REFRESHMENT HOUSES BILL

HL Deb 20 July 1964 vol 260 cc491-510

4.58 p.m.

Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.

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

On Question, Motion agreed to.

House in Committee accordingly.

[The LORD AILWYN in the Chair.]

Clause 1:

Charges in, and touting for, refreshment houses

1.—

(2) Where this subsection applies to a refreshment house, it shall not be lawful during the hours of late opening to seek to obtain custom for the refreshment house by means of personal solicitation outside and in the vicinity of the refreshment house.

(6) In this section "the hours of late opening" means any period between the hours of ten o'clock at night and five o'clock on the following morning during which the refreshment house is open.

BARONESS SUMMERSKILL

moved, in subsection (2), to leave out "during the hours of late opening". The noble Baroness said: I beg to move the Amendment standing in the names of my noble friend Lord Shepherd and myself. I think it would be agreed on both sides of the Committee that if an Act of Parliament is not enforceable then it brings the law into disrepute. I have therefore tabled these Amendments because I believe, as do many of my noble friends, that they will strengthen the Bill and help the police enforce the law. I should say here that I have taken the advice of the Police Federation, and they fully approve these Amendments. I would not for one moment suggest that I am an authority on the law; nor would I seek to amend the Bill in such a way that it would alter some detail of administration without, of course, the best advice. Therefore, I tell the Committee immediately that the Police Federation approve these Amendments.

On the previous Bill, the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, said he had fully explained something on Second Reading. Here, also, I think the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, will agree with me that we had a very full debate on the Second Reading of this Bill, and that we had an opportunity on both sides of the House to express our views on certain principles. Therefore, I propose to move these Amendments very shortly. Briefly, the purpose of this first Amendment is, I think, clear. It is to prohibit touting during all the hours which it is possible for a refreshment house to be open. Noble Lords will recall that the Bill deals with refreshment houses which are open between 10 p.m. and 5 a.m.; but it was revealed on Second Reading, and the noble Lord agreed, that many of these establishments were open in the afternoon. I think there are 40 of these establishments altogether and already ten are open in the afternoon. But noble Lords must realise that people responsible for running these curious establishments are rather at the beginning of their venture. Therefore, it is rather necessary if possible to clip their wings at the beginning.

The noble Lord expressed the opinion that the refreshment houses would close in the afternoon after this Bill had been passed; but he said later on when he was replying, that if he were found to be wrong then it would be necessary to take further measures. I said then, and I believe now, that as a result of this Bill the proprietors of these "near-beer" refreshment houses would be stimulated to open in the afternoon, when they would not be obliged to display tariffs and when they could employ girls of under 18 in all kinds of capacities; they could employ them as receptionists, so-called, cloakroom attendants, and waitresses; and they could employ them until 10 o'clock at night. There is a long time between 2 p.m. and 10 p.m. for these girls to get into trouble in these places. The tariff displayed at night (from 10 p.m. until 5 a.m.) would indicate that certain amenities were available in those houses. By that I mean—and I say this for the benefit of those noble Lords who were not here at the Second Reading debate—that this Bill insists upon a tariff being displayed between 10 p.m. and 5 a.m. if the local authority think that there are certain undesirable practices (if I may put it like that); that men are being invited to pay money and are not receiving the

In my opinion and in that of my noble friends and of the police, with whom I return they expected for their money. discussed this matter during the weekend, and as I said in the House on the Second Reading debate, the putting up of this tariff immediately marks the house; it indicates that there are certain amenities, that something is happening there, and that in order to bring some control upon it they have been told to put up the tariff at 10 p.m. My point is that this will mark the house; that during the afternoon and evening it will be known that there are certain people there who can be approached. Therefore I am saying in my Amendment that, in order to protect these girls, the touting which is being prohibited between 10 o'clock at night and 5 o'clock the next morning should be prohibited while the house is open. I propose to say more about the possible activities of these houses in relation to another Amendment prohibiting the employment of young girls; but if we do not encourage touting during those hours then, at least, we shall be giving them some help. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 1, line 21, leave out ("during the hours of late opening")—(Baroness Summer-skill.)

