Video Recordings Bill

HL Deb 14 June 1984 vol 452 cc1337-69

9.2 p.m.

Further considered on Report.

Clause 12 [Supply or possession of video recording on certain premises]:

The Deputy Speaker (Earl Cathcart)

My Lords, in calling Amendment No. 30, I should remind your Lordships that the debate upon it was adjourned at the previous sitting pursuant to Standing Order No. 55. Unless, therefore, any noble Lord wishes to contribute to the debate, I shall now put the Question.

Debate on Amendment No. 30 resumed:

Page 8, line 36, at end insert ("or a video shop for which a licence is in force under this Act").

Lord Houghton of Sowerby

My Lords, I hope that the House will forgive me for making a few final submissions to the House on this amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Nugent, was kind enough to reply in some detail to the amendment, which is accompanied by the schedule later in the Bill, and I want quite shortly to put to the House considerations in my mind about the position we have now reached on this amendment.

I think that acceptance of the idea of specially licensed video shops for the supply of 18R material was surely implicit in the original Bill itself. That Bill was given an unopposed Second Reading in another Place. Everybody knew about sex shops, but the Bill made no mention of them and no debate or decision took place in the Standing Committee to put sex shops into the Bill. It was at the very last stage on that last day, 16th March, that the words "licensed sex shops" came into the Bill at all.

Whatever the explanation of that surprising state of affairs in another place, of one thing I am quite sure; that is, that the consequences of the decision taken could not have been fully appreciated and this is really my submission to the House. Members in another place could not have known what, apparently, the Home Office themselves did not know; namely, how many, how few and how unevenly scattered about the country sex shops are. I have given the best estimate available from trade sources which is that there are about 100 in England and Wales, none in Scotland and none in some quite extensive areas in the rest of the country.

This sweeping curtailment of the convenience of supply to adult consumers of this classification of recordings is severity, if not actual malice. It is unfair to the public and unfair to suppliers as well. The effect of this dramatic step is not really understood yet, and I was hoping that wiser and less punitive counsels would prevail here.

The sponsors of the Bill cannot object to what they themselves put in the Bill originally, and it stayed in the Bill throughout the whole time of the Committee stage in another place. So what objection to this amendment and to the schedule there can be must either be the practical proposals in the schedule, or the idea that the Bill, as it stands now, represents some compromise or consensus reached in the last hours of the Bill in another place.

But even consensus politics should be open to scrutiny in this House. On the various provisions and conditions in the schedule there is room for accommodation, and the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, made eight points of criticism of the provisions of the schedule to this amendment. I am ready to deal with them all in a co-operative spirit, but there is no point in taking up the time of the House in fruitless discussion of the detail, if the main purpose of the amendment is unacceptable on any terms whatsoever. I hope that we are not deceiving ourselves. May we be told quite frankly: is there any hope of reaching agreement on this amendment, if the eight points of difficulty raised by the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, can be met or overcome?

I want to make it clear that I do not want to block this Bill. I want to improve it and make it a better and a fairer Bill than it is at present. This is not a wrecking amendment. It is what was in the Bill to start with and it remained there all through. It does not upset any balances in the Bill, beyond a reasonable extension of the rights of the adult citizen to get what he or she wants and may lawfully obtain.

Can we have the truth about this? If the truth is that the sponsors and the Government want to keep to the timetable imposed on this Bill by the Private Member's Bill procedure and are resisting all amendments, in the meantime. which might give rise to a debate in another place, I would submit to them respectfully that this is their chosen instrument for carrying out their promise to legislate. I believe that they chose wrongly, but it is possible for the Government to reverse the course they have taken, if they so wish. There are precedents for Government giving extra time in another place for the consideration of the final stages of a Bill which represents a body of opinion on a matter of public concern. There is no reason, except doctrinaire observance of the conventions, why the Government should not get this Bill in their own time and should not be bound by the self-imposed timetable of the Private Member's Bill procedure.

I hope, therefore, that at this hour we can be candid about it. I am waiting to hear, especially from the Minister, if he feels so disposed, of any gesture which can be made from the Benches opposite to try to remedy this dramatic and, in my opinion, grossly unfair curtailment of the opportunities for the procurement of a lawful product by adult citizens who want it. This is a serious blemish on the Bill as it stands. I renew my support for Amendment No. 30. I am ready to withdraw it, if the awaited sign is given. I cannot say more than that.

I hope that some word will be said about where we are on this Bill. There are other amendments to follow which are of some importance, though they are not so important, perhaps, as this amendment. Are we merely knocking our heads against a brick wall? Are the Government adamant that they are not prepared to concede anything which may give rise to debate in another place when the Bill is returned to them? Or is the House prepared, however modestly, to exercise its revising role and have a look at what is proposed in the Bill, especially at the slightly more liberal approach to the opportunity for acquisition of this product, for which the amendment provides. I beg to move.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for restating the arguments so fairly and succinctly. For my part, I said last week all that I wished to say on the issue and I do not propose to repeat it, but I feel that I must take the first opportunity to say something about what has happened since last week. In The Times of last Saturday there was a report, clearly inspired by discussions with noble Lords, which said: Government ministers in the Lords are to attempt to crush efforts by a Labour peer to block legislation controlling the distribution of video recordings. Lord Houghton of Sowerby, who opposes the Video Recordings Bill on civil liberties grounds, last Wednesday night upset the Government's hopes to get it through its report stage in one sitting, when he kept the House talking into the early hours and then forced a division at a time when there was not a quorum of 30 peers.". I do not know who gave that information to the political reporter of The Times, but as far as I am concerned that is a gross distortion of the events of last Wednesday night and Thursday morning.

In the course of that debate there was a very long debate, initiated by the noble Lord, Lord Howard of Henderskelfe, on the exemption of video programmes which had already been approved by the BBC and the IBA. It was a very properly and very effectively initiated debate. There was also a debate which lasted for 30 minutes, mainly initiated by my noble friend Lord Mishcon, on the export of video works. Again that debate was very properly initiated and very effectively debated. I initiated a debate which took some time, though I cannot quite tell from Hansard the number of minutes it lasted, on the ages which would be used in the classification system.

The point I am trying to make is that many noble Lords took part in the debate and that it is quite wrong for The Times to put all of this on to my noble friend Lord Houghton of Sowerby. It is also quite wrong that anybody should suggest such a thing to the political reporter of The Times. It can only have come from somebody in this House. I want to register my support for my noble friend and my distaste at the way in which the press is being used to point the finger at him for what is a perfectly proper exercise of his responsibilities as a Member of this House.

I want to say one more thing before I sit down. I have been personally attacked by a number of noble Lords for supporting my noble friend and for pursuing the matter of a Division in the early hours of the morning. I have indicated already that I thought the debate was perfectly proper. I now want to indicate that I think pursuing a Division was also perfectly proper. The strictures placed upon us by my noble friend on the Front Bench, among others, were not proper. I am sorry—I will withdraw that remark; it was not that they were improper but that they were misguided, I would prefer to say.

The procedure that has been adopted in respect of this major issue of civil liberties has been for a Private Member's Bill from another place to come here; for it to be sponsored and to be supported on numerous occasions by the Government. It cannot be improper for noble Lords to continue to question those important issues of public concern whenever and however they feel that they should.

If this Bill is a matter of such importance to noble Lords and to the Government, then I suggest that under the rules of this House it is proper for those who propose this Bill to see to it that they have a quorum of 30 Peers prepared to go into the Division Lobbies to support this legislation. If they had not done so, how could it be said that the Opposition carrying through a Division was somehow contrary to the spirit of the rules of this House? Nobody has suggested that it was contrary to the letter of the rules of this House.

I firmly reject the accusations which have been made to me personally and particularly those accusations which have been made to my noble friend. If this matter is of such importance that it proceeds through this House by means of a Private Member's Bill, then surely it is not unreasonable to see to it that 30 Members out of more than 1,000 Members of your Lordships' House should be in attendance to see this legislation through and to support its terms.

9.15 p.m.

Lord Nugent of Guildford

My Lords, I believe that I should ask for the leave of the House as I have already spoken to this amendment.

Noble Lords

No!

Lord Nugent of Guildford

I shall be pleased to answer briefly the arguments of the noble Lord. Lord Houghton, in reply to the original debate we had. I did recognise, as I told him at the time, that his amendments and his new schedule had been carefully considered. I proceeded to go at least a little way to analysing the schedule he proposed, which sought to control the granting of a licence for video shops, which could then trade in 18R video works. I do not propose to trouble the House with a rehearsal of the points I made to the noble Lord on that occasion. No doubt noble Lords will remember them, and they are in any event all on the record.

The fact remains that there are fundamental differences between the system of control which the noble Lord proposes in his schedule compared with the schedule to the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982, which controls the licensing of sex shops and to which local authorities throughout the country agreed. Noble Lords will remember that local authorities, when asked to assume that responsibility, were most insistent upon the conditions under which they were prepared to do so.

The noble Lord's schedule was a very long way from that legislation. It would need fundamental amendment and a great deal of negotiation with local authorities before agreement could possibly be obtained. At the end of it, I am quite certain that the noble Lord would not achieve a figure of 1,500 or 2,500 licensed outlets—or anything like it—because local authorities simply would not be willing. We are dealing with a fundamental point here. The idea is all right but the practice is a very long way from being possible.

