HL Deb 26 January 1983 vol 438 cc336-47

8.42 p.m.

Viscount Colville of Culrossrose to move that an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that the regulations (S.I. 1982/1856) be annulled.

The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I draw attention to these regulations. Last summer, Parliament passed the Cinematograph (Amendment) Act, and I had charge of it in this House. It was an Act to deal with two matters. One of them was the whole area of bogus cinema clubs, which were escaping all forms of licensing, including the censorship provisions, which enable local authorities to control pornography and violence. I hasten to say that these regulations have nothing whatsoever to do with that.

The other aspect of the Act was to bring within the licensing provisions—and that includes the safety licensing provisions—video shows, which, we all thought. were not covered by the existing definition of the cinematograph exhibition. It is with the safety provisions that these amendments deal, and your Lordships may think that this is a very important aspect indeed. It was not very much discussed when the Act was a Bill, because I think we all agreed that this was fundamental in extending the licensing provisions to video.

The Act came into force in October. On 1st December, the responsible officials in the Home Office issued a consultation letter saying that they had had representations from a number of sources. These included the GLC, other local authority associations, the brewers and the manufacturers of video juke boxes. They were all saying that the existing safety regulations could not be applied in the case of some of the applications that had been made, and, consequently, licences could not be issued. The consultees were further told that Ministers in the Home Office had expessed the desire that urgent action should be taken. With a passing reference to the previous debate, there is no question here of an inflexible Government; and, of course, I am in no way criticising the Home Office for being able to move as a result of representations, and, indeed, to move quickly. On the contrary, I think that it is laudable. However, quickly they did move, because the regulations were laid on, I think, 30th December, and they come into force next Monday.

What I want to do is to ask my noble friend just what were the applications that caused this urgency and these problems, because if there is any question about the safety of the public who resort to an exhibition of video material then I think we should know what is the reason for a relaxation of regulations that have been in force, so far as I know satisfactorily, for some time. Furthermore, where did these regulations come from? What sort of premises are involved? Such research as I have been able to make does not indicate that there has been a spate of applications to district councils in the provinces. I assume, therefore, that it must essentially be a London problem.

Reading the letter of consultation, I see that the whole of the safety regulations are under consideration and are expected to be consolidated, with revisions no doubt, later on this year. I hope that my noble friend can confirm this. I have no objection to an experiment, such as is contained in the regulations which are now the subject of this Motion, provided that the proper lessons are going to be learned from it and are going to be applied when it comes to the consolidation.

I hope that my noble friend will, first, be able to tell me that in the light of the urgency which has been mentioned, and in the light of the very short period for consultation which was allowed, strenuous steps will be taken by the Home Office to see what in fact happens as a result of these regulations. What sort of applications are going to be made; what sort of applications are going to be accepted and licences issued; when the premises come to be inspected have they, indeed, fulfilled the claims of the applicants when they sought their licences; and what other lessons are to be learned from the whole process of implementing these new safety regulations?

I would seek to convince my noble friend that, unless some active steps are taken to ensure that the local authorities concerned provide the Home Office with the necessary information about these matters, the Home Office will not be able to see whether the provisions of these regulations have turned out to be satisfactory. The reason for this is that, if the regulations are to be consolidated this year. there will be no time for the courts, definitively or comprehensively, to look at some of the relaxations that are made in the safety requirements contained in the old regulations. There simply will not be time for these matters to be tested —ertainly not in a court of record. Therefore, the Government will not know unless they take steps now, starting on Monday. to find out.

I am surprised at one, at least, of the relaxations that have been made. I hasten to say that I am not complaining if the matter is confined to video, to a relaxation in relation to 16mm film, which is plainly irrelevant, or to a relaxation in connection with the rewinding of films and the projection rooms in which films (if they are truly films) would obviously have to be worked. These must be sensible. But I cannot believe that they are the sole reason why these relaxations have been made.

As the law stands at the moment, if you provide a cinematograph exhibition, which is now to be defined as including a video exhibition, for not more than three days in any one week, in an auditorium where not more than 400 people may be seated, you receive a relaxation, in any event, in relation to these matters. That is quite a large building. with quite frequent use. One can only assume that applicants have come forward who want to use their premises for more than three days a week and where there are possibilities that more than 400 people may be seated, and that for these reasons they wish to have a relaxation. The result is that Regulation 37 is being removed in the case of a video show. It means that the provision in Regulation 37 is withdrawn. This is a regulation which provides for fixed seating where there are to be more than 250 people in the audience.