LORD DERWENT

This Amendment is dealing with touting, as the noble Baroness has said. May I answer in advance—they really deal with other Amendments—certain questions about afternoon opening? We are advised, and the police confirm it, that there is not a very brisk trade in the afternoon, because that is not the hour that people go to these places. They go usually after the public houses are shut, and we believe—and I think we will be found to be right—that if these places have to shut down at night it will not be profitable to open in the afternoon. That is the case; and, as the noble Baroness knows, we have tied this Bill to the Refreshment Houses Act, 1860, because this is the easiest method of dealing with the problem. But, as regards this particular Amendment, I, and those who advise me, have given it a great deal of thought in view of what the noble Baroness said on Second Reading, and I am glad to accept it.

LORD SHEPHERD

Since this Amendment deals merely with touting, may I ask whether the noble Lord will go one stage further and delete the words on page 1, line 8, "during the hours of late opening"? These words are also in relation to the tariff. Could the noble Lord have those words removed also'?

LORD DERWENT

I think we had better deal with the Amendments one at a time. This Amendment deals with touting and in fact this is the one I have accepted. It does not delete the particular words to which the noble Lord referred.

BARONESS SUMMERSKTLL

I am quite overcome by the noble Lord's generosity. I must admit he was a long time in approving it. He likes to draw out the agony before he accepts. I am glad the Amendment is accepted, because I am sure that nobody can anticipate what might happen. Let us at least embody in the Bill whatever protection we can.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

BARONESS SUMMERSKILL moved, in subsection (2), to leave out: outside and in the vicinity of the refreshment house.

The noble Baroness said: I hope I shall be as fortunate with this one. The second Amendment seeks to make it clear that by "touting" is meant touting from the other side of the road. In the Bill it says "by means of personal solicitation outside and in the vicinity of the refreshment house". The noble Lord will recall that on Second Reading when he was asked to define "the vicinity of the refreshment house", he quoted a case in which a learned Judge said that in the passage, in the window, or near the passage going to the establishment, would all be in the vicinity of the refreshment house. But I think this should be defined in the Bill.

Let us envisage a place, say, in a street in Soho, a little dark passage, a little dark doorway and a passage leading to a room at the back of the building. The tout can be either in the passage, outside the building or up in a window beckoning people in; and that could be described as "in the vicinity". We feel also that a man on the other side of the road who is determined to outwit the police should be included. The streets of Soho are narrow. There may be a shop, let us say, at the end of the road and there could be a man in the shop. He could say to people who come into the shop: "Just along the street you can find something to your liking." This is personal solicitation; but should we not define it more clearly and simply call it "personal solicitation" and omit "outside and in the vicinity of the refreshment house", so that nobody could come along and argue in court that the Bill says: "outside and in the vicinity of the refreshment house"? Let us leave it open to "personal solicitation", so that whoever must define it can say that though it happened in a shop at the end of the road it is nevertheless personal solicitation. All I ask is that we shall make this provision a little stronger, so that it will catch the wily scoundrel who says: "If I am far enough away from the opening I shall be all right." If he sees a fairly wealthy American, let us say, who does not know our Soho, and he stands on the edge of the road and says: "On the right, that doorway; that is the one", he hopes it can be argued that he was not in the vicinity. I hope that the noble Lord will again be generous and accept this little Amendment. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 1, line 23, leave out the said words.—(Baroness Summerskill.)

