§ 8.2 p.m.
Viscount Colville of CulrossMy Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Viscount Colville f Culross.)
§ House in Committee accordingly.
§ [The LORD WELLS-PESTELL in the Chair.]
§ Clause I agreed to.
§ Clause 2 [Exclusion of exhibitions promoted for private gain from certain exemptions under the 1900 and 1952 Acts]:
§ Viscount Colville of Culross moved Amendment No. 1?
§
Page 2, line 7, at end insert—
(" (IA) An exhibition is promoted for private gain if, and only if,—
are applied wholly or partly for purposes of private gain.").
§ The noble Viscount said: Amendments Nos. 1 to 6 form a single group. The Committee may well remember that there were three points in this Bill. We were bringing the modern electronic system, which includes video tapes and such-like, within the longstanding control of the cinematograph licensing system. We were proposing to consolidate the legislation, which would have pleased the soul of the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, if he had happened to stay a little longer. That is what most of the list of amendments is about. Thirdly—perhaps this was the centre of the Bill—there was the problem of clubs, to which the public as such were allegedly not admitted but which in practice were open to all, in which cinematograph exhibitions were available, subject to neither safety nor fire or censorship licensing control.
§ This set of amendments deals with the question which I have just mentioned. What has happened is that in an attempt to curtail, or at any rate to bring under licensing control, the activities of clubs, both on safety and on the content of the material which is shown, there has been introduced the concept of private gain. That is in Clause 2 of the Bill. A number of people have examined what this involves. It is at this point that I should declare an interest. I am the director of a substantial group of companies, one of which has a large number of high street shops where hire televisions, video cassette players and the cassettes which go into them are sold. I think it is agreed all round that we do not wish to subject to licensing control a perfectly ordinary high street television shop which chooses to demonstrate to its would-be customers the perfectly harmless video tapes that it has for sale or hire. The intention of this group of amendments is to make sure that this does not occur.
§ This means that one has to look at the definition of the words "for private gain". The argument has always been that, if you said that you should not without a licence exhibit cinematograph material for private gain, you could argue that this included a shop which was attempting to persuade its customers to buy or hire a video tape or film. It has never been entirely clear, either to myself or to my honourable friend in another place whose Bill this is, that this would occur, but the problem is that there are over 300 licensing authorities around the country, any one of which might take it into its head to say that such a shop should be licensed. That would mean litigation. Litigation is expensive. And litigation, or the threat of it, causes uncertainty. This set of amendments therefore attempts to remove that uncertainty by putting it into the Bill, in a perfectly clear way, that this sort of exhibition of a cinematograph or a video film is not going to need a licence.
§ It is at this point that I should very much welcome the advice and assistance of the Committee. I am not committed to this form of words, though they do the job which I have just explained. The difficulty about them is that those who have considered the question of what is covered by the words" for private gain "have also come to the conclusion that those words would cover the exhibition of a full length feature 871 film in the saloon bar of a public house, or in a number of other places, every Thursday. They have taken the view—I do not think that this is a commercial view; it is based upon proper requirements for public safety—that they would not like those sorts of exhibitions also to be exempted altogether—at any rate, not without looking at the alternative systems whereby these matters can be controlled.
§ The fact of the matter is that if these amendments are passed we shall exempt the shops and, so far as concerns this particular provision in the Bill, we shall probably also exempt the pub which shows a film once a week, or whatever it might be. We shall probably also exempt hotels which show films in their bedrooms on one of the private bands of their television sets—and, for all I know, many other things. What one has to try to do is to balance a number of things.
§ First, as I think I said at Second Reading, if it is to have any hope of succeeding a Private Member's Bill needs to be comparatively modest in what it contains. Consequently, I do not think that this is a measure in which we ought to set out to cure all known or all foreseen, or foreseeable, possibilities of infringements of one sort or another. Therefore my instinct is to try to keep the matter as simple as possible, even if there are things which may not be covered. When I say that there are things which may not he covered, where I would like the advice of the Committee, as it considers this matter, is this. We are not only involved with cinematograph legislation when it comes to two aspects that I have been talking about.