Another point that I should like to make to the noble Lord, Lord Houghton—or it ought to come from my noble friend, because we have been locked together for so long debating these matters—is that in considering the number of outlets, the noble Lord does have a good point when he argues that the number of sex shops throughout the country is very limited, and that compared with the total number of outlets now for video works it seems diminutive. On the other hand, the number of places at which one can see an 18R film is also very limited. Such a film can be seen only in a film club or in a sex shop, and there are not so many of those about. Not only is there the limitation of the age regulation—for the person to be 18 years of age or more—but there is also the very considerable limitation on the number of places where such films can be seen.

I quite agree that we are going further than that, but we are not straying quite as far as the noble Lord indicated. I feel that I must advise the House that there is not the technical basis for considering the noble Lord's very carefully thought-out amendment. It does not meet the conditions which we all have in mind for this particular outlet.

Before I come to the final point, it is a fact that with enormous difficulty the other place reached a consensus on this difficult matter, and this is the point on which they struck the balance. Those who wanted to exclude R18 material altogether from classification agreed to accept that it should be classified provided outlet was limited to these very tightly regulated sex shops, with all the conditions of physical control which exist to ensure that only adults can get at them. Of course, we are the revising Chamber and it is right for us to offer our views and to send down amendments whenever we think them appropriate, but it would be lunacy, if we want the Bill, to amend this particular point. It would make absolutely certain that the Bill would he lost.

I am quite certain that most of us here, and most Members in the other place, want to see the Bill on the statute book. They believe that classification is necessary. Therefore, I have to say to the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, that while recognising that he has made a very sincere and carefully considered attempt to put forward an alternative it is not possible to say that we could take it away and consider how it might be applied. It simply does not fit. Therefore, I must ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

Lord Mishcon

My Lords, I rise only for one moment to deal with the remarks of my noble friend Lord McIntosh which I am quite sure were extremely well meant. He referred to the strictures for which I am supposed to be responsible on my noble and much respected friend Lord Houghton of Sowerby. If he will do me the courtesy of reading Hansard he will find that there were no strictures. My speech constituted a plea. The plea was unsuccessful, but I do not regret one word of what I then said.

The Deputy Speaker

My Lords, is it your Lordships' pleasure that the amendment be withdrawn.

Lord Houghton of Sowerby

No, my Lords.

On Question, amendment negatived.

9.23 p.m.

Lord Houghton of Sowerby moved Amendment No. 31: Page 9, line 3, after ("enactment") insert ("or a video shop for which a licence is in force under this Act").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, if it is possible for me to do so, I should like to move Amendments Nos. 31 to 37 en bloc. They are all associated amendments.

Amendment No. 32: Page 9, line 10, after ("shop") insert ("or a licensed video shop")

Amendment No. 33: Page 9, line 13, after ("shop") insert ("or such a video shop")

Amendment No. 34: Page 9, line 23, after ("enactment") insert ("or a video shop for which a licence is in force under this Act")

.4mendment No. 35: Page 9, line 37, after ("shop") insert ("or a licensed video shop")

Amendment No. 36: Page 10, line 1, after ("shops") insert ("or video shops")

Amendment No. 37: Page 10, line 3, at end insert ("or being video shops for which licences are in force under this Act")

I cannot withdraw these amendments because I feel that they are all part of the package which I have presented and, therefore, I respectfully ask that the House should deal with them. Therefore, if it is in order, I move Amendments Nos. 31 to 37 inclusive.

Noble Lords

And Amendment No. 38.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Elton)

My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether he includes Amendment No. 38 in the package, too?

Lord Houghton of Sowerby

Yes, my Lords, I am prepared to do that. I thought that it was probably not closely enough identifiable with the other amendments. I thought that I might be out of order in trying to associate Amendment No. 38 with the others. However, if it is the wish of the House I certainly do so.

Amendment No. 38: Page 10, line 4, at end insert— ("( ) In this section "video shop" means any premises used for a business which consists to a significant degree of selling, hiring, exchanging, lending, displaying or demonstrating video recordings. ( ) A video shop is licensed for the purposes of this Act if a licence in respect of such a shop is issued pursuant to the provisions of the Schedule to this Act.")

Amendment No. 51: After Clause 23, insert the following Schedule—

("SCHEDULE

LICENSING OF VIDEO SHOPS

Miscellaneous Definitions

1. In this Schedule— the appropriate authority" means the local authority for the area in which the relevant video shop is located; and the chief officer of police", in relation to any locality, means the chief officer of police for the police area in which the locality is situated.

Grant, renewal and transfer of licences for video shops

2. Subject to paragraph 6(1) below, the appropriate authority may grant to any applicant, and from time to time renew, a licence under this Schedule for the use of any premises as a video shop for the purposes of this Act on such terms and conditions and subject to such restrictions as may be so specified.

3.—(1) Subject to paragraphs 5 and 17 below, any licence under this Schedule shall, unless previously cancelled under paragraph 10 or revoked under paragraph 11(1) below, remain in force for one year.

(2) Where a licence under this Schedule has been granted to any person, the appropriate authority may, if they think fit, transfer that licence to any other person on the application of that other person.

4.—(1) An application for the grant, renewal or transfer of a licence under this Schedule shall be made in writing to the appropriate authority.

(2) An application made otherwise than by or on behalf of a body corporate or an unincorporated body shat) state—

1. (a) the full name of the applicant;
2. (b) his permanent address; and
3. (c) his age.

(3) An application made by a body corporate or an unincorporated body shall state—

1. (a) the full name of the body:
2. (b) the address of its registered or principal office; and
3. (c) the full names and private addresses of the directors or other persons responsible for its management.

(4) An application shall state the full address of the premises.

(5) Every application shall contain such particulars as the appropriate authority may reasonably require in addition to any particulars required under sub-paragraphs (2) to (4) above.

(6) An applicant for the grant, renewal or transfer of a licence under this Schedule shall give public notice of the application.

(7) Notice shall in all cases be given by publishing an advertisement in a local newspaper circulating in the appropriate authority's area.

(8) The publication shall not be later than 7 days after the date of the application.

(9) Notice of the application shall in addition be displayed for 21 days beginning with the date of the application on or near the premises and in a place where the notice can conveniently be read by the public.

(10) Every notice under this paragraph shall identify the premises.

(11) Subject to sub-paragraph (10) above, a notice under this paragraph shall be in such form as the appropriate authority may prescribe.

(12) An applicant for the grant, renewal or transfer of a licence under this Schedule shall, not later than 7 days after the date of the application, send a copy of the application to the chief officer of police.

(13) Any person objecting to an application for the grant, renewal or transfer of a licence under this Schedule shall give notice in writing of his objection to the appropriate authority stating in general terms the grounds of the objection, not later than 28 days after the date of application.

(14) Where the appropriate authority receive notice of any objection under sub-paragraph (13) above, the authority shall, before considering the application, give notice in writing of the general terms of the objection to the applicant.

(15) The appropriate authority shall not without the consent of the person making the objection reveal his name or address to the applicant.

(16) In considering any application for the grant, renewal or transfer of a licence the appropriate authority shall have regard to any observation submitted to them by the chief officer of police and any objections of which notice has been sent to them under sub-paragraph (13) above.

(17) The appropriate authority shall give an opportunity of appearing before and of being heard by a committee or subcommittee of the authority—

1. (a) before refusing to grant a licence, to the applicant;
2. (b) before refusing to renew a licence, to the holder; and
3. (c) before refusing to transfer a licence, to the holder and the person to whom he desires that it shall be transferred.

(18) Where the appropriate authority refuse to grant, renew or transfer a licence, they shall, if required to do so by the applicant or holder of the licence, give him a statement in writing of the reasons for their decisions within 7 days of his requiring them to do so.

5.—(1) Where, before the date of expiry of a licence, an application has been made for its renewal, it shall be deemed to remain in force notwithstanding that the date has passed until the withdrawal of the application or its determination by the appropriate authority.

(2) Where, before the date of expiry of a licence, an application has been made for its transfer, it shall be deemed to remain in force with any necessary modifications until the withdrawal of the application or its determination, notwithstanding that the date has passed or that the person to whom the licence is to be transferred if the application is granted is carrying on the business of the video shop.

Refusal of licences

6.—(1) A licence under this Schedule shall not be granted—

1. (a) to a person under the age of 18; or
2. (b) to a person who is for the time being disqualified under paragraph 11(3) below; or
3. (c) to a person who has, within a period of 12 months immediately preceding the date when the application was made, been refused the grant or renewal of a licence for the premises in respect of which the application is made, unless the refusal has been reversed on appeal.

(2) Subject to paragraph 17 below, the appropriate authority may refuse—

1. (a) an application for the grant or renewal of a licence on one or more of the grounds specified in sub-paragraph (3) below;
2. (b) an application for the transfer of a licence on either or both of the grounds specified in paragraphs (a) and (b) of that sub-paragraph.

(3) The grounds mentioned in sub-paragraph (2) above are—

1. (a) that the applicant is unsuitable to hold the licence by reason of having been convicted of an offence under this Act;
2. (b) that if the licence were to be granted, renewed or transferred the business to which it relates would be managed by or carried on for the benefit of a person, other than the applicant, who would be refused the grant, renewal or transfer of such a licence if he made the application himself; or
3. (c) that the grant or renewal of the licence would be inappropriate having regard to the layout, character or condition of the premises in respect of which the application is made.

