| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. I appreciate what the hon. Gentleman is saying, but we are debating a revival motion and this is not the time to go into detail. That may happen if the Bill returns.
Mr. Cohen: I understand that. If we make no progress, I will have to go into the matter in considerable detail. That is why I want to summarise the issues. I hope that they will be dealt with by the Bill's promoter.
First, the Bill is meant to deal with unlicensed sex shops, but no proof has been presented to the House that there is a problem with provision on such shops. I am sure that there are unlicensed sex shops and that they are a nuisance, but where is the evidence that existing law is not sufficient to deal with them? I am not saying that there is no problem, but that evidence should have been produced by the Bill's promoter. When it wrote to me initially in October 1994, the Gay Business Association said:
I wonder why existing law has not been used. Again, I shall not go into great detail, but in July I tabled a question to the Secretary of State for the Home Department asking him to
I will not go through it in detail, but the Home Secretary's answer gives a great list of the various provisions.
Mr. Don Dixon (Jarrow):
There are not enough laws covering that.
Mr. Cohen:
I will not read out the Home Secretary's answer, but I should like to mention the different provisions in the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982 under which prosecutions may take place. They include schedule 3, paragraphs 20(a), (b), (c) and (d), 21, 22(1), 22(2), 23, 24(6)--
Mr. Deputy Speaker:
Order. I know that the last thing the hon. Gentleman wants to do is to test my patience too far, but he knows that this debate is not for detail.
Mr. Cohen:
I do not want to test your patience,Mr. Deputy Speaker. We are debating a carry-over motion. For that to be justified, the purpose of the Bill must be justified and evidence should have been presented to the House that there is a need for this legislation. I am just making a brief summary. There are existing legal powers. If Westminster council needs to go beyond those, it should produce the proof of why that is necessary. Other legislation is available apart from the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, including the Video Recordings Act 1984 and the Obscene Publications Act 1959, which Westminster city council could use.
Having said that--this leads me to the second point--I have an open mind on whether there is a problem with unlicensed sex shops. I am waiting for the evidence to find out whether there is a problem. If there is, why does the Bill apply only to Westminster? I know that Soho is a major area for the sex industry, but it is not the only one. The problem is that unlicensed sex shops have, I understand, arisen in other parts of London. If the Bill is passed, such shops in Soho could easily spread to the rest of London. With the Bill, Westminster could be exporting Soho to other boroughs. Why should Westminster have powers that other boroughs do not have? The Bill just shifts the problem elsewhere.
Sir Michael Shersby:
The answer to the hon. Gentleman's question is that the problem has been identified and is growing in Westminster. It has not been identified elsewhere.
Mr. Cohen:
Again, we have not received the evidence for that statement. The Member for Uxbridge is an honourable gentleman and I believe his word, but we are passing important legislation here and we should receive evidence of that statement. If we had a strategic council for the whole of London, all the London implications could be considered, instead of legislation being introduced in such a piecemeal fashion for just one borough.
The third point about sex shops is that councillors and officers have strong, excessive powers. If the Bill is enacted, they will have greater powers than the police or Customs and Excise. That should be explained. At the meeting, I asked for explanations of all those points and I did not receive them. That is why we are at the stage of the carry-over motion.
There is a danger of councillors and officers having excessive powers. They could decide what is acceptable. With a shallow standard of proof, they could close a
business, which would have to stay closed until an appeal could be heard. A legitimate business could go broke in that time, even though sex material might be only a small proportion of its business--perhaps one book that was deemed to be pornographic. That is not right.
There is much potential for intimidation, perhaps even corruption--a form of official protection--if a councillor or an officer of Westminster council were unscrupulous. Under the Bill, newsagents could suffer because the magazines that they display on their top shelves might be deemed to be pornographic. Under these powers, they could be closed and they would have to stay closed until an appeal was heard.
There could be discrimination against gay cafes and bars. That brings me to the fourth and final point in relation to sex shops. The Gay Business Association wrote to me expressing concern that the legislation could be used in a homophobic way. Under the Bill, an officer or councillor of Westminster council could close gay businesses in Soho and elsewhere that they might not like.
I raised those four aspects in the December meeting, when I said that Westminster city council should come up with some answers. A hidden aspect of the legislation is that the licence fee could soar with consequent implications. Only rich pornographers might be able pay the licence fee that Westminster city council has in mind. We could be heading towards a monopoly. That implication should be considered. All those matters are worthy of Parliament's consideration, as is the Government's general attitude to the sex industry.