LORD DERWENT

I hope that I shall be able to persuade the noble Baroness to withdraw this Amendment. It is not quite so simple as she makes it sound. I know that this question of where the touter was at the time he was touting has been exercising the noble Baroness, but that is not the only question. There is also the question of the man being touted—the "toutee". I am advised that the words outside and in the vicinity of the refreshment house are adequate. The man being touted is outside the building. He has not crossed the threshold. The woman soliciting for business for this place can be in the doorway, inside, behind a window or in the vicinity. If she is on the other side of the road, there is not the slightest doubt that she would be caught under this wording. The phrase "in the vicinity" gives greater power to the court than anything more precise. If we took the word "outside" out of this clause, I am legally advised that it would then apply if the man had entered the premises, and then "personal solicitation" could include a waiter soliciting an order for drinks. It would be as wide as that. On the other hand, it would be possible to interpret the wording of the Amendment as applying—to quote an extreme example—in the absurd situation where the refreshment house is in Soho and the girl soliciting is in Victoria station. The phrase "outside and in the vicinity of" has been carefully thought out and I am told that anything more precise might have the opposite effect. It gives the court a far wider power. In the circumstances, I hope the noble Baroness will not press her Amendment.

LORD SHEPHERD

Will "in the vicinity of" cover a person who is in the doorway, though outside?

LORD DERWENT

"In the vicinity of" applies both to the person touting and to the man who is outside. It may be the case that the girl soliciting "in the vicinity" is in a doorway or under a door jamb or behind a window; but these circumstances are covered provided the man is outside.

LORD CROOK

I am not trying to be difficult or awkward, but I find it difficult to see, when we are talking about legislation, where this depends upon a decision of the judges. Is it not the duty of Parliament to try to lay these things down beforehand? I understood the noble Lord to suggest that these things might happen, when it would be for the courts to decide.

LORD DERWENT

I do not know if the noble Lord was here on Second Reading. The case I then quoted was not concerned with "clip joints", but with a prostitute who was behind a window. The court held that because the person solicited was outside, that was still soliciting. It did not matter where she was, so long as the person solicited was outside.

LORD AIREDALE

If I were a magistrate deciding how to carry out this subsection, I think I should understand what was meant by "outside a refreshment house", but I think I would have great difficulty in deciding what was meant by "in the vicinity of" the refreshment house. I would think that the dividing line between "outside the vicinity of" and "inside the vicinity of" would be very difficult to draw. Something is likely to be said for moving, at the next stage of the Bill, an Amendment to leave in the word "outside" but to delete the expression "in the vicinity of", which I should have thought would only lead to great difficulties when proving a case before the magistrates.

LORD DERWENT

The noble Lord is a lawyer and I am not. The words "in the vicinity of" were carefully chosen to deal with just the sort of cases which the noble Baroness mentioned, in which the soliciting is done down the street. I think that by "outside" is meant "immediately outside", and that is why the phrase "in the vicinity of" is brought in. The noble Lord says that it may lead to difficulties for the magistrates, but they have a good deal of sense and are anxious to catch these people, and I should have thought the comparatively wide phrase "in the vicinity of" would have given them greater power to convict.

LORD AIREDALE

Magistrates ought not to be anxious to catch people.

BARONESS SUMMERSKILL

The noble Lord has access to the services of some of the best legal brains in the country and I have not. If he assures me that the powers are there and that the courts will not be confused or bemused by the Bill as it is, I am prepared to accept his assurance. May I go on—the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees will forgive me if this is a little unusual—to deal with an Amendment which I intend to put down on the same point? While the Police Federation have asked for the powers I have mentioned, they still tell me that they are not allowed to use the powers necessary to take action under the Amendment which we have just agreed. I am told that whereas a policeman can suspect a man of touting and challenge him, the man has a right to refuse to give his name and address and the name and address of the proprietor of the establishment for which he is touting, and consequently no action can be taken.

We are in a difficult position with this Bill. The purpose of the Bill is simply to confer additional powers on the authorities. Touting is not a criminal action. The police cannot detain a suspect unless he is guilty of a criminal offence, and these men know that touting is not an offence. I would ask the noble Lord to look at the Amendment I have given him and, between now and Report stage, to try to clear up this difficult position that arises on the Bill of making effective what we have just decided.

