One letter can delay progress of legislation
from The Times, Saturday 10 July 1982
PARLIAMENT JULY 9 1982
The power of The Times was still such that a
single letter in its columns had the ability virtually to halt legislation
before Parliament, or at least to hold it up for further consideration, Mr
Harvey Proctor (Basildon, C) said during debate on Lords amendments to the
Cinematograph (Amendment) Bill.
The letter, written by Mr David Fisher, editor of Screen Digest,
had warned that a clause in the Bill might be more widely interpreted by the courts
than intended.
Mr Peter Lloyd (Fareham, C), moving acceptance of the
Lords amendments, said that concern had been expressed that under the Bill,
which extends and amends cinema licensing arrangements, shops or stores
might be regarded as exhibitions promoted for private gain because the end in
view was sale of goods and so come under the Bill's provisions.
A Lords' amendment provided an exemption for any
exhibition the sole or main purpose of which was to demonstrate any product, to
advertise any goods or service, or to provide information, education or,
instruction.
Another amendment would close a loophole which might
be exploited by unscrupulous exhibitors who sold food and drink and exhibited
films, ostensibly free, to avoid controls.
Mr Patrick Mayhew, Minister of State, Home Office, said a loophole for bogus cinema
clubs would be closed. There would be exemptions for people who provided video exhibitions
in order to sell goods in the High Street—point of sale exhibitions.
The Bill would afford additional safeguards for children. If a pub or club advertised
an exhibition and provided food or drink for payment, this Bill would
cover it and licensing would be required.
If a direct or indirect charge was made for
admission, the arrangements would apply.
The Lords amendments were agreed to.
Click to read the letter.
Return to previous page
Use the navigation panel to return to other sections of the website.