I am not sure that these regulations are entirely suitable for the modern era. I do not know exactly how a video show in a discothèque or in one of the bars in a public house really fits in with the phraseology of these 1955 regulations, most of which date a great deal further back than that. But it is far from clear to me, on the basis of the material which I have seen, that there is a prima facie case for the relaxation of fixed seating if there are to be between 250 and 400 people seated in one part of a building, be it a disco or a public house bar, or whatever it may be. It is the cinematograph exhibition and the premises in which it is held that are to be licensed.

What are these places that have required this relaxation? And is there any chance that my noble friend is going to have a relaxation on the safety side of some of the clubs where films, now to be censored or to be subject to some form of regulation, have previously been shown on video and which were not previously caught by licensing but which will in fact have very much the same character as an ordinary cinema, save for the substitution of video tapes for the previous films? If so, we have a situation where there may be between 250 and 400 people seated in what would otherwise be described as a cinema and not subject to fixed seating at all. I want to know what are these places which have caused this urgent reaction by the Home Office to the applications of the various people to whom I have referred.

There is a further point. I have referred to my doubts about the applicability of some of the phraseology in the existing regulations to modern exhibitions of video tapes in various places. It is not made easier by the drafting of these regulations. If you have a video exhibition for which you are making an application for a licence and you look at the second of the regulations which are now the subject of this short debate, you find that the special dispensation which is being given applies where there is going to be a video exhibition, whether or not certain other provisions apply.

One of those provisions plainly applies to films and television exhibitions. I wonder whether the ordinary local authority adviser, on receiving an application for an exhibition, is going clearly to understand what it is that it is intended to deal with. For instance—my noble friend will. I am sure, be able to help me on this—is he going to be able to interpret these regulations so as to say that if a video exhibition is to be provided in the bar on Monday and on Thursday but a television exhibition is to be provided on Tuesday, Wednesday, Friday and Saturday, the only requirements that are going to have to be fulfilled are those relaxed ones relating to the video, and that therefore people who were showing films and television and were previously caught by the more stringent rules will find, in relation to those exhibitions, that they are relaxed? I suggest to my noble friend that there is a strong case for a circular explaining the exact extent of this relaxation to be sent round to the licensing authorities, who are the district councils outside London (where it is the GLC) and who may not have either the number of applications or the depth of experience readily to understand exactly what it is they are going to do.

I hope that my noble friend will be able to answer these matters. The definition which he and his advisers have chosen is one which has abandoned what one would have thought was a fairly generous principle of not more than three days a week and substituted for it—I think only in relation to video, though I need to be reassured about this—a definition which says that this is to take place in premises where it is subsidiary or incidental to other uses. That is going to be as long as a piece of string. It is one of those definitions which has exercised the courts from time immemorial, or at any rate since there was statute law, because it is a definition which depends upon the facts of the case and upon the degree. There is room for much argument about the role which the bar plays in the corner of the room. Is it the primary purpose for which people are being attracted into that room? Or is the primary purpose the cinematograph exhibition, be it video or whatever it may be?

This is where a very loose and very flexible definition has been introduced in place of one which was quite clear and related to three days a week. That is the sort of thing which needs to be looked at with very great care when we are relaxing something as important as the safety of people who resort to public places that advertise video or other shows and invite them to pay their money and come in. Their safety must not be jeopardised by something which is hastily introduced, even if for a good cause, let alone something which is not subsequently properly looked at and monitored to see how it works. I beg to move.

Moved, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that the Regulations (S.I. 1982/1856) be annulled.—(Viscount Colville of Culross.)

Lord Birkett

My Lords. I rise very briefly to support the noble Viscount in his Motion. Your Lordships will recall that in the debate last summer to which the noble Viscount referred a great deal of attention was paid by many of your Lordships in all parts of the House to the question of fish that might slip through the various nets which were being invented at the time. I fear that there is a particular fish which will slip through this one, if we are not careful. The noble Viscount has already referred to it. It is quite a simple matter. It is the matter of public houses.