The Government seem to face both ways at once on the sex industry. On the one hand, they favour deregulation and liberalisation--cable television is allowed to show many sex programmes--but on the other hand, they have a knee-jerk reaction against obscenity without defining obscenity. The Bill is cashing in on that.
To conclude, there are genuine points in the Bill that need to be addressed, but I repeat: Westminster city council can have its Bill. I shall not block it completely, provided the points that I have made are addressed and taken into account in future legislation.
In particular, the university of Westminster should be properly treated. I should have thought that that would be a matter of civic pride for Westminster city council. My area has a lowly football club, Leyton Orient, and it is a matter of civic pride that I as a Member of Parliament and local councillors do our best by that club. We want it to thrive.
Westminster city council has a superb university--I have read out what it does--yet the council seems to show no civic pride in helping it to thrive. I am amazed at that. Public education should not be left to rot because of market economics whereby land goes to property speculators to use for their own purposes.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Tom Sackville):
I rise briefly to show my support and that of my colleagues in the Government for the measure. Sex shops in Westminster do pose a problem. I am sorry to hear that the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) has an open mind on that. I do not. I know that there is a problem. I have seen some of the products that those shops sell. They cater for all kinds of perversions--coprophilia, bestiality, violent torture and all sorts of means of degrading women, a tide of filth about which we must do something.
Mr. Sackville:
No, I shall not give way.
I am sorry that on a previous occasion on another part of the Bill the hon. Gentleman felt obliged to block this important legislation.
Mr. Alun Michael (Cardiff, South and Penarth):
I share the Minister's hope that the Bill will return and receive rapid support. However, the Bill's promoter needs to take note of tonight's debate and the points that have been made. If it listens to what has been said, a great deal of time will be saved. The hon. Member for Uxbridge(Sir M. Shersby) acknowledged that in introducing the motion tonight and showed some recognition of the need to respond to the issues that have been raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen).
I would say, for the benefit of the promoter, that I have some experience of the extent to which a private Bill can be delayed, however valuable and positive a measure it is, by one or two hon. Members who fail to understand its virtues. It took some eight years for the Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill to become law. It would be wise if those assisting Westminster city council with the Bill--some of whom shared that experience--accepted that listening now and persuading my hon. Friend and any others who might be inclined to object that their concerns can be addressed would help us when the Bill comes before the House for a proper debate, as opposed to today's revival motion.
I understand that there are limits in the statement that can be made formally on behalf of promoters, but the statement that we received was quite lightweight. My hon. Friend the Member for Leyton is right to say that it did not make the case, which I assume is strong and which I believe is accepted on both sides of Westminster city council because the Bill has general support. It would be sensible to ensure that that case is made before the next and substantive debate.
It is wise, as I was advised on one occasion, to regard hon. Members not as remote gods to be propitiated but as individuals who seek to represent their constituents and with whom a sensible discussion can be had. My hon. Friend made the point that he had met the promoter back in December, but there was then no response to the issues that he raised with the council.
I have been given an undertaking similar to that given to the hon. Member for Uxbridge earlier, that my hon. Friend will be offered a full opportunity to discuss those issues and, if possible, for his concerns to be met. That would be greatly to the assistance of the House, enabling us to debate only the issues that are within the Bill which, in general, seem positive and helpful.
There is one issue which I hope, when we debate the Bill in substance, the promoter and, more important, the Minister will have addressed--the question whether there is a danger of displacement from Westminster to elsewhere if these powers are given to Westminster city council but not to other councils. The Minister, in his reference to the unacceptability of some of the activities that go on, is right, but there should not be the likelihood of displacement as a result of the powers. I hope that the Minister will anticipate and address that point when we debate the measure in a substantive debate.
Question put and agreed to.
"At present, if the local authority are of the opinion that premises require a licence then they can prosecute the premises for trading without the benefit of a licence.
It would appear that the City of Westminster has not availed themselves of this power to any great extent and yet they now seek a radical extension of their powers".
"list all legislation under which unauthorised sex shops and sex cinemas can be prosecuted; and how many prosecutions under each provision there have been in the last five years."--[Official Report, 13 July 1995; Vol. 263, c. 689.]
20 Mar 1996 : Column 434
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |