Clause 74 - Prohibited conditions: plays
Licensing Bill [Lords]
5:30 pm
Dr Kim Howells (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Culture, Media & Sport; Pontypridd, Labour)
Clause 74 is important; it reflects clause 22, which we have already considered in connection with the premises licence. Under the clause, the licensing authority may not attach a condition to a club premises certificate that authorises the performance of a play of any nature, or the manner in which it is performed. I am talking about the content of plays.
The clause does not prevent the licensing authority from attaching conditions that it considers necessary for the promotion of public safety. For example, conditions may refer to the use of pyrotechnics on a stage, which the hon. Gentleman mentioned—the recent, terrible disaster in the United States was the consequence of the use of pyrotechnics. Conditions may also refer to other licensing objectives when there has been relevant representations, or when the conditions are consistent with the operating schedule. For example, conditions may be attached to a club premises certificate that is considered necessary for the protection from harm of children. However, the licensing authority may not interfere with a director's interpretation of a play or the manner in which the cast present it. We are talking about plays as they are defined in paragraph 16 of schedule 2 and, therefore, about operas and ballet too.
Mr. Gale, you and I will recall the giant step of the Theatres Act 1968, which abolished the Lord Chamberlain's powers to censor plays. Those people who have seen ''Shakespeare in Love'' will realise that he was a powerful character. The Lord Chamberlain's powers were curtailed only in 1968—it is astonishing that they lasted as long as it did. That was a memorable day for the freedom of art and culture in this country, and it is still regarded by many as a step towards becoming a grown-up society. Indeed, the Bill is similar in that respect. The 1968 Act did not, of course, lead us into the abyss of sin predicted by some at the time. I must add, however, that many of us wandered around looking for that abyss, but unfortunately we did not find it.
Plays can be controversial. The controversy currently associated with ''XXX'' being presented in Hammersmith shows that such issues never go away. We would not, however, have challenging, inventive productions if producers lived in fear of censorship. We are a grown-up society and artistic freedom is important. As the newspaper debate on ''XXX'' has shown, we have laws that address indecency, obscenity and offence caused by plays that are considered to have gone too far. We do not need licensing law and licensing authorities to become engaged with matters relating to the content of plays. If clause 74 were removed entirely there would be the risk that following the making of representations, plays would be censored by the imposition of conditions that claimed to prevent disorder. That would be a step back into the dark ages for artistic freedom, and I cannot support that.
Clause 74 preserves this important freedom insofar as it relates to clubs, just as clause 22 preserves it for other premises, especially theatres. The clause does not prevent the conditions relating to the four licensing
objectives from being attached to club premises certificates, so long as they do not affect the nature of the play or the manner in which it would be performed. Only public safety overrides that rule, so conditions could be imposed to prevent an over-enthusiastic cast from hurling knives at an audience, for example.