The Home Office letter of 1st December to which the noble Viscount referred very properly states that there are people for whom these relaxations are important and necessary. It would, I imagine, be unthinkable to impose upon a pub legislation demanding fixed seating and no standing in the auditorium. The very nature of the place is that it has no fixed seating and that everybody stands in the auditorium. However, it then goes on to say, very properly: On the other hand, if a public house set aside a back room for the showing of films, and the consumption of alcohol was merely a subsidiary activity, we believe that the benefit of the relaxations would not and should not be obtained and the full rigour of the safety regulations would apply". I am sure that that is something with which we would all agree. What worries me, however, is that that sentence is preceded by the words: The precise application of the amending regulations would be a matter for the courts to determine". Of course it would, but it is hardly a sentence which fills one with confidence. The point of legislation, surely, is to make absolutely certain that there can be no equivocation at all about the way courts decide. The clearer it is the less chance there is of such things slipping through the net. The distinction I am making, although it is in a very specific case, is a very important one: that the back room showing, which is plainly a cinema in disguise, whether it is showing video or whatever else, should not escape the regulations in the way I am sure we all agree that the pub itself should. If the Government can find a way of making sure that the intentions which I know they have in mind will stick, I shall be very happy to support them. In the meantime, I am equally happy to support the noble Viscount in his Motion.

Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede

My Lords, may I thank the noble Viscount. Lord Colville of Culross, for moving this Prayer and for explaining the purpose of these regulations. When one has an eminent lawyer explaining the purpose of the regulations and saying that they are not entirely straightforward and clear, one is immediately filled with doubt as to whether in fact the regulations are as clearly drawn as they should be, and whether there is this need for urgent action; that these particular regulations should come into force on 31st January. I, as other noble Lords, await with very great interest for the reply which the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, will be making to this debate. I would have thought that if these regulations are not as clear cut as they should be there will be some merit in the Government considering whether it might be opportune and profitable to withdraw the regulations at this time and consider whether they can be made in as concise a form as would appear to be necessary from the remarks of the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross.

We have also heard from the noble Lord, Lord Birkett, who will have very great responsibilities for the administration of these regulations. If he is worried about the premises which will slip through these regulations and is concerned that a backroom showing of video tapes will escape from these regulations, then I am sure that this is something about which the Government should be very concerned.

I am sure that the major concern of all of your Lordships will be the question of safety; that safety is something in which we as a nation and as a city can take particular pride in respect of the regulations which we have not only in this field but in other fields as well, so that visitors to this country who visit pubs and what-have-you will feel that the safety regulations are good and that they are less likely to have their safety threatened here than elsewhere.

I am sure that everything should be done to ensure that the regulations are properly promulgated to ensure that that safety is maintained. But if the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, supported by the noble Lord, Lord Birkett, is right and the regulations as they stand are imprecise, there would be merit in the Government looking at them again.

9.3 p.m.

Lord Glenarthur

My Lords, the Government are glad to have this opportunity to debate these regulations. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross, for the way in which he has explained the points he has raised. Although these regulations have been generally welcomed they have, it is true, attracted strong opposition from one quarter—namely, the organisations representing the cinema industry. In the Government's view, that opposition is ill-founded for reasons which I shall shortly explain.

Before doing so, however, perhaps I could first convey to your Lordships the regret of my noble friend Lord Elton that he is unable, because of another commitment, to take part in this debate. I can assure my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross that he will study most carefully in Hansard what my noble friend has said. Secondly, and on a more personal note, I should like to thank my noble friend for his courtesy in giving the Home Office and myself advance notice of the points he intended to raise tonight.

These regulations have their origins in the changes to the Cinematograph Acts 1909–1952 which were effected by the Cinematograph (Amendment) Act 1982. The legislation applying to cinematograph exhibitions is complicated, and it may be helpful if I were to begin by reminding the House of what the 1982 Act was designed to achieve. Over the years, and in the light of technological developments such as the arrival of video, it became apparent that there were two serious loopholes in the legislation that were causing concern. The first was that the definition of "cinematograph exhibition" in the 1952 Act was not sufficiently wide-ranging and, in particular, did not encompass exhibitions given by means of video. The second, and more damaging, loophole was that the legislation enabled a variety of commercial cinema clubs to evade the censorship and safety controls by claiming not to admit the public.

The Cinematograph (Amendment) Act 1982, which was introduced as a Private Member's Bill by my honourable friend the Member for Fareham, and ably piloted through this House by my noble friend, sought to close both those loopholes. By introducing a private gain test it brought within the scope of the cinematograph licensing procedure, and hence the controls on censorship and safety, the commercial cinema clubs to which I have referred. By amending the definition of "cinematograph exhibition" it also closed the loophole presented by the use of video. These two purposes were achieved by Sections 1 and 2 of the Act. Section 1 amends the definition of "cinematograph exhibition" and has the effect of requiring premises in which video exhibitions are given to be licensed for the purpose unless one of the exemptions in the Cinematograph Acts 1909 and 1952 apply. Section 2 then excludes from the exemptions in the 1909 and 1952 Act exhibitions which are given for "private gain" as defined in the 1982 Act.

