume that my right hon. Friend does not take the view that I urge upon him but adheres to his present view that the, power of the local authority should be constrained as provided in the new clause. Where then lies the appeal procedure? Surely not where it presently lies, as provided for in the new clause, because that enables the justices and, a fortiori, the Crown court to substitute their views for the local authority's views. The only question for the High Court is, first, whether the appellant is properly regarded as a sex shop or sex cinema and, secondly, whether the local authority is acting intra vires and in good faith.

This is a valuable Bill. I am grateful to the Government for introducing it and I commend it to the House, but we must move with great caution on the question of appeals.

Mr. R. C. Mitchell (Southampton, Itchen)

My initial intention was to make a short speech congratulating the Minister on introducing amendments to try to solve the problems that exist in many hon. Members' constituencies, but as I listened to the right hon. Gentleman I became increasingly worried whether the Bill's provisions will achieve the purpose for which they are intended. It was obvious that I had misunderstood some parts of the Bill.

The problem is clear. The character of large areas of some towns has been changed. The hon. Member for Peterborough (Dr. Mawhinney) described how the character of an area can be changed. A street in my constituency used to be full of family business shops—antique shops, greengrocers, grocers, hardware stores and so on. In the past two or three years those businesses have disappeared and been replaced by a succession of sex shops, sex cinemas, adult book shops and space invader alleys, and the character of the area has changed. That has reduced the value of surrounding property and provides no encouragement for owner-occupiers in the area, which is a housing action area, to improve their properties.

Many local authorities have wanted to tackle the problem. A Bill in another place includes proposals for dealing with the issue in Hampshire, but the Government are right to attempt to legislate on a national basis, because we should not have different legislation in different counties.

Initially, local authorities wanted to use planning legislation and use categories to deal with the problem. The difficulty is that no planning permission is required to convert a greengrocer's shop into a sex shop. Permission is required for a change of use to a fish and chip shop or a premises selling hot meals, because they come under a different use category. Most local authorities thought that the problem could be solved by putting sex shops and sex cinemas into a different use category. The Minister did not explain why that is not possible, but I accept that planning legislation cannot be used in that way.

However, I congratulate the Minister on tabling the amendments, because they are a first attempt to deal with the problem. I hope that it will be successful. I was worried when I read paragraph 11(3)(c) of the new schedule: that the number of sex establishments in the relevant locality at the time the application is made is equal to or exceeds the number which the authority consider is appropriate for that locality". I assumed that that meant that if a local authority wanted to say that there would be no sex shops in its area it would be able to do so, but the Minister has made it clear that that is not so. He said that he did not want to introduce a back door method of changing the obscenity laws. I do not see it like that.

I was intrigued by the question posed by the right hon. Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins). Can the New Forest district council, for example, say to someone who wants to open a sex shop in its area that it will refuse permission on the ground that there is a sex shop in Southampton? If that is so, it will cause great difficulties because we in Southampton will say "Why us and not them?" I shall be interested in the Minister's answer to that and whether "locality" means inside the same district council area or whether one district council can argue that there is one in an adjacent area so that its area does not need it.

10.45 pm

The Minister having made it clear that he did not want the legislation used to stop sex shops altogether, the big problem is that it will be very difficult for any local authority which has no sex shops to stop the first coming in. That is always the key: stop the first sex shop and that stops the proliferation. From what the Minister said, it will be difficult to do that, if not impossible. If a local authority says that there cannot be a sex shop next door to a school, for example, the owner of that shop immediately asks whether there is an alternative site in the district.

Local authorities will be in great difficulty, the Minister having said that they cannot refuse all sex shops. We will then have long arguments about what is a suitable locality. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Mr. Sever), who was here earlier, said that he knew what would happen—the downtown poorer areas would be granted them; courts or local authorities would say "If we must have one, we will put it there rather than in a nicer area." The central mid-town area of my constituency will suffer from that.

I thought that two reasonable suggestions were made, one by the hon. Member for York (Mr. Lyon) and—

Mr. Higgins

I do not think that the hon. Gentleman is right in saying that there is any obligation on a local authority to say what particular location it thinks is suitable.

Mr. Mitchell

There is no obligation. When the first sex shop comes into an area where there are none, the owner makes an application and the local authority says that it does not think that it is a suitable area because it is adjacent to a school or whatever. The right hon. Member for Worthing is right that, theoretically, there will be no obligation on a local authority to suggest somewhere else. The owner then asks for another site in the city, makes another application somewhere else and so on. If the local authority continues to refuse all of them, the matter goes to appeal on the grounds of unreasonableness, of the local authority using the Act in a way it was not intended to by used—in other words, to stop all sex shops moving into an area.