Power to prescribe standard conditions

7.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this Schedule, the appropriate authority may make regulations prescribing standard conditions applicable to licences for video shops, that is to say, terms, conditions and restrictions on or subject to which licences under this Schedule are in general to be granted, renewed or transferred by them, in so far as those conditions regulate:

1. (a) displays or advertisements on or in such video shops; and
2. (b) the visibility of the interior of such video shops to passers-by.

(2) Where the appropriate authority have made regulations under sub-paragraph (1) above, every such licence granted, renewed or transferred by them shall be presumed to have been so granted, renewed or transferred subject to any standard conditions applicable to it unless they have been expressly excluded or varied.

(3) Where the appropriate authority have made regulations under sub-paragraph (1) above, they shall, if so requested by any person, supply him with a copy of the regulations on payment of such reasonable fee as the authority may determine.

(4) In any legal proceedings the production of a copy of any regulations made by the appropriate authority under subparagraph (1) above purporting to be certified as a true copy by an officer of the authority authorised to give a certificate for the purposes of this paragraph shall be prima facie evidence of such regulations, and no proof shall be required of the handwriting or official position or authority of any person giving such certificate.

Copies of licences and standard conditions

8.—(l) The holder of a licence under this Schedule shall keep exhibited in a suitable place to be specified in the licence a copy of the licence and any regulations made under paragraph 7(1) above which prescribe standard conditions subject to which the licence is held.

(2) The appropriate authority shall send a copy of any licence granted under this Schedule to the chief officer of police for the area where the video shop is situated.

Transmission and cancellation of licences

9. In the event of the death of the holder of a licence granted under this Schedule, that licence shall be deemed to have been granted to his personal representatives and shall, unless previously revoked, remain in force until the end of the period of 3 months beginning with the death and shall then expire; but the appropriate authority may from time to time, on the application of those representatives, extend or further extend the period of three months if the authority are satisfied that the extension is necessary for the purpose of winding up the deceased's estate and that no other circumstances make it undesirable.

10. The appropriate authority may, at the written request of the holder of a licence, cancel the licence.

Revocation of licences

11 .—(1) The appropriate authority may, after giving the holder of a licence under this Schedule an opportunity of appearing before and being heard by them, at any time revoke the licence—

1. (a) on any ground specified in sub-paragraph (1) of paragraph 6 above; or
2. (b) on either of the grounds specified in sub-paragraph (3)(a) and (b) of that paragraph.

(2) Where a licence is revoked, the appropriate authority shall, if required to do so by the person who held it, give him a statement in writing of the reasons for their decision within 7 days of his requiring them to do so.

(3) Where a licence is revoked, its holder shall be disqualified from holding or obtaining a licence in the area of the appropriate authority for a period of 12 months beginning with the date of revocation.

Variation of licences

12.—(1) The holder of a licence under this Schedule may at any time apply to the appropriate authority for any such variation of the terms, conditions or restrictions on or subject to which the licence is held as may be specified in the application.

(2) The appropriate authority—

1. (a) may make the variation specified in the application; or
2. (b) may make such variations as they think fit; or
3. (c) may refuse the application.

(3) The variations that an authority may make by virtue of sub-paragraph (2)(b) above include, without prejudice to the generality of that sub-paragraph, variations involving the imposition of terms, conditions or restrictions other than those specified in the application.

Fees

13. An applicant for the grant, renewal or transfer of a licence under this Schedule shall pay a reasonable fee determined by the appropriate authority, not exceeding £350.

Enforcement

14. Any person who, in connection with an application for the grant, renewal or transfer of a licence under this Schedule, makes a false statement which he knows to be false in any material respect or which he does not believe to be true, shall be guilty of an offence.

15. A person who, being the holder of a licence under this Schedule, fails without reasonable excuse to comply with paragraph 8(1) above shall be guilty of an offence.

Offences relating to persons under 18

16. A person who, being the holder of a licence for a video shop—

1. (a) without reasonable excuse knowingly permits a person under 18 years of age to enter the video shop; or
2. (b) employs a person known to him to be under 18 years of age in the business of the video shop, shall be guilty of an offence.

Appeals

17.—(1) Subject to sub-paragraphs (2) and (3) below, any of the following persons, that is to say—

1. (a) an applicant for the grant, renewal or transfer of a licence under this Schedule whose application is refused;
2. (b) an applicant for the variation of the terms, conditions or restrictions on or subject to which any such licence is held whose application is refused;
3. (c) a holder of any such licence who is aggrieved by any term, condition or restriction on or subject to which the licence is held; or
4. (d) a holder of any such licence whose licence is revoked may at any time before the expiration of the period of 21 days beginning with the relevant date appeal to the magistrates' court act for the relevant area.

(2) An applicant whose application for the grant or renewal of a licence is refused, or whose licence is revoked, on any ground specified in paragraph 6(1) above shall not have a right to appeal under this paragraph unless the applicant seeks to show that the ground did not apply to him.

(3) In this paragraph— the relevant area" means the petty sessions area in which the premises are situated; and the relevant date" means the date on which the person in question is notified of the refusal of his application, the imposition of the term, condition or restriction by which he is aggrieved or the revocation of his licence, as the case may be.

(4) An appeal against the decision of a magistrates' court under this paragraph may be brought to the Crown Court.

(5) Where an appeal is brought to the Crown Court under sub-paragraph (5) above, the decision of the Crown Court shall be final; and accordingly in section 28(2) of the Supreme Court Act 1981 after the words "the Gaming Act 1968 or the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982" there shall be added the words "or the Video Recordings Act 1984".

(6) On an appeal to the magistrates' court or the Crown Court under this paragraph the court may make such order as it thinks fit.

(7) Subject to sub-paragraph (8) to (11) below, it shall be the duty of the appropriate authority to give effect to an order of the magistrates' court or the Crown Court.

(8) The appropriate authority need not give effect to the order of the magistrates' court until the time for bringing an appeal under sub-paragraph (4) above has expired and, if such an appeal is duly brought, until the determination of abandonment of the appeal.

(9) Where a licence is revoked or an application for the renewal of a licence is refused, the licence shall be deemed to remain in force—

1. (a) until the time for bringing an appeal under this paragraph has expired and, if such an appeal is duly brought, until the determination or abandonment of the appeal; and
2. (b) where an appeal relating to the refusal of an application for such a renewal is successful and no further appeal is available, until the licence is renewed by the appropriate authority.

(10) Where—

1. (a) the holder of a licence makes an application under paragraph 12 above; and
2. (b) the appropriate authority impose any term, condition or restriction other than one specified in the application,

the licence shall be deemed to be free of it until the time for bringing an appeal under this paragraph has expired.

(11) Where an appeal is brought under this paragraph against the imposition of any such term, condition or restriction, the licence shall be deemed to be free of it until the determination or abandonment of the appeal.

Commencement of Schedule

18. This Schedule shall come into force on the day on which this Act is passed.")

The Deputy Speaker

My Lords, with the leave of the House, Amendments Nos. 31 to 38 inclusive are moved en bloc.

Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede

My Lords, surely the correct procedure is for Amendment No. 31 to be moved by the noble Lord and. in moving it, speak to Amendments Nos. 32 to 38 at the same time. I think that that is the correct procedure.

The Deputy Speaker

My Lords, if that is the wish of the House, Amendment No. 31 proposed.

On Question, amendment negatived.

The Deputy Speaker

Amendment No. 32, Lord Houghton of Sowerby.

Lord Houghton of Sowerby

I move.

The Deputy Speaker

Not moved. Amendment No. 33.

Lord Houghton of Sowerby

My Lords. I think I moved it. I move.

The Deputy Speaker

Not moved.

Lord Houghton of Sowerby

I am a little confused on the order, my Lords.

The Deputy Speaker

Is the noble Lord moving Amendment No. 33, or not?

Lord Houghton of Sowerby

My Lords, I want all the amendments to be dealt with by the House. Have I moved only Amendment No. 31? Can we not take them en bloc, or do we have to take them separately? This is the point.

Baroness Trumpington

My Lords, I think that the noble Lord the Opposition Chief Whip was absolutely in order when he said that the first amendment was moved and the others were consequential upon that. All I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, has to say is, "Not moved", because the other amendments have gone in with the original amendment, Amendment No. 31. If the noble Lord is agreeable, that is how we shall proceed.

Lord Houghton of Sowerby

My only difficulty, my Lords, is this. If amendments are not moved, it appears that the record contains no reference to the fact that they have been dealt with and disposed of by the House. I am very anxious indeed that, when we come to the schedule, the schedule shall go on the record, so that those who may be interested in our debates shall see exactly what was before the House. That is why I wish the House to dispose of all the amendments, so that they go on the record. I submit to any ruling as to how that can be done.

Lord Elton

My Lords, I think I am right in saying that the noble Lord is already on the record as having spoken to the long list of amendments which he has just repeated; so they are on the record. The amendments which we now come to cannot stand on their own because the paving amendments have fallen. Therefore, the noble Lord would be moving something which could not stand, and he would be in an illogical position. I think that the House quite sympathises with his enthusiasm in this case, but I hope that I can persuade him that the rules of order and logic mean that he should say, "Not moved", as he comes to each of these amendments and rely upon the record already in Hansard to show the enthusiasm which he feels.