The 1982 Act was concerned both with censorship and with safety. But tonight our principal interest is in safety. Safety standards for cinematograph exhibitions are laid down in the Cinematograph (Safety) Regulations 1955, as amended. The regulations apply to all cinemas and cinematograph exhibitions, with certain exceptions in favour of non-commercial exhibitions. They are divided into parts, and Parts I and III are mutually exclusive. Part III contains a less stringent code and applies to such premises as village halls, where exhibitions are put on occasionally. Part I of the regulations applies in all cases other than those which fall within the scope of Part III.

With regard to the first purpose of the 1982 Act—that is to say, controlling commercial cinema clubs—the safety standards embodied in Part I of the 1955 regulations, which were prepared with conventional public cinemas in mind, would seem entirely appropriate, and if a commercial cinema club could not achieve those standards, then it would be right that a licence should be refused and the club required to close until such time as the requisite standards could be met.

The second purpose of the Act, that of closing the loophole presented by the use of video, gives rise to greater difficulty from the point of view of safety requirements because it brings within the scope of the licensing procedure, and hence the 1955 regulations, a variety of premises, very different from conventional cinemas and cinema clubs, where exhibitions are given by means of video, and where very often the exhibition is incidental or subsidiary to some other form of entertainment or activity. These premises might include certain public houses, nightclubs, multipurpose community halls, discotheques and even amusement arcades.

If these premises put on cinematograph exhibitions for private gain they have to comply with the 1955 regulations, Part I or Part III as appropriate. As I have already explained, however, the regulations were drawn up mainly with conventional cinemas in mind and some of their requirements are inappropriate in the case of premises such as public houses. In any case, public houses and discotheques are already subject to fire precautions controls, whether under the Fire Precautions Act 1971 or under other licensing arrangements or indeed both. and it is unnecessary to apply a more stringent set of controls to them. This is a view which is held by the fire authorities. It was accordingly to find a way through these difficulties that the present regulations came to be drafted.

A review of the 1955 regulations has been in progress for a number of years, and the Home Office had originally hoped to deal with this problem in the context of that review, which is expected to be brought to a conclusion in the latter part of the year. I can confirm to my noble friend Lord Colville and to the noble Lord. Lord Birkett, that it is bound up to some extent with the timetable for a further consolidation measure which the Government in the past indicated they hoped to produce in due course. I am sure this will come about.

Following the coming into force of the Cinematograph (Amendment) Act 1982 on 13th October, however, it was represented to the Home Office by the Greater London Council, the licensing authorities, and, as my noble friend said, the manufacturers of video juke-boxes (in the technology of which I gather we lead the world) and the brewery interests that the problem was a good deal more urgent than that, and that unless the safety requirements of the regulations were straightaway relaxed they would not be able to grant licences to certain premises for the showing of films, despite the fact that fire precaution measures were judged to be quite satisfactory in relation to the principal use to which the premises were put.

Viscount Colville of Culross

My Lords, if I may interrupt my noble friend for one moment, does he mean films or does he mean videos?

Lord Glenarthur

We are talking about videos, my Lords.

Viscount Colville of Culross

My Lords, my noble friend said films.

Lord Glenarthur

They would not be able to grant licences, my Lords, to certain premises for the showing of films, despite the fact that fire precaution measures were judged to be quite satisfactory in relation to the principal use to which the premises were put. These representations were very carefully considered by the Home Office. In the light of them it was concluded that the problem was indeed an urgent one, and that the way to deal with it was to amend the 1955 regulations so as to prevent their full rigour from applying in the case of premises where the exhibition is given by means of video and where it is incidental or subsidiary to some other form of entertainment or activity.

At this point I should perhaps say a little more about the 1955 regulations. The requirements imposed in Part I are extensive and indeed onerous. Detailed requirements are made, among other things, in respect of the number, type and location of exits, seats which have to be securely fixed to the floor, persons who may be allowed to stand in the auditorium, numbers of staff to be on duty, general fire precautions and the provision of primary and safety lighting. However, Part III of the regulations provides for fewer and less rigorous safety measures to apply in connection with cinematograph exhibitions in premises used only occasionally, that is, on not more than three days in any week in the current calendar year. It was thought that the simplest way of accomplishing the purpose desired would be to provide that where cinematograph exhibitions are given by means of video in premises, or part of premises, which at the time are also used for another purpose or purposes to which the giving of the exhibition is subsidiary or incidental, then the premises should be treated for the purposes of the 1955 regulations as premises used occasionally, despite the fact that they do not qualify as such on grounds of frequency, and the provisions of Part III of the regulations (with certain exceptions) should apply accordingly.