The hon. Member for York made a good point when he asked whether it was possible to limit the appeal procedure in these cases and to stop it there. Another possible alternative would be the procedure used with betting shops. As I understand it, if a person wants to open a betting shop, he must prove to the licensing authority that there is a demand for it. He must bring individuals to court who will be subject to cross-examination, and say, "There is no betting shop in my area and I want one." Why do we not try that idea with the sex shops and see how successful the owners are in getting local residents to attend court and say "We want a sex shop," and be subject to cross-examination?

Mr. Race

Given the profitablity of this industry, would there not be a great temptation to the proprietors of sex shops simply to give financial persuasions to members of the public to give whatever evidence was required in court?

Mr. Mitchell

That is right and I was putting it forward as an alternative to my other idea. I much prefer the idea of the hon. Member for York, that in certain cases there should be no appeal.

Even at this late stage—or even later—I hope that the Minister will agree to an amendment to enable a local authority to say, if it wishes, that no sex shop will be opened in its area and to enable it to refuse to renew licences if it does not want sex shops. Such decisions should be made by the local people and by those who have to suffer the disadvantages. The people know what they want, and the local authority—as their representative—should have the right to say whether it wants sex shops. Several hon. Members have made the same request and I hope that the Minister will consider it.

This type of business is very profitable and the £5,000 fine peanuts, given the money that some make from it. However, I do not agree with the amendment to establish an alternative of six months imprisonment. At this stage, we should not overload our prisons for that offence. The reason that the Minister seemed to give for limiting the fine to £5,000 was that that would keep the matter within the bounds of magistrates courts. However, I understand that there is no rigid rule and that on occasions—such as Customs evasion cases—magistrates have a right to impose fines that are substantially heavier than £5,000. Therefore, I hope that the fine will be increased.

In conclusion I hope that the Minister will introduce a suitable amendment in the other place to enable a local authority to refuse to have sex shops in its area.

Mr. John Maxton (Glasgow, Cathcart)

My speech will be brief. About 18 months ago a sex shop opened in a busy street in my constituency. It was sited only about 100 yards from a busy railway station used by many secondary school children and opposite a primary school. The site was obviously unsuitable for such a shop.

Rightly, the shop aroused great anger among my constituents. I received an enormous number of letters—I have only about half of them with me—from my constituents, asking me to do something. This is the first opportunity that I have had to protest in the House on their behalf. I welcome the legislation. Some hon. Members have indulged in a little scaremongering. My hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Lyon) argued that if sex shops are licensed in this way they will sprout up all over the place, like betting shops, but that is a misinterpretation of events. Betting shops were illegal, but an increasingly large section of the population felt that they should be legal. However, sex shops are legal despite the fact that the vast majority think they should be illegal. That is the difference between betting shops and sex shops. Sex shops will not proliferate, because neither the local authorities nor the courts want them to. They will do everything in their power to keep the number under control.

The Bill does not cover my constituency, because it covers, not Scotland, but England and Wales. However, the Minister might like to consider the old Scottish alcohol licensing device called the "veto poll". A referendum would be held in an area on whether public houses should be allowed. My constituency contains an anomaly. I do not have a pub, a licensed restaurant or an off-licence in my constituency, but I have a sex shop. That is due to the old veto poll system, whereby the residents in a constituency could vote and say "No" to licences. That is the wrong system for pubs. We have now done away with it in Scotland. Perhaps the Minister will consider that as a device for licensing sex shops.

I am glad that two of the Ministers from the Scottish Office are present. My major plea is that similar legislation should be introduced in Scotland. I hope that it will be better legislation. That is why I do not want to make detailed comments because the Scottish Ministers have an opportunity to look at greater length and in more detail at the legislation. Perhaps they will come up with better solutions.

At present the Civic Government (Scotland) Bill is in the other place. I hope that amendments will be introduced to that Bill so that when it comes to this House we can examine the proposals for sex shops in detail and make proper amendments in proper time, and not in the hurried and rushed fashion with which this legislation has been handled.

Mr. Peter Griffiths (Portsmouth, North)

Like every other hon. Member who has spoken on the subject, I shall preface my remarks by saying how grateful I am on hehalf of my constituents for the fact that the Minister of State and other Ministers from the Home Office have taken the courage to grasp this nettle and to make a valiant attempt to deal with a serious and growing problem. Having said that, I shall again follow the procedure of every other speaker, which is to criticise what is offered to us.

One of the reasons why it may appear that some of us have been ungracious to the Government Department that produced the legislation for which we have been asking for many months is that limitations have been imposed on it because the new clause and the schedule have been tacked on to a Bill that was prepared separately and previous to any such intentions. As the debate has gone on longer than some of us would have wished, we have seen that there was sufficient interest in the subject for it to have been dealt with as a separate Bill. It should have had its own Second Reading. That would have given us an opportunity to have legislation that met the requirements of those who have been pressing for legislative provisions.