Lord Houghton of Sowerby

I am prepared to do that, my Lords, if, as I say, when we come to Amendment No. 51, the schedule which I proposed and spoke to can be included in the record. The reason I am in doubt about that is that, at the time of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, I proposed a whole new schedule to deal with dog control and it had a paving amendment before it, like this. When it came to the end of the day, there was no record of what I had moved in the proposed schedule. I am rather afraid that I might suffer the same misfortune tonight. If the schedule can go in the record, I am content; otherwise. I must try to move it.

Lord Elton

My Lords. perhaps I may just say—and I am always happy to bow to superior experience and wisdom—that the schedule must depend upon the original clause which the noble Lord sought to insert in the Bill. Presumably the schedule cannot exist in the Bill without the clause upon which it is dependent. The noble Lord wants the schedule to be printed in the Official Report, but it can be printed in the Official Report only if he moves it. The noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede, shakes his head. I am quite happy to be corrected on this, and I am quite happy for it to appear in the record, but I do not see that we have the machinery to get it in the record by this means at this stage.

9.30 p.m.

Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede

My Lords, the position is that the procedure for the printing of Hansard has been changed in the past 18 months or so, and if a noble Lord moves an amendment which is associated with a number of other amendments, the text of all the amendments with which it is associated is printed in Hansard because of the very difficulty which the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, referred to in the previous Bill, and that difficulty is now eliminated.

Baroness Trumpington

My Lords, may I suggest that we now continue where we were and deal with the amendments which have been moved en bloc already by the noble Lord? He will now I hope say "Not moved" until the end of Amendment No. 38.

The Deputy Speaker

My Lords, as I understand it—and I hope noble Lords will sympathise with my confusion—on Amendment No. 31 the Not-Contents had it. With the leave of the House, we are now dealing with Amendments Nos. 32 to 38 en bloc.

Lord Houghton of Sowerby

My Lords, I would rather the Not-Contents still "have it" all round the clock so long as I can get my schedule on the record. I thought a moment or two ago I had a real friend in my noble friend Lord Ponsonby, indicating that if amendments are moved all together the whole bundle are moved as one and they go in the record as one. That is really what I am asking. One cannot begin to dissect the package of amendments that I have moved and associated together and the record contain reference to only one of them. That will not make any sense to people reading the official record.

The Deputy Speaker

My Lords, I understand that the amendment with which we are now dealing, which has been proposed, is Amendment No. 32.

Lord Houghton of Sowerby

My Lords, in order to get it on the record I must formally move Amendment No. 32.

[Printed earlier: col. 1343.]

On Question, amendment negatived.

The Deputy Speaker

My Lords, with the leave of the House, Amendments Nos. 33 to 38 have been moved en bloc. The Question is that these amendments be agreed to.

On Question, amendments negatived.

Clause 15 [Penalties]:

Lord Houghton of Sowerby moved Amendment No. 39: Page 11, line 20, leave out ("summary conviction") and insert ("conviction summarily or after trial on indictment")

The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I referred to the possibility that the noble Lord the Minister might have something to say on this matter. I thought it was a matter reserved for a further consideration without commitment, but I will gladly hand this over to my noble friend Lord Mishcon.

Lord Mishcon

My Lords, it is extremely gratuitous of my noble friend Lord Houghton of Sowerby. I much appreciate it and I promise to be extremely brief. This matter was argued very cogently at the Committee stage and the Committee was extremely impressed, not with the speech that I made but with the contribution that I remember was made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale. The whole purpose of this amendment is to give the right of trial by jury in regard to offences which are very serious and which quite obviously register against the good name of any person convicted. The main reason behind the giving of the opportunity for a jury trial was because of the provisions of this Bill—and I am looking at Clause 9, dealing with offences and penalties—where, in subsection (2) the defence is stated to a charge of committing an offence under this clause, by proving that an accused believed on reasonable grounds that various matters had occurred. They are set out in Clause 9(2)(a) and (b). It is eminently the practice and tradition of our law, and of our criminal law, that where anything depends upon the reasonableness of a ground, that is eminently a matter for a jury to decide.

That was the point that was underlined when the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, made his contribution; and I believe, as I said, not so much convinced by what I said as by what the noble and learned Lord said, the Minister gave an undertaking that there would be consideration given to the arguments that were then advanced. I hope that that consideration has led to a favourable decision, and with that hope I sit down.

Lord Elton

My Lords, we return here to a matter discussed at Committee stage. The amendment would ensure that offences under Clauses 9 and 10 are triable either way, summarily or on indictment. As the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, has reminded us, following a persuasive speech by himself and a very persuasive intervention by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, my noble friend Lord Nugent of Guildford and I undertook to consider the question further in the light of those comments. I now come bearing the fruits of our further consideration, though I am afraid that they may not be altogether of the colour that the noble Lord opposite hoped they might be.

I remind your Lordships that one of the main purposes of the Bill is to ensure that swift justice may be dealt to those who evade the certification system introduced by the Bill; for example, by supplying video nasties. At present, where cases are brought under the Obscene Publications Act, for instance, there may be several months' delay before suppliers of articles alleged to be obscene appear in court. Meanwhile, there may well be nothing to prevent them carrying on their trade in this objectionable material. The Bill seeks to cut through that log-jam.

The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, considered that a defendant who wished to argue, say, that he believed on reasonable grounds that a video work had been classified or was exempted, or that a supply was exempted, should have the opprotunity to argue his case before a jury. When responding to such points, it is always a comfort to have precedents on one's side, particularly since at the Committee stage the noble Lord asked me to find precedents. I should therefore like to cite one or two examples of existing offences that are triable summarily only but on which the courts may need to form a view on the defendant's state of mind. Paragraph 21 of Schedule 3 to the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982, which deals with the licensing of sex establishments, makes it an offence for a person to make certain false statements, which he knows to be false in any material respect or which he does not believe to be true". Paragraph 23 of that schedule provides that a holder of a licence for a sex establisment who, without reasonable excuse knowingly permits a person under 18 years of age to enter the establishment; or employs a person known to him to be under 18 years of age in the business of the establishment", is guilty of an offence.

Turning to other areas of the law, there are, for example, provisions for defences based on reasonable belief to be raised in connection with summary offences contained in Section 40 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1963, Section 3(4) of the Caravan Sites Act 1968, and Section 33(5) of the Fisheries Act 1981. So what we are proposing is by no means new.

I should also like to point out that certain offences under Schedule 3 to the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982 and under the Cinematograph (Amendment) Act 1982 are subject to fines of up to £20,000 and they are triable summarily only. Again, therefore, we are not creating a precedent.

As I pointed out in Committee, the issues to be tried under this Bill will mostly be simple. The Government believe that magistrates will be perfectly capable of dealing with them, and, particularly, given the precedents we have cited, we see no difficulty here even though fines may be levied up to £20,000 and defendants may rely on defences based on reasonable belief. We do not therefore believe that the Bill should be altered in the way that the amendment proposes. We prefer swift justice and a swift end in particular to breaches of the law. I hope therefore that noble Lords will draw some reassurance from the precedents I have mentioned and will be content not to press this.

Lord Mishcon

My Lords, I ask for permission to speak again, but what I am, in fact, doing, as noble Lords will appreciate, is to abbreviate the proceedings because my amendment, worded slightly differently, follows upon the amendment of my noble friend Lord Houghton. I am therefore trying hard to make one debate of it, and not two. Therefore, I ask for your Lordships' leave.

I am disappointed with the Minister's reply—very disappointed. I am very disappointed because the precedents that were brought before your Lordships have no relevance, if I may respectfully say so, to the point that I was making and that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, was making. Precedents were quoted about, "without reasonable excuse", "he knows", or, "is deemed to know", or, "should know". Obviously these are matters that are capable of being tried by magistrates without giving the accused the right of a jury trial.

But, following upon my own efforts in this direction the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, pointed to the matters that would have to be decided, and they relate particularly to Clause 2, which deals with exempted works. The exempted works are those: … designed to inform, educate or instruct; … concerned with sport, religion or music; or … a video game". These are matters absolutely unrelated to any precedent which the noble Lord the Minister has cited to the House. Obviously it is, and must be, the right of any person charged with an offence to appear before jurors and see whether those jurors feel that in all the circumstances it was a reasonable belief that he had in regard to his explanation that they came within the exempted Clause 2.

I am not impressed, and I hope your Lordships will not be impressed, by the term, "swift justice". If the noble Lord the Minister had ventured to say, "swift and complete justice" he would have had the sympathy of the House; but swift justice without complete justice is not worthy of your Lordships, not worthy of this House and not worthy of our great legal tradition. There ought to be a right of trial by jury; there ought to be a system whereby trials can be brought on speedily.

These are simple issues. There is no earthly reason for any delay, either by prosecution or defence; and it is not a defendant's fault if the courts cannot fit in a case with the proper amount of speed on what the noble Lord the Minister himself described as a very simple issue. One must not make the accused responsible for the courts' failure to do that, and I do not believe the courts will fail. My Lords, if the Minister cannot accede to the amendment, in spite of my plea to him, this is a matter on which I would ask for the opinion of the House to be taken.

9.42 p.m.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 39) shall be agreed to?

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 12; Not-Contents, 39.

DIVISION NO. 1
CONTENTS
Ailesbury, M.	McIntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller.]
Ardwick, L.
Beswick, L.	Mishcon, L.
Houghton of Sowerby, L. [Teller.]	Monson, L.
	Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.
Kagan, L.	Taylor of Blackburn, L.
McGregor of Durris, L.	Underhill, L.