LORD DERWENT

I think I can answer to some extent now. I have had consultations since I received notice of the draft Amendment at a quarter to three. We have been in touch with the police who will be operating this—not the Police Federation, who have rather different functions—and I have asked my advisers to let me have a manuscript note which perhaps I might now read. Perhaps I had better say this first. It is a draft Amendment—I hope I am in order. It really is applicable, as the noble Lady said, because it deals with touting. It reads as follows: If it appears to a constable that a person is seeking by means of personal solicitation to obtain custom for a refreshment house, that person shall, if so requested by the constable, give the constable his name and address and that of his employer. We have passed an Amendment on touting, and the noble Lady has asked how we are going to enforce it. The Amendment would have the effect of requiring the disclosure of two names and addresses; that is, of the person touting and of his or her employer. As regards the employer, this is really of no significance in relation to the Act of 1860 and to this Bill. It must be assumed—it would have to be, I think, when we are arguing this—that the offence relates to touting for a specified refreshment house which is already subject to a condition prohibiting touting in its licence; that is, the refreshment house itself. That being so, the name and address of the licensee, the keeper of the refreshment house, is ascertain-able from the register and therefore known to the police by virtue of the provisions of the 1860 Act. They know the name and address of the licensee, and under this Bill a change of address has to be notified. So it is not necessary to put that in the Bill.

BARONESS SUMMERSKILL

But supposing there are three of these houses in one street, and one tout, and he is within his rights not to reveal the name and address. How would the police know which one he is touting for?

LORD DERWENT

This is after hurried consultation, but I am advised that no charge will lie for touting unless the refreshment house is identifiable. You cannot tout for nothing.

BARONESS SUMMERSKILL

That is the point.

LORD DERWENT

Therefore, if a person is touting for a particular refreshment house it will be known which refreshment house he or she is touting for.

BARONESS SUMMERSKILL

Yes.

LORD DERWENT

If you do not know that, you cannot bring a charge.

LORD CROOK

That is the whole point.

LORD DERWENT

The charge would have to be touting for a particular refreshment house.

BARONESS SUMMERSKILL

But he does not reveal the refreshment house, and there are three in a row.

SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Order, Order!

LORD DERWENT

I think I must go on.

LORD SHEPHERD

Perhaps I may——

LORD DERWENT

I will finish what I have to say, and then the noble Lord can speak. As regards the tout, even in the limited time available since this afternoon, we have consulted the police and are advised that additional powers are not necessary in order to ascertain the name and address of a tout found committing an offence under Clause 1(2). It would serve no useful purpose to create a second offence of failing to declare one's name and address if that information was a pre-requisite of judicial proceedings against the refreshment house. It is the refreshment house you want to catch here. Actually, the police can proceed by utilising their powers of arrest under Section 72 of the Highways Act, but I am advised that they do not anticipate any difficulty in getting the name and address of the tout provided they know for whom he or she is touting. There would be a prosecution against the refreshment house; and, if the prosecution was successful, the keeper would lose his licence.

LORD SHEPHERD

I would ask the noble Lord if he would reconsider the matter between now and the next stage. I must say that I felt he was speaking under considerable difficulty, in the sense that the information he was giving to the Committee had only just come to his hand. We recognise that. Would the noble Lord accept this? The police are on patrol (shall I say?) in Soho. They see a man accosting particular individuals who may be walking down the street. It is clear to the policeman that this individual is touting for something. What it is, the policeman would not know. He therefore goes up to the individual and says, "I believe you are touting. Would you please give me your name and address and the name and address of your employer, the person for whom you are touting?" If my noble friend is right—and I believe she is—because this person is not committing a criminal offence, but only a civil offence, the police would have no power if the individual refused to divulge his name and address or that of the refreshment house for which he is touting. My noble friend's difficulty is to know how the police will enforce this clause if they recognise and believe that the man is touting. It is obvious, and they see it, but they are unable to obtain the necessary information upon which they can act.

LORD DERWENT

I will certainly reconsider this. But I would say this about touting. If the policeman does not know what the tout is saying to the man, he can hardly run her in for touting; and if he knows she is touting, he will surely know what she is touting for. The police have to prove their case, and if the refreshment house is known, action will be taken. I will, however, reconsider the matter. I believe I am right.