The constituents whom I and the city council represent have not been pressing for a system of licensing. I believe that many other hon. Members would feel the same. The power of the local authority to prohibit sex shops was sought. There was no suggestion originally that there was an attempt to obtain a system of licensing. As the new clause has been added to a Bill that originates from the Home Office, the adverse comments made about the proposals that sex shops should be dealt with, at least in part, by the planning procedure, have gone by default.

The use of planning procedures to deal with those problems has, surprisingly, proved successful in the past. The Portsmouth city council prevented the establishment of a sex cinema in Portsmouth. By using the existing planning regulations it was able to refuse planning permission on purely planning grounds. The difficulty arises when dealing with sex shops, where the existing legislation does not permit the local authority to intervene because the change from one shop to another is not a change of use.

11 pm

Much of the discussion about licensing versus planning powers appeared to turn on which would be better. In the correspondence that I and Portsmouth city council have had with the Department of the Environment, when we sought to obtain extended planning powers, the suggestion always was that there should be a combination of licensing and planning. There are clear precedents for that. If one wishes to open an off-licence, a pub or a betting shop, one requires planning permission for the premises and a licence to operate. I see no reason why those relatively innocent and desirable activities should be regulated by licensing and planning permission, while these entirely undesirable activities are to be subject only to licensing.

I listened carefully to what my right hon. Friend the Minister said about the process of licensing. I accept that there is no suggestion in the new clause and schedule that licensing certain activities in certain shops implies approval by the House of Parliament. However, I fear that when some shops are licensed they will use that fact to obtain an air of spurious respectability, and say that the fact that they have been licensed by the local authority suggests an element of approval. That is why I dislike the licensing procedure, and would have preferred an extension of planning for this purpose.

I want to say a word about the procedures that are involved in the new clause and schedule. Relatively little time was available for hon. Members to see the proposals and table amendments. I am sure that I shall be criticised for not having tabled amendments, but by the time that I had obtained from my local authority the legal advice which it had to obtain after it saw the provisions, it was too late to table amendments for consideration today. I hope that the Minister will assure me, in the areas where I am told that legal questions arise for those who may have to operate the legislation, that either those difficulties are non-existent or that he will give them his attention.

The first matter relates to new clause 1(4), where there is a requirement for the local authority to publish a notice stating the general effect of that section". I wonder whether the notices that will be published by different local authorities, perhaps in a relatively small general area, will be different, and whether the summary should not be part of this legislation, so that the notice stating the general effect of the section would be the same in each local authority. I have been told that instead of using the words state the general effect of that section", it would be better if the notice were required to state the effect of paragraph 5(1) of the schedule". That paragraph is much shorter than the whole section, and it would be simpler to ensure uniformity between areas.

There has been discussion of the problem of local authorities not having the right completely to prohibit sex shops. Paragraph 24(4) of the schedule, which refers to the procedure followed when a number of applications are received, is ambiguous. That is the opinion of legal minds, which may have to turn their attention to it in the near future.

If several applications are made, which should be granted? There seems to be an implication that at least one of a series of applications should be granted. I see no reason why they should not all be rejected, if the local authority's rejection is within the terms of the legislation. The ambiguity is likely to lead to difficulties.

I am unhappy about the adoptive nature of the whole procedure. Local authorities may or may not decide to introduce the system of licensing. It may be thought that this is useful, to give local authorities some freedom. In an area where there are large concentrations of population, and numerous local authorities are closely associated with one another, it would be highly undesirable if one or several were to opt out of the licensing system. Doing so would not maintain freedom to operate simply in their areas, because the evil that the unrestrained spread of sex shops would create in one authority's area could easily spread in a densely populated urban conurbation.

There is no reason why the system should not have been made compulsory. After all, the local authority would still decide whether the licences were to be granted. The licensing system should surely have been uniform across the country.

With those criticisms, I return to the fact that I, the constituents whom I represent and my local authority greatly welcome the step forward that this legislation represents. But we are doubtful about its efficacy. We doubt whether it goes far enough, and we should like my right hon. Friend's assurance that if the legislation appears not to be working as he wishes he will relatively quickly return with new legislative proposals.

Mr. John Wheeler (Paddington)

I support the new clause and schedule. The proposal essentially came from the City of Westminster, which thought that there should be some measure to control the spread of the sex industry and felt that there could be an appropriate amendment to the planning use category regulations as a means of providing the control. However, it was decided that that was an inappropriate use of the planning regulations, and it was then thought that a provision could be introduced in a Greater London Council (General Powers) Bill to create a licensing arrangement which, in the first instance, would apply only to the Greater London boroughs. Now my right hon. Friend the Minister of State has introduced his new clause and schedule, and I welcome them wholeheartedly.