NOT-CONTENTS
Ashbourne, L.	Long, V.
Attlee, E.	Lucas of Chilworth, L.
Avon, E.	Lyell, L.
Barrington, V.	Macleod of Borve, B.
Bellwin, L.	Masham of Ilton, B.
Belstead, L.	Mottistone, L.
Buckmaster, V.	Norwich, Bp.
Cathcart, E.	Nugent of Guildford, L. [Teller.]
Coleraine, L.
Cornwallis, L.	Rankeillour, L.
Craigmyle, L.	Reading, M.
Denham, L.	Robertson of Oakridge, L.
Elton, L.	Saltoun, Ly.
Glanusk, L.	Skelmersdale, L.
Glenarthur, L.	Swinfen, L.
Grantchester, L.	Swinton, E.
Gray of Contin, L.	Tranmire, L.
Halsbury, E. [Teller.]	Trumpington, B.
Ingleby, V.	Vickers, B.
Lauderdale, E.	Whitelaw, V.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.

[Amendment No. 40 not moved.]

9.51 p.m.

Lord Nugent of Guildford moved Amendment No. 41: Page 11, line 33, at end insert ("In this subsection "the standard scale" has the meaning given by section 75 of the Criminal Justice Act 1982.")

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 41. Perhaps I might be allowed to speak to Amendment No. 42 at the same time.

Amendment No. 42: Page 11, line 34, leave out subsection (4).

These two amendments are related to Clause 15(4), which deals with the meaning of "the standard scale" in subsection (3) and ensures that it has the meaning assigned to it by Section 75 of the Criminal Justice Act 1982. It also provides for this section to apply to Northern Ireland, and ensures that for the purposes of the penalties in Clause 15(3) any inflation-proofing order made in respect of fines applying in England and Wales will extend also to Northern Ireland.

However—and this is the main point—as a result of the Fines and Penalties (Northern Ireland) Order 1984, which was recently made and which comes into force next month on 18th July, references to "the standard scale" are, for Northern Ireland, automatically translated into references to the standard scale established by that order. The ad hoc extension to Northern Ireland of the relevant provisions of the Criminal Justice Act 1982 is therefore no longer required. These amendments make the necessary adjustments to this Bill, and I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Nugent of Guildford moved Amendment No. 42:

[Printed above.]

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 17 (Entry, search and seizure]:

Lord Houghton of Sowerby moved Amendment No. 43: Page 12, line 33, after ("constable") insert ("named therein")

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 43. I referred at an earlier stage of the Bill to the fact that in previous legislation on a subject of this kind the provisions regarding a warrant for entry and search referred to "a constable named therein". This Bill refers to "any constable". We are on this and other amendments getting close to the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill. I believe that that Bill tries to rationalise, or simplify, the varying standards of treatment of these matters in a great variety of separate Acts of Parliament.

The Lord Chancellor, in his speech the other day on the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill, referred to the piecemeal legislation in different parts of the statute book all relating to the powers of the police in the conduct of matters relating to entry and search. It may be, therefore, that the new doctrine about warrants to be given by magistrates or circuit judges—warrants giving authority for entry to be made by force if necessary to search for evidence—will not contain a reference to a named constable. The Minister may have some information on this. I do not press this amendment because I think that the relevant clause of the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill (Clause 16) does not specify a named constable. So there is no point in having a debate here on the question of a named constable if a new pattern of law in this field is to be settled in the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill. I should be glad to receive guidance on this and to learn whether or not it is a matter which we can dispose of quite quickly here. This is Amendment No. 43. I beg to move.

Lord Nugent of Guildford

My Lords, there are obvious practical difficulties in meeting the point of the noble Lord's amendment regarding a named constable. Of course, it is a named constable who has to make the application for the warrant, and he must give his evidence under oath to the magistrate who is to issue the warrant. But when it comes to making the entry, if the police forces are required to apply the warrant to a named constable only when the entry may be a few weeks later, or at some later date, all kinds of difficulties may arise; the constable may even be off duty sick at the time, or be doing something else. There are clearly practical difficulties in meeting the points which the noble Lord raises. As he rightly says, there are substantial safeguards in Clauses 15 and 16 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill, but there is no requirement in them for the specific naming of the constable who is to make the entry.

Looked at from the point of view of the private citizen—which is the aspect from which the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, is, quite rightly, looking at it—I do not think it really adds to his safeguards if the constable who is to make the entry is specifically named. There are other safeguards of which the noble Lord is well aware; in particular, that the magistrate must he satisfied that the constable has good reason to believe that an offence has been committed, and the constable must satisfy the magistrate before whom he gives his evidence and makes out his case that this is so. There are safeguards there. However, the actual naming of the constable who will make the entry would not, I think, add significantly to the safeguards to the private citizen, but would cause very considerable practical difficulties.

If the noble Lord feels very strongly about this, he has an opportunity to raise it again on the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill, in particular on Clauses 15 and 16, and it might be appropriate there. I hope that the noble Lord will feel, in the light of the answer that I have been able to give him, and as the situation appears here, that the amendment would really be undesirable. I hope therefore the noble Lord will be content to withdraw his amendment.

Lord Houghton of Sowerby

My Lords, I am satisfied with that explanation. It may be that in the course of my researches I came across an antiquity in an earlier Act of Parliament when they were more meticulous about these things. I can quite see the difficulty of having a named constable throughout the piece, especially in these days. In any event, I think this will all come out in the wash on the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill, if it is of sufficient importance to raise it there. With the leave of the House, I shall withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

10 p.m.

Lord Houghton of Sowerby moved Amendment No. 44: Page 12, line 37, leave out ("anything") and insert ("any video recording, video spool or video case")

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment is perhaps of rather more substance, though here again the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill contains proposals regarding it. It is Section 16 that I again refer to—a search of premises, a list of goods seized and other matters related to this form of crime control.

Here we have to have regard to the particular nature of the products which are the object of suspicion, when a warrant for entry and search is being applied for and when the search and seizure is being carried out. There can only be one thing in a video recording shop and that is a video recording. That is where the mischief lies, if any mischief is there at all.

This word "anything" has some dangers which were referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, in column 418 of the debate on the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill last week. He thought that a memorandum by chief constables on this subject required consideration in connection with the Bill. Lord Hooson said, when he was talking about the evident weaknesses of the Bill, that first, parts of its provisions are far too complicated and obscure and are greatly in need of simplification, and, secondly, it fails to distinguish between what is evidence and what is information.

The important points when goods and products are being seized in a raid are: what are they looking for and what are they taking? Sometimes the police can take documents which are not in themselves evidence because they require evidence from another party to turn them into evidence. They are ex parte documents. Yet the Bill refers to "anything". It is probably desirable to specify what may be taken. This is not a grocer's shop, or even a sex shop, where there is a variety of goods and equipment.

In all events material is being sought which is obscene in the opinion of the constable and in breach of the Obscene Publications Act 1959. When the Bill is enacted the police will be looking for video recordings which are in breach of the provisions of the Bill, which may not necessarily be obscene, but which may lack the necessary classification which gives them some immunity from police prosecution—or not, as the case may be. But should not the seizure process in the Bill be more specific about what may be seized? In the Children and Young Persons (Harmful Publications) Act back in 1955 it was specified that in the search the officer might "seize any of the following things", which were listed, but equipment was involved there, and different kinds of equipment. Here, as I understand it, we have only one thing. Certainly in the raids currently being made, and quite a number of them are undertaken, they seize video recordings; they seize spools; they seize tapes—they are the only things that they can be taking to be in breach of the law, which they are defending. The same will surely apply when the Bill becomes law. Why should the word "anything" be in the Bill when it is not "anything"; it is things which are related to the charge which may be made; and that is only one thing, or one set of things, or one type of thing—and that is the video recording or spool. I shall be called to the Bar any minute! The "anything" is too wide, too dangerous, I think.

I shall come in a minute probably to some of the things that are happening on raids at the present time which are gravely disturbing. But I do not think they arise on this particular amendment. I beg to move.

Lord Nugent of Guildford

My Lords, the noble Lord once again has understandably tried to introduce safeguards for the benefit of the private citizen or trader who is concerned. But I think that we must also look at the practical problems involved. What the Bill says is: anything found there which he has reasonable grounds to believe may be required to be used in evidence in any proceedings for an offence under this Act". I suppose that one could draw up a list. It would not be very easy, but one could. It seems to me that there will be other things besides video works or tapes. There may be documents, invoices, cheques, receipts and so on; for we are concerned not only with what one has got there but with evidence of trading. Supply is part of the offence. Therefore, I think it is essential to go wider than just the objects which the noble Lord has included in his amendment: any video recording, video spool or video case". I do not think that that would be sufficient for the constable when he was gathering the material that could meet what is in the clause; that is, anything which, he has reasonable grounds to believe may be required to be used in evidence". I think that if the noble Lord will look at this problem in that context, he will see that it really would be necessary usually to gather more than the objects which he has mentioned. It seems perfectly reasonable to say as the limitation "anything" which he thinks reasonably would be required. Clearly if he has taken something which is unreasonable he could be taken to task on that. The alternative would be, if noble Lords really thought an amendment on this line was needed, that we would have to attempt to draw up a list. It would have to be quite compendious if it were going to cover everything that we could possibly conceive might be reasonably related as evidence.