BARONESS SUMMERSKILL

It was very naughty of the noble Lord to say that, because he thought he was right on the second stage, but he has given way to me in an Amendment on this. So he is not always right. I realise that he has been rushed on this, and that is why I did not press the manuscript Amendment. The noble Lord has agreed that these people are not forced to give their name or the name of the proprietor. But he says he has been told that this does not matter, because the local authority have a list of the names and addresses. However, as I say, if there are three of these places in one street, and one tout, how can the local authority know which place is touting if the tout does not give his name and address or the name and address of his employer? That is the weakness of the noble Lord's case. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

BARONESS SUMMERSKILL moved to add to subsection (2): In the event of any contravention of this subsection in respect of any refreshment house, the licensing authority may immediately revoke the licence of that refreshment house, and thereupon it shall be unlawful for that refreshment house to carry on business.

The noble Baroness said: The police would like stronger action to be taken, if their time is to be saved, and ask that the licence should be revoked after a case has been proved. I would remind your Lordships of the wonderful debate we had last Wednesday on penal reform, when my noble and learned friend Lord Gardiner and others reminded the House of the serious shortage of policemen and the increasing power of the criminal and potential criminal. I think every effort should be made not to waste the time of the police. We all agreed, on the Second Reading of the Bill, that its purpose is to try to prevent people from spending money on women who are not prepared to give the favours that are expected. To tell the police, who are in such short supply, that they must spend a lot of time repeatedly doing this after an offence has been proved is, I think, quite wrong. Therefore, this Amendment asks that the licence should be revoked. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 1, line 23, at end insert the said words.—(Baroness Summerskill.)

LORD DERWENT

I am afraid I must resist this Amendment, and I will explain, perhaps at some length, why. I would remind the Committee that, although we are trying to close "clip joints", and particularly those of a certain kind—that is, a certain kind of refreshment house—refreshment houses have their legal rights. This Amendment would have the effect of giving to the licensing authority powers, against which, apparently, there would be no appeal at all, to revoke a refreshment house licence and to prevent any business from being carried on in the premises if there had been, in the opinion of the licensing authority, a contravention of subsection (2) in relation to unlawful touting. This power is apparently to be wielded irrespective of whether or not there is a conviction of any offence or contravening subsection (2). The Bill already provides for the effective revocation of a licence following conviction by a competent court of any offence under Clause 1 of the Bill; and the court has power to disqualify either the licensee or the premises, or both. Those provisions are in Clause 3(2)(a) of the Bill, where it will be noted that disqualification can also follow convictions for other offences under the 1860 Act, or the Licensing Act, 1964. Thus, there is a clearly established judicial procedure leading to disqualification of either the licensee or the premises, or both.

This Amendment, quite frankly, is not within the concept of the existing law. Nor is it reasonable, I submit to your Lordships, to give local authorities powers to revoke an Excise licence in this way, particularly when judicial proceedings may be pending. I therefore hope that the noble Lady will not press this Amendment. I resist it, because I think it is taking away legal rights to which everyone is entitled when there are already plenty of legal safeguards for carrying out what the noble Lady wants.

LORD SHEPHERD

Is not the position that if this Amendment is not accepted, where there is an infringement of subsections (1) or (2) the local authority can refuse to renew the licence? This means that if a licence has been granted, and the man fails to carry out what he is required to do by subsections (1) and (2), for the next eleven months the local authority can do nothing about it. Am I right or am I wrong?

LORD DERWENT

Wrong. There could be a judicial prosecution, which there will be.

LORD SHEPHERD

If there is a judicial prosecution, does that mean that the court can itself revoke the licence?

LORD DERWENT

I am sorry to intervene again, but the position is this. The local authority grants an annual licence. The court can at any time revoke the licence by a court order.

LORD SHEPHERD

Then that is all right.

BARONESS SUMMERSKILL

In view of what the noble Lord has told me, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

5.34 p.m.