The effect of the amending regulations would be that certain minimum requirements relating to exits, staff to deal with emergencies, adequate fire precautions and lighting to enable people to see their way out of the premises in case of emergency would still apply, but there would he no requirements for fixed seating and no restriction on standing in the "auditorium". It is thought that the standard of safety thereby required will be quite sufficient for the premises concerned, as well as being broadly equivalent to the standard which already applies in premises licensed for music and dancing or for the sale of liquor.

Against that background, perhaps I could now come on to the specific points raised by my noble friend. First of all, he sought a general assurance that if the amendment regulations are found to give rise to any difficulties in practice, the points of difficulty will be dealt with in the revised set of regulations which are currently in preparation. I am happy to give that assurance on behalf of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State. The present regulations are regarded as an interim measure, pending the results of the thoroughgoing review of the 1955 regulations to which I have already referred, and when we come to circulate the revised 1955 regulations for comment, we shall incorporate the substance of the amendment regulations in them and ask to be informed of any difficulties to which they have given rise. Any necessary refinements can then he accommodated in the final version of the revised regulations.

My noble friend's next point concerned the basis on which it is to be established whether an exhibition is incidental or subsidiary to other purposes for which the premises are used. Under the procedures embodied in the Cinematograph Acts the decision whether to grant a cinematograph licence rests with the appropriate licensing authority (the district council or Greater London Council), advised by the local fire authority on fire safety aspects. It is similarly mainly for the licensing authority to enforce the requirements of the safety regulations, again advised and assisted by the local fire authority. Perhaps one of the best ways of answering my noble friend's point would be to take a practical example. If a particular public house wanted to advertise and show video films in the main bar, and it was clear from the facts supplied that the film show was incidental to the main use of the bar as a gathering place for drinking, then the licensing authority in granting a licence would direct the licensee's attention to the provisions of the amending regulations. The licensee would then have to comply with those provisions, and if on subsequent inspection, whether by the licensing or by the fire authority, he was found not to be doing so, he would be liable to prosecution.

Unless it came to a prosecution—and this is a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Birkett—the courts would thus not be directly involved in the determination of whether an exhibition was incidental or subsidiary to another form of entertainment or activity; this would be a matter for the licensing authority alone to determine, in the light of the facts presented to them. Guidance to licensing authorities on the effect of the new regulations will, however, he available from the Home Office, in the form of an explanatory circular, which I think is to be issued tomorrow, the 27th January.

Turning to my noble friend's next point, he was concerned to know the reason for the exclusion of Regulation 37. Regulation 37 has two paragraphs. The first provides that where the audience exceeds 250 persons all seats in the auditorium shall, with the exception of certain boxes, be either securely fixed to the floor or battened together in lengths of not less than four or more than 12. This requirement would not affect most public houses, but it would affect some larger ones where very substantial numbers of people may be present in a bar where a video film is being shown as an incidental form of entertainment. It would also affect discothèques which show films incidentally to music and dancing. One cannot imagine a lot of fixed seats in discothèques. Many more than 250 people may be present in a discothèque, and to require fixed seating would be absurd having regard to the principal use to which the premises are being put. (It is certainly not required for that principal use; the main safety requirement for music and dancing entertainments is that there should be safe and ample means of escape from the premises.)

The second paragraph of Regulation 37 provides for Regulation 3 to apply to an occasional exhibition, with the exception of paragraph (2) of that regulation. The effect is that premises to which Part III applies must have seats so arranged as to allow free access to exits; no sitting may be allowed during a film show except in the seats provided; no standing may be allowed except in such places and within such numbers as may be specified by the licensing authority; where standing is permitted, sufficient room must be left in the gangway to allow other people easily to pass along it; and all gangways must be kept free from obstructions. Although in some respects those requirements would merely duplicate requirements already imposed on premises such as public houses and discotheques, it was felt that the requirements relating to standing were not fully appropriate to the circumstances applying in public houses and discothèques and might also present difficulty to licensing authorities. This was accordingly another reason for the exclusion of Regulation 37.