When the city council and Members of Parliament for the City of Westminster considered this problem, they took the view that they should not attempt to enter into the complex and fraught world of morality or censorship but should be concerned solely with the environmental impact of the sex industry in a number of streets or district. It is a straightforward proposal in that sense.

I should like to give a brief illustration of what has happened in my constituency of Paddington in recent years. In one area, in the vicinity of Praed Street, the sex industry now occupies a dozen premises. The residential-community clustered around that area rightly asks why the environment should be changed to that degree. They want to know why the council or the Government cannot protect them from the sleaziness that seems to come in the wake of the sex industry. As tolerant, reasonable people, they say that they could perhaps put up with one or two of these premises, but not with a dozen or 20.

The measure is designed to give the local authority the opportunity to license, to regulate and to close down. I assure the House that this is welcome to those who live in central London. I do not believe that agreement would have been easy if hon. Members had considered censorship or prohibition. We would not have achieved the progress that so many reasonable people want the House to make.

There is some peril in the proposal that the sex industry should be prohibited. It is beyond dispute that a number of citizens of the United Kingdom find it necessary to visit the premises of the sex industry and to pay a great deal of money for its wares and its services, whatever they may be. This is a very rich industry, and it is expanding. Any attempt to prohibit the industry would probably drive it underground and create a law enforcement problem of greater evil. is better to license and control, and to do so openly and above board. It is the view of the City of Westminster and its inhabitants—there are about 200 sex establishments within the city—that this is by far the most practical and sensible way to proceed.

There are certain amendments in my name that cannot be considered tonight. I merely invite my right hon. Friend to study them with care. They originate from the experience of the city council and its officials, who already have considerable responsibility for the licensing and control of massage parlours. The experience that they have acquired in recent years lies behind the amendments.

I agree with those hon. Members who have referred to the level of the financial penalties. If this measure is to be successful, particularly in central London, it is essential to recognise the importance of setting the maximum fine at the right level. I commend the movement from £5,000 to £10,000. The character of the industry is such that unless the penalties are right we shall not succeed in exercising the control that most people would like to see. commend the new clause wholeheartedly.

11.15 pm
Mr. Higgins

I am anxious that this legislation should go on to the statute book as soon as possible, so I shall not delay the House for more than a few moments. I very much welcome my right hon. Friend's proposals. As he knows, there have been a large number of representations from my constituents, both in petitions and in correspondence, expressing their concern about this issue.

I believe that the regulation of sex shops should rightly be delegated to local authorities, as they are likely to reflect local opinion on these matters. Nevertheless, I wish to pick up one or two points from the debate so far.

There can be few instances of a matter coming to attention and legislation being introduced in such a short time. My right hon. Friend has responded very quickly to the representations made to him, and he should be congratulated on that. Inevitably, in those circumstances, some facets of the question may not have been fully explored. Originally I favoured proposals to amend planning legislation, but the alternative now put forward may provide a satisfactory solution.

Two points have arisen very recently, one of which was raised by the hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Mitchell). It would be wrong for a local authority to be obliged to say in which localities it would be prepared to license sex shops. That does not arise under the Bill as drafted. If an authority turns down one application and another arrives, that application in turn must be considered on its merits.

The other point, which I raised in an intervention, is this, and here I take account of what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Paddington (Mr. Wheeler). Straight prohibition may well involve considerable dangers. One has only to consider the United States' experience of liquor prohibition between the wars to realise the problems that may arise. At the same time, a particular local authority may feel that as a neighbouring area has such establishments it is reasonable not to license any at all in its own area. To take a specific example, if there are such establishments in Brighton, it does not follow that they should necessarily also be licensed in Worthing.

My right hon. Friend very kindly said that he would look at this point again. It seems to me that the authority concerned may reasonably look beyond its own boundaries—I stress the word "reasonably", which I think is relevant in the legal context—to see whether it is necessary or desirable to license any such establishments within its own boundaries. I very much hope that my right hon. Friend will consider that.

My right hon. Friend has undertaken to consider whether a local authority should in some sense be required to license any such establishment in its own district. In my view, it should in no way be an obligation upon the local authority to do so. If such an obligation were imposed, it would be very difficult for the authority to take account of the views of people in the locality.

Having said that, I am glad that this measure has been introduced, and I am particularly glad that it will cover existing as well as new establishments. I therefore wish my right hon. Friend's efforts well, and I am grateful to him for undertaking to consider specific points. I hope that this will prove to be not just a first step in the right direction, but the last that is necessary. Clearly, however, if in the light of experience that turns out not to be the case, we shall have to reconsider the matter without delay.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

Forward to