BARONESS SUMMERSKILL moved, after subsection (2), to insert: () Where this subsection applies to a refreshment house, it shall not be lawful to employ in that house any person under the age of 18. The noble Baroness said: I would remind the Committee that during the debate on the Second Reading we were discussing refreshment houses which were open between 10 o'clock at night and 5 o'clock in the morning in which girls under 18 may not be employed. The point about these places, as the noble Lord has already said, is that they can be opened in the afternoon at 2 o'clock, and they can go on until 10 o'clock. Of course, they can then open all night, and between 2 o'clock and 10 o'clock of course young girls can be employed there. The noble Lord is of the opinion that if this Bill is passed it is possible that the refreshment houses will not think it worth while to open in the afternoon. I cannot follow that line of argument. There are those who believe that, as a result of this legislation, the afternoon trade and the early evening trade may increase.

We are not dealing with men who are ignorant of the law, but with men who acquaint themselves with every new Act and connive to outwit authority. It was the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, who said last Wednesday that there were now more men with university degrees in the world of crime than there were among the police. These men with these establishments in Soho know that, despite this Act, they can remain open. For those who did not hear the Second Reading debate, I should like to remind them that if these places are not conducted in a desirable fashion the owners may be required to display a tariff outside. On the Second Reading I said that the owner might well put the tariff outside with a picture of a woman holding up the tariff, with the words, "Lemonade at half-a-crown", and so mark the place. Between 2 o'clock and 10 o'clock at night, however, no tariff has to be displayed. But already the establishment has been marked; and it seems to me quite clear—for news gets around London very quickly—that one can anticipate all kinds of behaviour in those places. I am therefore asking that no girl under the age of 18 should be employed in the afternoons and evenings.

The noble Lord said, "Well nothing very much happens there then." I would remind him, however, that before we introduced the Street Offences Act, if one was to judge from the streets of London, a great many things happened between 2 o'clock in the afternoon and 10 o'clock at night. Bayswater Road was not full of prostitutes starting at 10 o'clock onwards. All these streets were full of prostitutes in the afternoon and early evening. Nobody could convince me that this place, which is already marked as undesirable when it opens at 10 o'clock, will be completely desirable between 2 o'clock and 10 o'clock and that it will not be known that these young girls, employed as waitresses, receptionists and cloakroom attendants—as they are going to be called—are there. I cannot think that it can be argued that men begin to think of sexual adventures at 10 o'clock at night. I ask the House that these girls under the age of 18, who are employed in these places up until 10 o'clock, should have some protection. After this Bill is passed they will be used as a kind of bait. They are known to be there, and I would say that the artful dodgers who own these places will see to it that they are not going to lose money by closing the "joint" but will use it in another way. I ask that the welfare of these girls should be our first consideration: we must not put the loss of a small amount of money by a man who says that he has been denied an adequate return before the welfare of the girls under the age of 18. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 1, line 23, at end insert the said subsection.—(Baroness Summerskill.)

LORD DERWENT

I wonder whether the noble Baroness would agree that we should take Amendments Nos. 4 and 5 together? I do not want to make the same speech twice.

BARONESS SUMMERSKILL

Yes.

LORD DERWENT

The first Amendment is a new subsection which is designed to prohibit the employment of young persons under 18 years of age in any refreshment house in which the licensing authority makes it a condition of the licence so to prohibit. I have been very carefully into this matter, and there is no evidence at all at the present time of the employment of young persons under 18 years of age, whether boys or girls, in the "clip joints" at which the Bill is aimed. During the Second Reading of the Bill the noble Baroness referred to the Christine Keeler case as an example, and to the concern felt over young girls of 16 and 17. The premises referred to in the Ward and Christine Keeler case were not, and never have been, licensed refreshment houses under the 1860 Act, since intoxicating liquor was sold in them.

I would also remind the Committee of the Young Persons (Employment) Bill, which was considered in Committee last Thursday, and which is designed to prohibit young persons of either sex from working at night in clubs of that kind. So I think we can forget about clubs of that kind because I hope they will be taken care of when that Bill becomes an Act, as I hope it will do shortly.