§ On the question of safety, particularly in relation to fire, there are two measures which will be available in any event. First, if we are talking about a public house, there are the licensing justices. I remember my old aunt —alas no longer with us—who was for a very long time a justice of the peace in Devonshire, and she swore that she had an encyclopaedic knowledge of the lavatories at every public house within her petty sessional division, because she used to go round licensing them—and the public house as well—year after year. There is a duty upon licensing justices to look into certain matters which go to public safety. If they knew that a public house was to be used for the exhibition of films or videos, this could well be something they would take into account.
§ Secondly, a public house is covered by the Offices, Shops and Railway Premises Act and this also gives an opportunity to the fire authority to lay down requirements for public safety. Again, this relates not only to the people who work there but has to take into account people who resort to the premises in order to watch the film or whatever it is as well as to enjoy their pint. So, on safety. we are not bound to the cinematograph legislation because there are at least two other pieces of legislation which give the responsible authorities the opportunity to deal with fire precautions and the necessary requirements which go with them.
§ On censorship, again the cinematograph legislation of which this will become part is not the only thing available. First, if, for instance, we are talking about a public house the Indecent Displays (Control) Act 872 which was passed last year would undoubtedly apply and therefore it would be an offence to display a cinematograph exhibition which fell within its terms. Secondly, if it got to the stage where the cinema films or videos were of a particularly "blue" nature, the case would fall within the provisions of Schedule 3 to the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill which is just about to finish its parliamentary course. That would need a licence by the same licensing authority—except in London—handling the matter under the cinematograph legislation. They are able to say either, "Yes, you can have a sex cinema subject to this or that", or if they choose, "You cannot have any sex cinemas at all in our district", because that is a part of the powers they possess. Thirdly, there is the general protection provided under the obscenity law in the 1959 Act.
§ What I therefore wish to seek advice upon is this. Shall this House, looking at a problem which is known to exist whereby we could completely clog up the district councils if there was any question of them having to license all the high street shops having point-of-sale displays, try to put in something that will exempt them, even if it means that we have to rely on other legislation in order to deal with the slightly more recondite but, nevertheless important exhibitions of a different sort?
§ Or are your Lordships going to ask me to look at this again? I am very prepared to do so. The drafting is extremely difficult, but that does not mean to say that I am not prepared to take another look at it if there is serious concern. I commend these amendments for the sake of the clarity they bring and for the avoidance of any necessity for trial cases or different decisions being taken in different districts around the British Isles. But if noble Lords think there is a serious area not covered by the other legislation to which I have referred, then I shall be very happy to look at this. With that invitation, and seeking a response from those who take an interest in this subject, I beg to move Amendment No. 1.
§ Lord MishconThe noble Viscount has spoken with his usual charm and clarity. I who have neither of these virtues will at least speak briefly to his amendment. When we were considering the situation at the previous stage of this Bill, we realised that there was a gap that ought to be filled because we were possibly including in our net those we might not wish to include and possibly excluding those we might not wish to exclude. As happens in these matters, and nobody is to blame, this amendment has come forward at a very late stage. One of the important things in regard to a Private Members Bill of this kind is that one should carry the relevant trade with one, especially if it is a reputable trade and one is dealing with reputable associations. The Cinematograph Exhibitors' Association wanted to help with the purpose of this Bill and to see that it is enacted. So has another organisation called the Association of Independent Cinemas. They have had a very short time within which to consider this amendment and their view—I emphasise that it is an off-the-cuff view—is that one is letting in by this definition premises that one would not wish to let in.
I do not think it is entirely satisfactory—I am sure the noble Viscount himself would agree with this—having to refer to other powers and statutes in order 873 to cover the purpose of a main Bill. If one cannot avoid doing that, it becomes a little clumsy. To have to rely on the licensing powers for public houses for safety, and yet on another Bill for other matters, relating possibly to the type of film which the public house might show, is not a very satisfactory way. The noble Viscount was very frank with the Committee in saying that that is what might have to be done if—and I use his words—the Bill had not excluded public houses and hotels.