Finally, I come to my noble friend's point about the drafting of Regulation 35(2). This paragraph provides that where the conditions mentioned in subparagraph (d) are satisfied, that is, the exhibition is given by means of video and, while it is being given, the premises are used for another purpose to which the giving of the exhibition is incidental or subsidiary, then Part III of the regulations is to appply (with certain exceptions), regardless of whether any of subparagraphs (a), (b) and (c) of Regulation 35 also applies. My noble friend asks what would be the effect of the amending regulations in a case where a video show was given on one day of the week, and a film or television show on other days. I am advised that a single licence would be required for the premises but different requirements of the regulations would apply from day to day depending on the means used for the exhibition and the circumstances in which it was given. I hope that that answers the point that he raised.

Thus, if the exhibition was by film or television and was not an exempt exhibition, the provisions of Part I or Part III of the regulations would apply in their entirety. If the exhibition was by means of video, and was the principal entertainment on offer, for example, in a back room set aside as a video lounge, then again the provisions of Part I or Part III would apply in their entirety, depending on the frequency with which such exhibitions were held. If, however, the conditions of the new sub-paragraph 35(1)(d) were satisfied, then Regulation 35(2) would operate to apply the provisions of Part III, with certain exceptions, regardless of frequency. Against that background, I am able to give my noble friend the assurance he seeks, that there should be no relaxation in safety standards in the case of film or television exhibitions as a result of these regulations.

It has been claimed by organisations representing the cinema industry that these amending regulations, as well as having been rushed through without time for proper consultation, undermine the whole purpose and philosophy of the 1982 Act, which sought to expose all premises where cinematograph exhibitions are given on a commercial basis, to the full panoply of controls relating to censorship and particularly to safety. I hope I have said enough—and I have certainly said it at length—to indicate that that claim is ill-founded. The Government do accept that the regulations have been prepared against a very short timetable, and we certainly regret any inconvenience that may have been caused by this; but I hope I have adequately explained the reasons for the Government's haste, which was dictated by the urgency of the representations we had received.

So far as the broader philosophy of the 1982 Act is concerned, we do not accept that this has been undermined in any way. These regulations are not concerned with video exhibitions in general; we are not seeking to provide a relaxed safety règime wherever video is used. We are concerned here only with a narrow class of video exhibitions: those that are given in premises which, at the time, are being used for another purpose to which the video show is incidental or subsidiary. There is no reason of safety why, for example, a public house putting on regular video exhibitions in the main bar as an accompaniment to drinking and conversation should have to comply with the full rigour of Part I of the 1955 regulations. Apart from these regulations, which I commend to the House tonight, that would be the effect of that law.

Viscount Colville of Culross

My Lords, I shall be very brief, but I plainly must thank my noble friend for having researched this matter with some care. I think that my concern has not been shown to be wholly unjustified. I speak for nobody but myself. I wish to make certain that the result of the Bill that I conducted through this House was not going to lead to very great practical difficlties. Anybody listening to the speech of my noble friend will wish the very greatest of luck to the licensing authorities as they come to interpret this legislation in accordance with the facts of some of the applications that may be made to them. The only comfort that I have is what he said about considering the practical results.

I should like to make one point. I do not accept that one can rely on licensing under other legislation. If a public house is going to show films or television as a matter of public admission, it will have to comply with the justices' licence, of course, and it will also have to comply with the full rigours of at least Part III of the 1955 regulations. This appears to be standard procedure. It has been perfectly satisfactory so far; nobody has ever said that it was unfair. Only when it shows video, perhaps on a different day of the week, will it have a relaxation.

In those circumstances I cannot see any justification for relying solely upon the justices' licence. The same would apply in a disco if you sought to rely upon the music and dancing licence. No; what I take comfort in is that the Home Office recognises that this is experimental. It recognises, despite the fact that my noble friend said "film"—and so does the letter of consultation—that the intention is that these regulations shall not relate to films, that this will be made clear to the local authorities which are licensing these places, and that we shall stick strictly to what was in the Act, which was a very limited measure but dealt with important matters.

Upon the understanding that he has given me, that the Home Office will seek to find out information about the applications and the enforcement of the licences once they are issued, will consult upon the practicality of this form of relaxation and will incorporate any amendments that may be necessary in the light of experience in the consolidating regulations that will come quite soon before Parliament, I am content to leave it for this evening. However, I believe that we should be very vigilant about this for the sort of reasons that the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, mentioned; that anything to do with safety of the public when they are invited to go to an exhibition of this sort is something that we are bound to take very seriously indeed. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw this Motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.