I hope the noble Lord may feel that his point is met by the words that are here, in the confidence that when the constable's seizures are looked at he must meet the point that they are articles which, he has reasonable grounds to believe may be required to be used in evidence". If they are not, then, clearly, he is outwith the Bill. I hope that the noble Lord will feel, in those circumstances, that he might be able to withdraw his amendment.

Lord Houghton of Sowerby

My Lords, I think that the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, is extending the possibilities of the range of search far beyond what will ever be regarded as reasonable or necessary in cases like this. I have in my possession a good deal of evidence of what is happening in the courts in different parts of the country concerning prosecutions being undertaken under the Obscene Publications Act.

In all the cases I have looked at, the police are taking away tapes, cassettes and spools—the things that are in the shop—and not documents. They are charging people under the 1959 Act with publishing obscene publications. The obscenity lies in the publication, in the thing, so surely it will be in the future. If there is a charge that a person or a trader is holding unclassified video tapes and, in breach of the earlier clauses of the Bill, is trying to sell them or use them in a club, it will be the spools and the tapes that will be the object of police attention.

A case which took place in Leeds recently referred to the fact that the police raided three local shops in one group and seized suspected nastier. They were after things that were spools or videos, and not documentation. I am quoting from the report of this case which appeared in the Sunday Times of 27th May. The fact that the jury were told that the police had gathered evidence against the firm by having a constable join the club and give a bogus address raised a new dimension in the activities of the police.

Lord Elton

My Lords, if the noble Lord will forgive me for interrupting him before he embarks on that fascinating subject, I think I can help him. The offence may be having in his possession works which he intends to supply. He may deny the intention of supplying them when the offence is the supply. If there is then an invoice or a letter of acknowledgment of an order, that surely must be evidence that an offence has been committed, and without that evidence the prosecution would fail. That is only one example. There may well be others. But I think I have said enough to show the noble Lord that it is not just the objects themselves that have to be taken.

Lord Houghton of Sowerby

I am much obliged to the noble Lord for that. All I can say is that the range of possibilities in searches under this Bill will be far wider, apparently, than any possible under the Obscene Publications Act. What will this look like in practice when raids are made on private homes, shops and warehouses, and documentation is sought which may give evidence of an intention to supply, contrary to the Bill? Really, the search for firearms could not go further, could it? When cases of this kind occur, there will he the most appalling row as to the effect of this Bill on the rights and privacies of citizens. This particular case in Leeds contained other quite disgraceful elements. The jury, after six and a half days, threw out the charges and awarded costs against the police. But it takes a pretty good firm to be able to stand up to that kind of treatment.

I can only register dissatisfaction with the explanation, because I think there is a danger here that must not pass unnoticed. Therefore, I cannot withdraw the amendment because that would imply satisfaction with the position as it has been explained by both noble Lords opposite. I must therefore ask the House to dispose of this amendment in its own way.

On Question, amendment negatived.

10. 14 p.m.

Lord Houghton of Sowerby moved Amendment No. 45: Page 12, line 40, at end insert— ("( ) Any video recording, video spool or video case seized under subsection (2) above shall within one month be returned to the premises from which it was taken unless within that time proceedings under this Act are instituted with regard to it.")

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this, again, deals with matters related to the seizure of goods by the police after executing a warrant to enter and search premises and to remove what they feel is likely to be evidence against the person concerned. At the present time there seem to be no rules about this at all. It may be that under the provisions of the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill some more general consideration will be given to how long goods may be retained where they have been removed forcibly to be considered for prosecution. At present, when these goods are seized first of all in a number of cases there is difficulty in getting a list of what has been taken, although I believe that the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill is going to make provision for that.

What is more important is the amount of stock that can be removed and retained by the police without any charge being made or without any return of the goods that have been seized. I have a great deal of evidence about that. For example, video recordings seized at the beginning of April in some cases have not yet been returned; nor has any charge been preferred; nor have they been summoned to appear before a magistrate to show cause why the goods should not be forfeited. They are just bereft of the stock while the police are making up their minds. And in many cases the police are making up their minds by referring matters to the Director of Public Prosecutions.

In some cases I have here, the police are removing copies of spools which have been the subject of prosecutions and acquittals elsewhere, and I really believe that there is confusion arising between what is classified for viewing by the censorship authority and what may be open to prosecution under the 1959 Act. I think that for the sake of the reputation of the censorship authority it will be desirable to give their judgment some credence in the eyes of the law: otherwise there is going to be a raid on a shop or a home to get hold of video tapes which have already got a classification and which may even already have been the subject of prosecutions elsewhere. When is there going to be law and order among the police and those responsible for raiding? That is what is involved here, because if they are able to hold material like this they can ruin the trader by taking his stock away from him and doing nothing about either returning it or prosecuting him. That, in the case of books, has been done quite widely in some areas. You ruin the bookseller by taking away half his stock, and similarly you can do that in these cases.

That is why I think that it should be a requirement of this Bill that goods seized should be returned within a month to the premises from which they are taken unless within that time proceedings under the Act have been instituted with regard to it. As a matter of fact of course if the police want to, they can take copies or have copies made; and in some conditions of search and entry photocopies are made of documents which have been removed and which have to be returned within a certain time limit.

So there can be nothing unreasonable in this. The period of one month may be a little short; but I think three months is absolutely the outside, and probably too long. Is there going to be no safeguard at all against this procedure? I think that is very important indeed. In many cases, I am advised that the shopkeeper is so dejected, and probably frightened to some extent, that when the stock is taken he lets it go. He never hears any more about it and he just gets out of the situation as best he can. This is getting very near a police state in too literal a form and we ought to have adequate safeguards. But this stuff should go back unless prosecutions are to be launched or proceedings taken to require the person raided to appear in defence of what was taken and to make his case against forfeiture. I beg to move.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey

My Lords, I did not say anything on the previous amendment because I was, on the whole, convinced by the answers given by the Government and the sponsor of the Bill that evidence as to the supply of video recordings ought also to be seized. I appreciate that that means that the wording of the present amendment may be defective, because it still refers to video recordings, video spools or video cases, and not to all that matter which would have been seized under the Bill as at present drafted.

However, my noble friend has raised here a matter of the utmost importance: a matter of general civil liberty which is not in any way related to the justification or otherwise for the Bill itself. It is a fact—it cannot be denied—that there have been many examples over previous years where the police have, in effect, punished those who they wished to punish simply by seizing material and failing to return it or to bring prosecutions. I believe that fair-minded people would think that that was an abuse of police procedures and not what was intended by the law under which the seizures took place.

It may be that the definition of "video recording, video spool or video case" is inadequate. It may be, as my noble friend Lord Houghton of Sowerby, said, that the period ought not to be one month. It may even be that the term, "proceedings under this Act" is inexact. I do not know, as I am not a lawyer. But the principle that seizure should be for the purpose of prosecution, and that a decision should be taken within a reasonable period to proceed with that prosecution, or to restore the material seized, surely cannot be denied.

I have sufficient confidence in the Government and in the sponsor of this Bill to believe that they will separate the undoubted defects of the wording of this amendment from the purpose behind it, and indicate that they will see some way in which the intention, which I am sure all of your Lordships would wish to see, is pursued to enable this amendment to be withdrawn.

Lord Monson

My Lords, unlike the preceding two amendments, which obviously presented certain difficulties—and, like the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, I agree that the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, made out a convincing case against those two—I cannot see that there are any real snags in this amendment. I submit that acceptance of this amendment would help to minimise unnecessary interference with the freedom of the individual, and I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, can see his way to accepting this amendment; or, if he cannot do so for drafting reasons, to bring forward something himself very similar at Third Reading.

Lord Nugent of Guildford

My Lords, we recognise that the noble Lord has a point; that a safeguard is needed in this field, and that a trader should not be victimised. But, as he rightly said, one month is probably too short. What we are relying on in this case is the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill, where it is the Government's intention to make an amendment to Clause 21 of the Bill which will ensure that seized property is retained only so long as is necessary in all the circumstances. Clause 20 of that Bill will ensure that the owners of seized property have adequate right of access to, or copies of, such articles. These provisions will make a general safeguard. It is not thought possible to put a specific time limit on it; but obviously this is a point which will have to be discussed on that major Bill when it comes before the House. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, will already be aware that this point is not fully covered in Clause 21. However, it is the Government's intention to move an amendment which will do precisely this. The difficulty about a short period of one month would be that an unscrupulous trader could go to ground for a month. If we assume that he has committed an offence, his material, which had been seized, would have to be returned to him; so he could bob up again and go back to trading. Consequently, we have to find a balance which will safeguard the legitimate trader against unreasonable action but which, on the other hand, will catch the man who is clearly committing an offence.

I believe that the major Bill, which is about to come before the House—the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill—will provide the safeguards which are reasonable and practical in the circumstances. It will also provide the safeguard which the noble Lord and his noble friend Lord McIntosh of Haringey very rightly feel is necessary. With that assurance I hope that the noble Lord will be satisfied that his point is going to be met in this way.

Lord Houghton of Sowerby

My Lords, I suppose one can only soldier on and hope that some of the aspects of this Bill, which have a bearing on general conditions of citizens' rights in similar circumstances, will be attended to. I feel very discontented with any explanation given when I find that one trader who had 55 tapes taken from his shop after a raid on 12th April, although a list of them was given to him, heard nothing about them afterwards. It is now 14th June. What is so vexing about these raids is that many of the spools already have classifications as films from the British Board of Film Censors.