My humble advice to the Committee would be that we do take advantage of the noble Viscount's very generous offer to go back and see whether it is possible to do what this Bill aims to do—namely, to close unseemly gaps, for that is the whole purpose of the Bill, and to complete the closure of those gaps in the proper way. Your Lordships will expect it of me if just before I sit down, instead of being just destructive, I was to some slight degree constructive. The noble Viscount generously invited suggestions from Members of the Committee to guide him. This is not original guidance but it is guidance I have been afforded by the Cinematograph Association, whom I know have written to the Minister, who will speak for himself as he is most competent to do.
The association have suggested, rightly or wrongly but it does merit consideration, that one should set out in this Bill quite frankly those whom one wishes to exclude. They have prepared an amendment which they say is very hurried and the exclusion would be to exhibitions which are given solely for any of the following purposes—and the association cites four: (1) for promoting the sale of equipment for the display Of moving pictures, (2) for promoting the sale of goods or services in premises used for the purpose of selling such goods or services, (3) for commercial or industrial training and (4) for displaying statistics and other data for use in commerce or industry. I have finished my quotation of their four exclusions.
It may be sensible to do it by exclusion. It may be sensible to try to look at the amendment again. I hope in the circumstances that the noble Viscount will think it appropriate, in view of his own very kind way of moving the amendment, not to move it at this Committee stage but to let us have deliberation and consultation with the Cinematograph Exhibitors' Association and other experts in the trade to see whether at Report stage one can come forward with something a little more definite and a little more comprehensive.
§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Elton)I must say I have never found either my noble friend or the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, deficient in either clarity or charm. I do not attempt to rival either of them in this. I must, I think, endorse what my noble friend has said, that the principal purpose of this Bill, as the Government see it, is to close what the noble Lord, Lord Mischon, called an unseemly gap. That gap was of course the commercial cinema clubs, which ought to be brought fully within the cinematograph licensing system.
We have not seen the Bill's objective as being to apply to all exhibitions in any commercial setting including those which arc not given for payment. I do, none the less, appreciate the concern of the Cinematograph Exhibitors' Association on the question of the 874 operation of the Bill and this amendment; they did indeed write to me to bring that concern to my attention. It focussed on the fact that the amendment defines an exemption for private gain strictly in terms of sums paid, directly or indirectly, for admission, and they felt that thereby a significant area of operation which they had supposed would be caught by the Bill in fact would not be caught by the Bill.
As I said, the Bill is not intended as an intervention in commercial balances between one part of the market, as it were, arid another. It is specifically to control the activities of clubs. However, I take very well the point made that the time-scale has been somewhat curtailed, that it is always desirable to proceed wherever possible in legislation by agreement, that the agreement should be as wide as possible and that reasonable efforts should be made to secure it.
I have noted the alternative which the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, has put forward, and which was put before me in the letter to which I referred. My first reaction to it would, of course, be that of any prudent legislator, that when you include in the scope of an Act of Parliament specific things that are not to be caught by it the assumption is that anything not listed is to be caught, and the great danger then is that there is legislation, as if were, by omission. I think we would want to look at the list of categories with some care in any case, to see whether each category ought to be excluded and whether other categories perhaps ought to be excluded as well. So I would not like to give a commitment as to what the reaction should be. But if my noble friend sees fit to delay putting this amendment into the Bill, I for my part will welcome it as an opportunity to clarify my own mind and that of the trade on this issue.
I do not think I will follow the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, into the virtues or otherwise of legislation by reference, except to say that of course in this case it would not be necessary to have recourse to legislation in order to see that licensed premises which were licensed for purposes other than cinematograph exhibitions were properly conducted, because those regulations already exist and they already apply to those buildings by reason of the licensing requirements. I fear I have tempted the noble Lord to join issue with me.
§ Lord MishconIt is a temptation that I am going very shortly to overcome. Obviously one does not want to go into a long argument about this, but on the question, for example, of safety in public houses and hotels, the regulations take into consideration, so far as I know, the normal user, which is, for example, in light. There are other considerations which have to take place when darkness has to be brought upon the premises by virtue of the fact that a film is being shown, and these considerations are not always taken into account by licensing justices who would not know of the occasional use for film purposes. I do not want to take the discussion any further. I only wanted to clarify my mind in repeating my point, so that at least the noble Lord the Minister would know what I was trying to suggest.
