Sex Establishment Licences (Hansard, 26 July 1982)

§ Lord Nugent of Guildford
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.

§ Lord Elton
My Lords, this provision permits local authorities which have adopted Schedule 3 to refuse an application for a sex establishment licence on the grounds that an applicant is unsuitable to hold a licence by reason of having been convicted of an offence or for any other reason. The Government will be drawing the provision to the attention of local authorities and the police by circular in the normal way. It will be for local authorities to determine the information they may reasonably require of applicants; and they will do so in the knowledge that the police must receive copies of all applications and may submit observations upon them.

§ Lord Nugent of Guildford
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that informative Answer. Does it mean that the police will have an obligation to appear at these applications for licensing and give evidence in the same way that they would before a magistrates' licensing bench in an application for a liquor licence?

§ Lord Elton
My Lords, applicants are bound to give notice of an application to the chief officer of police. The chief officer may submit observations on, or objections to, the application. He would no doubt draw attention to any matters which cast doubt on the accuracy of an application. Perhaps I should tell your Lordships that the local authority has power in effect, under paragraph 10(6) of Schedule 3, to require applicants to state whether they have been previously convicted. All applications must be copied to the police under paragraph 10(14), and any applicant giving false information commits an offence and will be liable to prosecution and a fine of up to £10,000. An applicant will therefore either disclose his previous record spontaneously or suffer the risk of its being discovered by the police and making himself liable to prosecution and clearly unsuitable to have a licence.

§ Baroness Birk
My Lords, would the Minister give a little more information on the second part of that paragraph? "Having been convicted of an offence" is fairly straightforward, and that would be on record. But could the noble Lord add something to what he has said, or rather what he has not said, about "or for any other reasons"? Does that not seem to be a very wide circle? How is this going to be defined so that the local authorities and also the courts may know? —because this is subject to an appeal, whereas unfortunately some of the other reasons for turning down are not.

§ Lord Elton
My Lords, I do not think that the grounds are any wider than when we so recently discussed this subject on Committee and Report stage of the Bill. The paragraph is paragraph 12(3)(a). It reads: The grounds mentioned in sub-paragraph (2) above are—that the applicant is unsuitable to hold the licence by reason of having been convicted of an offence or for any other reason. It will be for the licensing authority to decide what is reasonable. If it is thought to be unreasonable, that can be tested in the courts.

§ The Earl of Lauderdale
My Lords, could my noble friend explain how the risk of discovery is going to work? Supposing an applicant puts in false information covering up his criminal past, and supposing the police do not happen to notice this, or, if I may put it another way, the vetting is not very thorough, is not this open to the danger that people may slip through the net and may go unobserved by the police unless there is an obligation on the police to investigate each case?

§ Lord Elton
My Lords, there is an obligation on the police to receive the copies of the application, the local authority is plainly going to ask the police authority for their comments on the application itself, and the police have access to the criminal record; and beyond that it is really impossible to see how much further one can go.

§ Lord Nugent of Guildford
My Lords, is my noble friend aware that Mr. Sullivan, who claims to be the owner of the largest chain of sex establishments in the country, has recently been convicted in the Snaresbrook 8 Crown Court of living off the immoral earnings of a prostitute, and gaoled for nine months? Would he say whether that offence would be one for which a local authority could disqualify?

§ Lord Elton
My Lords, I should be very surprised if the local authority decided otherwise.

§ Baroness Birk
My Lords, may I press the Minister a little further on the point about "or for any other reason"? Is the Minister aware that although this matter was discussed in Committee many of us were unhappy about it, not because it dealt with sex shops but because of the rights of appeal and the rights of individual citizens? Can the noble Lord not say that, even if he cannot give an answer now, this will be gone into further, and that if guidelines are given to local authorities there will be some criteria, or headings, covering the "or for any other reason"?

§ Lord Elton
My Lords, of course I will consider carefully what the noble Baroness has asked me. I do not think there is such a substantial difficulty as she imagines, because local authorities will themselves have strong views on who are suitable people to conduct these establishments. If the applicants do not come up to those standards, then they have every reason not to give them a licence.

§ Lord Leatherland
My Lords, would the noble Minister tell us what is meant by the expression "sex establishment", just so that we can keep away from them?

§ Lord Elton
My Lords. I am trying to recall a similar question which the noble Lord asked me some weeks ago and on which I found it necessary to shelter his ignorance in benefit of his character. A sex establishment is a place such as is frequently found in places like Soho, purveying things about which the noble Lord has already made it clear he does not know a great deal—and more strength to his elbow!

The Earl of Halsbury
My Lords, is the circulation of such details as the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, has given to us about the squalid interactions between sex shops, pornography, prostitution and so on, privileged in terms of the laws of libel amongst the citizenry? I do not mean here. Obviously those who wish to keep an eye on these things would like to be informed on this point.

§ Lord Elton
My Lords, I think it is always libellous to make allegations of criminal activities which have not been proved. There is nothing libellous about the naming to a particular individual of convictions which have not elapsed under the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act.