We are coming up against the old difficulty. I have here a list of 14 cases which have been referred by the police to the Director of Public Prosecutions. Six of them have BBFC classifications—either X or 18—and some of them are awaiting classification as films; yet off they go to the DPP, including two which were disposed of in the Leeds case the other week. Talk about public expenditure!

It seems to me that the bureaucracy which is at work in this field really has to be taken in hand. One way to take it in hand would be to say that these things should be kept for no longer than a limited period without them being returned to the trader, and that they had better get on with it, otherwise serious harm will be done both to the reputation of the police and to the economic interests of the trader.

In view of the fact that we can have another go at this question on the other Bill, which will probably be more relevant, because it will be related to other matters, and that we shall not be under the same conditions as to time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 18 [Arrest]:

10.30 p.m.

Lord Houghton of Sowerby had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 46: Page 13, line 7, leave out subsection (1).

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this matter was taken very much to heart by my noble friend Lord Mishcon. I see that his name is down to Amendment No. 47. Therefore I graciously give way to him, so that he may deal with his own amendment. I think the best course is for me not to move this amendment, so that Amendment No. 47 may be called.

[Amendment No. 46 not moved.]

Lord Mishcon moved Amendment No. 47:

Leave out Clause 18.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, the House may recall that at Committee stage a very short debate took place on this clause. The main ground for the objections to this clause was that it would give, under this Private Member's Bill, a right to a constable to insist upon a person giving his name and address; and, if the constable reasonably suspected that the information given to him was false, the right to arrest the person involved without a warrant.

We have—as has been pointed out on many occasions in the course of our discussions today—a Police and Criminal Evidence Bill coming before us. Many of us know of the reserve that we have in this country towards the question of identity cards in peacetime, or towards anybody having the right to stop a British subject—and I say that on purpose because of certain restrictions which exist in regard to aliens in establishing whether or not they have overstayed their permitted residence in this country. The right of any constable, without any more ado, to call upon any person to give his name and address if the constable sees fit is an invasion of our civil rights and it is one that has to be looked at very carefully.

I do not want to argue my case in regard to this Bill, because my main argument is that this matter is one that will be considered under the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill. Therefore, for us to pass such a clause at this stage would be an absolute nonsense. It would require, I suppose, a repeal clause in the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill.

I do not leave it at that, because if your Lordships will study the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill (which has of course only received a Second Reading in your Lordships' House), you will find in Clause 3(3) a very interesting provision. Clause 3 deals with the very important stop and search provision; a provision very much like the one now before us. It concerns the stopping of a person for the purpose of obtaining information or for searching that person for what he may have on him. Clause 3(3) of the Bill states: The record of a search of a person should include a note of his name, if the constable knows it, but a constable may not detain a person to find out his name".

This means that under the provisions of the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill the constable's powers of stop and search cannot be exercised in order to find out a person's name to the extent that if that person does not give his name (let alone if he gives a false one) the constable can arrest him.

If that be so, is it not reductio ad absurdum to have in this Private Member's Bill dealing with video recordings—a matter to which many of us attach a great deal of importance, and we do wish this Bill well—a power that is greater, so far as I can read, than that which is contained in the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill? In regard to stop and search, that Bill —as I have said—specifically provides that a constable cannot detain a person for the purpose of establishing his name. I do not believe that I need say any more, because the argument is perfectly clear. I beg to move.

Lord Houghton of Sowerby

My Lords, I will be brief. This is a monstrous provision in a Bill of this kind. To relate this power to what we are dealing with is absolutely ridiculous. I am beginning to wonder whether this Bill is dealing with the most dangerous product in circulation in Britain today or whether it is that the sponsors of the Bill and its supporters have lost their sense of proportion. I think it is the latter.

When one considers that these powers are to be used not necessarily for the carrying about of obscene publications or anything harmful at all but something that does not have a classification, it is like being stopped by the police and asked to produce an identity card. It is almost as bad as that. I cannot understand why this kind of provision has been put in the Bill except with malicious intent. There is undoubtedly a moral malaise here about the video industry which is at present reverberating throughout the whole trade and in people's minds as well. Grave harm has been done in all sorts of ways and the Bill is continuing that sort of mischief. I shall be coming in a moment to other dangers to which I think the Bill gives rise, but at the moment I think we should take this clause out of the Bill.

Lord Elton

My Lords, we return here to a point which I said I would look at after the Committee stage. Subsection (1) of Clause 18 provides that if a constable has reasonable grounds to suspect that a person has committed an offence under the Bill, he can require him to give his name and address and, if the person refuses to do so or fails to comply, or gives particulars which the constable reasonably suspects to be false—like "Charlie Chaplin"—the constable can arrest him without warrant. Thus, the effect of the subsection is to provide the police with a power to arrest for an offence under the Bill if, and only if, it is impracticable or inappropriate to proceed by way of summons. The normal way of proceeding should be by way of the police laying information before the magistrates' court and the court deciding, in the exercise of its judicial discretion, to issue a summons. But we must be realistic and acknowledge that there will be fly-by-night characters who may sometimes be involved in the illegal supply of videos. In Committee I mentioned the man at the factory gate who had a case full of unclassified or unclassifiable material, and when stopped, refused to say who he was and scarpered.

Noble Lords opposite were concerned, and are probably concerned now, that this is an unprecedented power and suggested that this is comparable to the war. I did not have the dexterity in Committee to call up sufficient precedents or, in fact, any relevant precedents. However, I have since had time and now draw your Lordships' attention to Table 9.3 in Appendix 9 to the Law and Procedure volume published by the Royal Commission on Criminal Procedure which lists a number of offences carrying a power of arrest on failure to provide name and address. I shall give your Lordships just a few of them: offences under the Children and Young Persons Act 1933—which predates the last war—the Firearms Act 1968, the Licensing Act 1964 and the Road Traffic Act 1972. There are many others such as the Conservation of Seals Act, the Conservation of Wild Creatures Act, and so on.

Some are not punishable with imprisonment. However, more recent precedents include paragraph 24 of Schedule 3 to the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982—which as your Lordships will recall, deals with the licensing of sex establishments—and Section 6(1) of the Cinematograph (Amendment) Act 1982. Both of these contain similar powers of arrest and neither contains an imprisonable offence. Furthermore, there is a wide range of non-imprisonable offences, listed in Tables 9.1 and 9.2, which carry an unqualified power of arrest: not even dependent on failure to provide name and address. I hope, therefore, that this disposes of the suggestion that the powers in Clause 18 are without precedent or in any way new.

But I think there is another matter which noble Lords opposite are worried about. If your Lordships' House passes the Video Recordings Bill and it receives Royal Assent before the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill, subsection (1) of Clause 18 will be repealed by Clause 25 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill. This will mean that the offences provided by the Video Recordings Bill will become subject to the general arrest conditions of the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill. These arrest conditions will provide a power of arrest similar to that given in Clause 18: the presumption is that the process will be by way of summons, but if the suspect refuses to give a name and address, or gives false particulars, the police may arrest him.

I recognise, of course, that Members of your Lordships' House may wish to test the powers of arrest proposed in the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill. It has been suggested that it would not be proper to pass Clause 18 in the Bill before us now when we have not yet had an opportunity to grapple with the related proposals in the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill. I think that the precedents I have cited to some extent undermine this argument, since it is clear that Clause 18 is not breaking new ground. As the noble Lords opposite will appreciate, and particularly the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, from his long experience in these matters, it is necessary to treat each Bill as a separate entity, and it would not be appropriate to delete Clause 18 on the basis that we expect the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill to fill the resultant gap by introducing general powers of arrest. As I indicated earlier, however, the Government support the retention of Clause 18 because we believe that the arrest powers it provides are necessary to ensure that the Bill is enforced.

I come back to the man at the factory gate, as well as to the many precedents, of which I have quoted some. There is no good in your Lordships' passing a law if you pass it in a form in which it is totally impossible to enforce. If a constable has to say, "Very good; thank you for letting me look in your suitcase; I will keep the suitcase; you can now go", your Lordships are not passing a law in a condition in which it can be enforced.

10.42 p.m.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey

My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, I wonder whether he can help a moment. He said that if Clause 25 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill is passed in the form which he has just read out, then Clause 18 of this Bill will be superseded. Does that apply also to the other precedents that he has given us?

Lord Elton

My Lords, I think the broad answer is, yes. I was hoping to turn up the reference, but, again, I am not sufficiently dexterous, because I find it very difficult to carry the clause numbers of two Bills in my head simultaneously. But the intention is to sweep up many scattered and incomplete pieces of legislation. I do not really want to get on to stop and search, and so on, but your Lordships addressed this in the Second Reading debate on the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill, which, happily, we have already held. Your Lordships will be aware that the purpose of this is to bring our law into an understandable and complete form, and it will have that effect.

The Lord Bishop of Norwich

My Lords, I am sure that your Lordships will be pleased at that, because I think the Minister has set our minds at rest. Clause 18 is really only concerned with there being reasonable grounds for suspecting that someone has committed an offence. If we look at the sharply drawn areas where an offence can take place following this narrowly drawn Bill concerning the particularly repulsive and unpleasant matters that it deals with, I should have thought that, on balance, in the good ordering of the nation, it is very proper for a constable to be allowed to do this.