I also pointed out during the Second Reading that the employment of young persons in the reception of or attendance upon persons resorting to refreshment houses is already covered by Section 7(1)(e) of the Young Persons (Employment) Act, 1938, which effectively prohibits their employment in refreshment houses, whether "clip joints" or not, between 10 p.m. and 6 a.m. There is a similar provision in Section 31 of the Shops Act, 1950, which deals with persons employed in the catering trade in connection with the business of serving refreshments to customers for consumption on the premises. One or other of these provisions will invariably apply to a refreshment house of any kind. May I repeat that the object of this Bill is to put the "clip joint" out of busi- ness, and we think that the two Amendments we are discussing, or this Amendment in particular, will add nothing to its strength. Furthermore—and this is important if we do not want to get into a muddle—they are matters for employment legislation rather than for licensing laws dealing with refreshment houses.

The effect of the second Amendment is to bring the new subsection contained in the first Amendment within the ambit of Section 3, which enables the licensing authority to attach conditions to the licence—in this case a condition to prohibit the employment of young persons under the age of 18—but only in cases where this is necessary to prevent customers from being misled as to the nature or cost of the entertainment provided. It is difficult to see how a prohibition upon the employment of adolescents could prevent people from being misled about such matters.

I am inclined to agree with the noble Baroness that there probably should be a far wider review of all questions of the employment of young persons. Things like bogus clubs and music and dancing are dealt with under different legislation, and I do not think that this Bill, which is for the licensing of refreshment houses, is really a suitable vehicle for employment legislation about young persons. I really do not think I can accept this Amendment. I regret it because I know what is behind the noble Baroness' arguments, but I do not think that this is a proper vehicle for meeting them.

5.44 p.m.

BARONESS SUMMERSKILL

I feel very strongly about this matter. The noble Lord amazes me. He tells the House that this is not a suitable Bill. What is this Bill for? It is in order to protect the man who pays money for drinks and then finds the woman to whom he pays the money is not prepared to have sexual intercourse with him; and the noble Lord tells me that this is not a suitable Bill in which to introduce an Amendment which will protect young girls in these establishments. I should have thought that this is precisely the Bill. But the noble Lord says, on the one hand, that this is a Refreshment Houses Bill and, on the other, that it is not an employment Bill. It is certainly a hybrid Bill. This is a Bill which deals with morals and refreshments, and all I am seeking to do is to protect these young girls. In all the Statutes that the noble Lord has read out he has not once told the Committee that the girls I have described cannot be employed there. Girls under the age of 18 can be employed from 2 p.m. to 10 p.m., ostensibly as receptionists, waitresses and cloakroom attendants, in these places where undesirable people go.

The noble Lord is not consistent. What did he do on the first Amendment? When I said that, in view of these facts, these girls might be in these places and that touting should be prohibited in the afternoon, the noble Lord agreed, said that I was right in my argument and gave me the Amendment which would prevent touting outside these places; which surely shows that they were undesirable. Now the noble Lord comes along and I ask him to give further protection to the girls in these places where these men are touting, and he refuses to do so. The noble Lord obviously is not consistent, and therefore I must press my Amendment.

LORD DERWENT

Before the noble Baroness presses her Amendment, I should like to say, and I have said this repeatedly, that this is not a question of morals, because the girls are not there for the purpose of prostitution, about which the noble Baroness will keep talking. Incidentally, the managements of these places refuse to allow any form of prostitution or soliciting on the premises because they would be shut if they did so. The object of this Bill is to prevent fraud; it has something to do in the broad sense with morals, but not with the sexual morals about which the noble

Baroness is talking. That is quite a suitable subject if she wants to deal with these matters in other legislation, but this is a Bill to shut "clip-joints" because they are fraudulent. It is no good the noble Baroness pretending that they are on the whole immoral establishments as such, because they are not.