§ Lord EltonI do not wish to prolong this either by a list of my recollections of licensed premises in which 875 darkness was induced for a whole variety of purposes of which the magistrates may or may not have been aware. But the point is well taken that these are areas that ought to be discussed. If my noble friend feels disposed to provide the time for discussion, I think we would welcome it.
Viscount Colville of CulrossI think I have had my guidance from the Committee. May I just say two things? First of all, there will, unless something goes tremendously wrong in a minute, be a Report stage, because I have a whole collection of consolidation amendments which I hope the Committee will accept. Secondly, I do trust that those who are concerned with this matter will be prepared to see a solution reached at the next stage of the Bill on this point. We do not wish to send back a Bill to another place with a contentious matter in it if we can possibly avoid it. Therefore, what I should like to do is to take advantage of the extremely generous assistance I have been offered by my noble friend, and by the noble Lord opposite, with those who have advised him, to see if we can come up with a formula. But I anticipate that we must try to get this right by Report stage.
We must also bear in mind, if I may say so, the practical aspect of what the licensing justices, or the people who inspect under the Offices, Shops and Railway Premises Act really do take into account. I should like to look at that myself. I hope that, if we find that there is a practical solution, even if it does mean relying on other legislation which is run by the same local authorities with the same officers concerned, then it may not be a compromise that we cannot accept in the end. Let us look at it again. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw this amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§
Viscount Colville of Culross had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No 2:
Page 2, line 14, after (" that ") insert (" the proceeds of ").
§ The noble Viscount said: Will the noble Lord the Deputy Chairman accept that I shall not move Amendments Nos. 2 to 6.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord WellsPestell)With your Lordships' permission, I will second that Amendments Nos. 2 to 6 are not moved.
§ (Amendments Nos. 2 to 6 not moved.)
§ Clause 2 agreed to.
§ Clauses 3 and 4 agreed to.
§ Clause 5 (Powers of entry):
§
Viscount Colville of Culross moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 4, line 11, leave out (" to the licensing authority ").
§ The noble Viscount said: Amendment No. 7 goes with Amendments Nos. 8, 12, 16, 17 and 18. It is very simple. It is a consolidation provision. The problem is that the present legislation applies to cinematograph exhibitions in what is touchingly called a "movable building or structure", and to them the fire authority is entitled to apply restrictions. The trouble is that, 876 being a movable building or structure, the fire authority does not know that it is coming, because it is not notified, like everybody else, that it is on its way. This puts that right. I beg to move.
§
Viscount Colville of Culross moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 4, line 24, leave out (" to the licensing authority ").
§
Viscount Colville of Culross moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 5, leave out lines 2 to 5.
§ The noble Viscount said: I beg to move Amendment No. 9. Amendments Nos. 9, 10, 13 and 14 go together. What is being done here is to put together the definition of the fire authority, and to put it in a better place. I beg to move.
§ Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.
§ Clauses 6, 7 and 8 agreed to.
§ Clause 9 (Interpretation):
§ Viscount Colville of Culross moved Amendment No.10:
§
Page 7, line 27, at end insert—
(""chief officer of police", in relation to any premises, means the chief officer of police for the police area in which the premises are situated; ").
§ The noble Viscount said: This is a drafting amendment. I beg to move.
§ Viscount Colville of Culross moved Amendment No. 11:
§
Page 7, line 30, at end insert—
(""fire authority in relation to any premises, means the authority discharging in the area in which the premises are situated the functions of fire authority under the Fire Services Act 1947;").
§ The noble Viscount said: My Lords, this is a consequential amendment. I beg to move.
§ Clause 9, as amended, agreed to.
§ Clause 10 [Amendments and repeals]:
§
Viscount Colville of Culross moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 8, line 12, leave out (" the following provisions of this Act shall cease to have effect ") and insert (" there shall cease to have effect section 7(2)(b) and (3)(b)(ii) of the 1909 Act and the following provisions of this Act ").