I have just come from watching Beating the Retreat by the Royal Marines. I had the privilege to serve alongside that gallant body of men. They were always taught that the one thing that they were allowed to give if captured by the enemy—even the enemy!—was their name and number. I do not think that there is anything improper in an ordinary citizen of our country telling a perfectly decent and good constable his name and address. To say that that is an infringement of the sacred liberty of the subject is taking it so far that I hope that all reasonable Members of this House at this late hour will courteously but firmly reject the amendment.

Lord Mishcon

My Lords, if I may say so with great deference to the right reverend Prelate, I am really amazed at his contribution to this debate, having valued so much his contributions to many other debates, and especially on this Bill. My amazement, if I may say so, extends to the noble Lord the Minister. The precedents and provisions that he has referred to—which I freely admit I have had no opportunity of going into, but which seem to be very similar to the point that I was trying to make—were put in Bills at a time when there was no intention to codify the whole of the law relating to the police and criminal evidence.

This Bill, a Private Member's Bill, is coming before us just at the time when we are going to debate all those powers. The noble Lord the Minister has put this to the House in a very extraordinary way. He has said this: take the factory gate example and if a police officer finds, at the factory gate, a man with a case full of video nasties but the gentleman concerned refuses to give his name and address, or decides to give a name and address which the constable believes to be false, what is the constable to do? Having found the man in possession of the video nasties, unclassified, and obviously in the course of an attempt to supply them, the proper course for that officer to take is to arrest the man, but not arrest him for failing to give his name or because he thinks he is giving a false name, but because of what he has found in the case. There is no difficulty about that.

The next point that the noble Lord the Minister makes is that we have a Police and Criminal Evidence Bill which we are going to examine in this House. If we decide in the course of that Bill that we are giving here a power which is inconsistent with what we deem to be suitable in that Bill, then the correct thing to do in the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill is to negate the power which this House has given in this Private Member's Bill.

That has two false assumptions. The first one is that the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill is going to be passed, either on the same day as or before the Video Recordings Bill. Many of us have tried to assist the speedy passage of the Video Recordings Bill—a matter which has not always met with the pleasure and satisfaction of the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, and several of the noble Lords who support him. But that has been the effort of the majority, so far, who have been present in your Lordships' House through these deliberations. Therefore the result is going to be, one hopes, speaking personally, that this Private Member's Bill will be passed very quickly.

There are before us in the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill—and I speak with a little knowledge of this matter—a great number of Committee days and Report days on the various stages of that Bill. It would be idle to forecast when that Bill is going to leave your Lordships' House. There will not be any people who will be deliberately delaying the provisions of that Bill. I cast no aspertions on anybody when I say that in relation to this Bill. All I am saying is that you then get the ridiculous position that this power will be exercisable in the interim period between the passing of this Bill and possibly the negation of that power in the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill.

I revert to the point that at the present moment under the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill, as drawn up by the Government, on stop and search you have to have reasonable grounds for suspecting that a criminal offence has been committed before you can stop and search. I read out a clause in the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill which I will read again, which specifically provides that the record of a search which is carried out under the provisions of that Bill—the same sort of search at the factory gates—to which the noble Lord was referring, is to include a note of the name of the person searched, if the constable knows it. But a constable may not detain a person to find out his name, and if a constable does not know the name of the person who he has searched, the record of the search will include a note otherwise describing that person.

If I may turn, with great deference, once more to the right reverend Prelate, that provision in the Bill is put there by the Government, after going through the other place, precisely because in peacetime it is thought to be absolutely the right of any citizen, peacefully and properly walking our streets, to be required by any officer of the law unless the officer has reasonable grounds for thinking that an offence has been committed, for asking for—

Lord Elton

Before the noble Lord sits down and with the leave of the House, to which I think I am entitled, may I just ask him to put the record straight on the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill. If he turns to Clause 24 he will find the general arrest conditions which come into effect when a constable has reasonable grounds for suspecting that any offence has been committed. The general arrest conditions are, (a) that the name of the relevant person is unknown to, and cannot be ascertained by, the constable". There is then a right to arrest. So we are not acting against what we propose to do in our codifying legislation. If the noble Lord would be good enough to consider the person coming under suspicion of misconduct on a public service vehicle, again he will find that if the person does not give his name and address to the officer in question, then he can be arrested. I give that as a different example from the man with the suitcase. Perhaps the example of the man with the suitcase was too closely connected with the offence. The noble Lord could say that it was certain he was committing it.

I have given two precedents. I have many precedents. I have one new one that exactly fits this Bill. I have shown that what we propose is consistent with the Bill, the other Bill—the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill—on which I have no doubt that the noble Lord will wish to contest this issue and may seek to persuade us to amend this present Bill retrospectively.

Lord Mishcon

My Lords, I am always grateful to the noble Lord the Minister for intervening. Usually, it is a very helpful intervention. I know that he meant that one to be helpful as well. Frankly, it was not. If he looks at Clause 24 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill, he will find—I was trying awfully hard not to take longer than necessary, but it is not my fault if he refers to another part of the Bill—it has a very important safeguard. Quite apart from the reasonable grounds for suspecting that an offence has been committed or attempted, or is being committed or attempted, a constable, may arrest the relevant person if it appears to him"— and these words are not included in the Bill that the noble Lord is supporting on behalf of the Government— that service of a summons is impracticable or inappropriate because any of the general arrest conditions is satisfied". Those words do not appear in the Bill now before us. The general arrest conditions—they are the ones that the noble Lord has correctly read out—are that the name of the relevant person is unknown and cannot be ascertained by the constable. Obviously, in a case like that, unlike the example of the suitcase where the goods are there and where further matters have to be investigated, this would absolutely not be applicable.

Lord Elton

My Lords, with the further, and final, leave of your Lordships, in order to save time and, I hope, to mollify the noble Lord, would it help if I say that if the powers of arrest in the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill are amended so that Clause 18 of the Video Recordings Bill is no longer consistent with that Bill, the Government would not stand in the way of amendments to this Bill, to which we expect to receive Royal Assent before that Bill, put forward during later stages of the other Bill? I hope that I have carried your Lordships through those Bills correctly. If the noble Lord understands me, I shall sit down.

Lord Mishcon

My Lords, yes, I do understand. I answer the point by saying that it is, first, unjust that this Bill will be running, one assumes—one cannot assume otherwise—before the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill receives Royal Assent, and therefore this power would be exercisable. The proper way to deal with this is not to have any such provision in this Bill at all, but to leave things until the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill is considered. Then, if both Houses of Parliament have passed it, it is absolutely proper that it should apply to this Bill. But this is putting the cart before the horse—a cart, if I may say so, that traverses a wrong ground in regard to the whole of our civil liberties and law as it stands at the moment.

Lord Mottistone

My Lords, when the noble Lord began his argument—forgetting what he has just been saying on the sequence of Bills—he said that it would be perfectly right for the constable to arrest the man in question if he saw the video nasties and did not go on about the name. If they were written material, that is perfectly right. But video nasties cannot be seen if they are unmarked. You have to show them on a video tape recorder. My feeling was that the noble Lord's argument was undermined from the beginning, because he was talking about something which is not like reading a book and one might have to arrest a man anyhow in order to see whether the video nasties were nasty. I think the substance of what this clause has in it gives him the powers to do that.

Lord Mishcon

My Lords, obviously the noble Lord made the point before I sat down; therefore, that gives me the right to continue to speak. I was using shorthand, I hope with your Lordships' approval, without going into great detail at this hour, and I was doing it for this reason. This Bill deals with the whole of the question of classification. Therefore, if there are found in the possession of anybody, videos which have not got any classification at all, then, prima facie, unless they are educational matters or things of that kind and therefore exempted, there is an offence under this Bill.

Lord Mottistone

My Lords, we know.

Lord Mishcon

My Lords, the reason is that the classification marks are not on them. It is obvious.

10.57 p.m.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 47) shall be agreed to?

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 9; Not-Contents, 40.

DIVISION NO. 2
CONTENTS
Ardwick, L.	Monson, L.
Houghton of Sowerby, L. [Teller.]	Parry, L.
	Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.
McIntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller.]	Ullswater, V.
	White, B.
Mishcon, L.

NOT-CONTENTS
Ashbourne, L.	Long, V.
Attlee, E.	Longford, E.
Avon, E.	Lucas of Chilworth, L.
Barrington, V.	Lyell, L.
Belstead, L.	Macleod of Borve, B.
Beswick, L.	Masham of Ilton, B.
Brentford, V.	Mottistone, L
Brougham and Vaux, L	Norwich, Bp.
Buckmaster, V.	Nugent of Guildford, L. [Teller.]
Cathcart, E.
Coleraine, L.	Rankeillour, L.
Cornwallis, L.	Reading, M.
Craigmyle, L.	Robertson of Oakridge, L.
Denham, L.	Saltoun, Ly.
Elton. L.	Skelmersdale, L.
Glenarthur, L.	Swinfen, L.
Grantchester, L.	Swinton, E.
Gray of Contin, L.	Tranmire, L.
Halsbury, E. [Teller.]	Trumpington, B.
Ingleby, V.	Whitelaw, V.
Lauderdale, E.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.

11.4 p.m.

Lord Denham

My Lords, I beg to move that further consideration on Report be now adjourned.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.