BARONESS SUMMERSKILL

I hope the Committee will forgive me if I speak again on this. I am really rather shocked at what the noble Lord has said. He will recall the Second Reading, when some noble Members described their adventures in these places. It was not only a question of being overcharged for a lemonade. It was said that foreigners went to these places and later said that these women extracted certain amounts from them and nothing followed. Is the noble Lord telling me that they went to these places really to complain about the price of lemonade? Again he is not being consistent. If this were so, we should not be discussing touting. Why are we discussing touting and prohibiting it? Because we know what the touts do. They are not going to foreigners and saying: "You can get a nice lemonade in there." They are making other suggestions, about prostitution. Our whole purpose is, surely, to prevent these girls from becoming prostitutes.

LORD DERWENT

I entirely agree with the noble Baroness that we do not want the girls to become prostitutes, but that is not an appropriate subject for this Bill.

5.48 p.m.

On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 4) shall be agreed to?

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 19; Not-Contents, 37.

CONTENTS
Alexander of Hillsborough, E.	Lindsay of Birker, L.	St. Davids, V.
Amulree, L.	Listowel, E.	Shepherd, L.
Attlee, E.	Longford, E.	Sinha, L.
Burden, L. [Teller.]	Monson, L.	Summerskill, B.
Champion, L. [Teller.]	Morrison, L.	Williams, L.
Hobson, L.	Mottistone, L.	Williams of Barnburgh, L.
Lawson, L.
Not-CONTENTS
Albemarle, E.	Cowley, E.	Dundee, E.
Ampthill, L.	Crathorne, L.	Ferrers, E.
Blakenham, V.	Daventry, V.	Forster of Harraby, L.
Bridgeman, V.	Denham, L.	Fortescue, E.
Cholmondeley, M.	Derwent, L.	Goschen, V. [Teller.]
Conesford, L.	Drumalbyn, L.	Gosford, E.
Hanworth, V.	Lambert, V.	Robertson of Oakridge, L.
Hastings, L.	Long, V.	St. Aldwyn, E. [Teller.]
Hawke, L.	Mancroft, L.	St. Oswald, L.
Horsbrugh, B.	Margesson, V.	Selkirk, E.
Iddesleigh, E.	Merrivale, L.	Strang, L.
Ilford, L.	Milverton, L.	Teynham, L.
Kinnoull, E.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

5.56 p.m.

BARONESS SUMMERSKILL

This is an Amendment dealing simply with hours. The noble Lord will recall that, on Second Reading, he said that if it appeared that these provisions were not being observed by the clubs, he might have to take other action—and of course this was in reference to afternoon hours and early evening hours—but he said we should wait and see what happened. I put this Amendment down simply because I thought this would allow the local authority to change the hours. If the provisions of the Bill are evaded, it may be necessary to make them more flexible, and this Amendment will provide the licensing authority with that power. I am not prepared to press it very hard, but I thought it would give the noble Lord the opportunity he sought when he said he might have to take other action later on. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 2, line 23, at end insert— ("Provided that, with the consent of the Secretary of State, a licensing authority may vary the hours of late opening for the purposes of this section.")—(Baroness Summerskill.)

LORD DERWENT

I quite see what the noble Baroness wants to do, but this Amendment does not in fact do it, as I will explain. I might perhaps say at the beginning that the provisions of this Bill were discussed with the local authority particularly about this sort of thing, with associations representing licensing authorities, and with the Metropolitan Police, and there has been no support for this Amendment from those organisations. I asked why, and then I found the reason. This Amendment would have the effect of enabling the licensing authority to vary the present period of 10 p.m. to 5 a.m. to some other period, with the consent of the Secretary of State. This Amendment, though, would not change the provisions of Section 6 of the principal Act of 1860 which require a licence to be taken out if a refreshment house opens at any time between 10 p.m. and 5 a.m., and if it does not open at any time between those hours then no licence will be necessary because the 1860 Act would not bite; so that in fact it would not have the desired effect. I have looked to see whether I can make a suggestion, but I do not think there is any way of taking care of this particular problem.

BARONESS SUMMERSKILL

I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.

Remaining clauses and Schedule agreed to.

House resumed

Bill reported with an Amendment.