§ The noble Viscount said: This is a consequential amendment. I beg to move.
§
Viscount Colville of Culross moved Amendment No. 13:
Page 8, line 26, leave out ("the definition of" fire authority "and").
§ The noble Viscount said: My Lords, this is a consequential amendment. I beg to move.
§
Viscount Colville of Culross moved Amendment No. 14:
Page 8, line 33, leave out (" definition of "exempted exhibition"") and insert ("definitions of" exempted exhibition "and" fire authority"").
§ The noble Viscount said: This is a consequential amendment. I beg to move.
§ Clause 10, as amended, agreed to.
§ Clause 11 agreed to.
§ Schedule 1 [Minor and consequential amendments]:
§ Viscount Colville of Culross moved Amendment No. 15:
§
Page 9, line 23, leave out from beginning to (" duration ") and insert—
(" 2—(1) In subsection (1) of section 2 of that Act (grant of licences) for the words "the premises" there shall be substituted the words "any premises in their area".
(2) In subsection (2) of that section ").
§ The noble Viscount said: It is perfectly obvious that a licensing authority ought only to issue a licence for premises in its own area. I cannot think why nobody thought of it before; now we have done so and I beg to move.
§ Viscount Colville of Culross moved Amendment No. 16
§
Page 9, line 27, leave out from beginning to ("(exhibitions") and insert—
("3.—(1) In subsection (2) of section 7 of that Act (occasional exhibitions)—
§ (2) In subsection (3) of that section (moveable buildings or structures)—
- (a) for the words "the council of the county in which" (as originally enacted) there shall be substituted the words "the local authority in whose area";
- (b) in paragraph (a), for the words from "the council of the county" to "this Act" (as originally enacted) there shall be substituted the words "the local authority in whose area he ordinarily resides;
- (c) in paragraph (b), for the words "to the council of the county and to the chief officer of police of the police area in which it is proposed to give the exhibition" (as originally enacted) there shall be substituted the following sub-paragraphs—
- " (i) to the local authority in whose area it is proposed to give the exhibition;
- (ii) to the authority discharging in the area in which it is proposed to give the exhibition the functions of fire authority under the Fire Services Act 1947; and
- (iii) to the chief officer of police of the police area in which it is proposed to give the exhibition; "; and
- (d) in paragraph (c), for the words "the county council" (as originally enacted) there shall be substituted the words "the local authority in whose area it is proposed to give the exhibition".
§ (3) For subsection (4) of that section ")
§ The noble Viscount said: This is a consequential amendment. I beg to move.
§ Viscount Colville of Culross moved Amendment No. 17:
§
Page 9, line 48, at end insert—
(" (6) In this section ' local authority ' means
§ The noble Viscount said: This is a consequential amendment. I beg to move.
§ Schedule 1, as amended, agreed to.
§ Schedule 2 [Repeals]:
§ Viscount Colville of Culross No. 18:
§ Page 11, line 41, at end insert—
| (" 1972 c. 70. | The Local Government Act 1972. | Section 204(5)(b) |
| 1973 c. 65. | The Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973. | In Schedule 24, in paragraph 33, the words from "in section 7(3)" to islands area or district"."). |
§ The noble Viscount said: This is a drafting amendment. I beg to move.
§
Viscount Colville of Culross moved Amendment No. 19:
Page 11, line 44, column 3, leave out (" 2 ") and insert (" 3 ").
§ The noble Viscount said: Somebody has gone and added a new schedule to the Criminal Justice Bill which we shall be discussing tomorrow. Unfortunately, it means that it goes in front of the one to which we have referred at the very last page of this Bill. We should, therefore, in anticipation that the Criminal Justice Bill will eventually become an Act, take steps to get the right schedule referred to. But if, of course, there should be further changes and this Bill is wrong by the time it gets on to the statute book, it can be changed by the Criminal Justice Bill itself. Meanwhile, in order to hold the fort, I beg to move.
§ Schedule 2, as amended, agreed to.
§ House resumed: Bill reported with the amendments.