Clause 25
6:00 pm
Lynda Waltho (Stourbridge, Labour)
If we look at Stourbridge, for example, one of the clubs is directly opposite a sixth-form college. Young women walk backwards and forwards from the bus stop and the bus and train stations. At one of my surgeries, young women complained of being cat-called and harassed when they were leaving the college after evening events. That is a situation in which I envisage the duty being implemented.
It is at this point that I regrettably depart from the Government line, not because of the clause, but because it needs to be sharpened and tightened. We are in danger of creating another unintentional loophole that will allow lap dancing to continue without residents having the right to object. The provision has two clear flaws. First, licensing reforms should have universal application. Adoption of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982 is currently optional. Therefore, clause 25 will not guarantee all local communities a greater say in the licensing of lap-dancing clubs because the outcome will depend on whether the local authority chooses to adopt the legislation. We know that there is widespread demand for a greater say, so we have a big difficulty in this area. The voluntary nature of the 1982 Act and the sexual encounter venue category will create an uneven licensing landscape that is vulnerable to exploitation by the lap-dancing industry, which, from my experience, will jump straight through the loophole.
The greater flaw is in the provision that exempts premises that provide lap-dancing events less frequently than once a month. It excludes a large number of premises that hold lap-dancing nights. There is a very large and growing business for lap-dancing agencies that arrange nights and bookings in a range of pubs, bars, hotels and so on. During such difficult times, it is quite likely that this licensed business will see lap-dancing nights as a revenue raiser.
During my work on this issue, I have met many lap dancers—current and former—and also club owners. One local club owner in the Midlands has bragged to me that his business might not even be affected by clause 25 should this loophole remain open, and that it might even improve. Within the ring road of Stourbridge, close to the town centre, there are 11 pubs and bars and five licensed restaurants and places in which the agencies could apply for these special events. With my rough maths, there is the possibility, even if we can regulate or assist my residents in objecting to new clubs, of between 160 and 192 nights of lap dancing within the ring road. Each venue could apply for 10 to 12 temporary events a year. Should that be the case, the club owner states that he could move his “stable of girls”—I notice hon. Members making faces, but that was the phrase that he used—around the town over a period of time, thus effectively creating a mobile lap-dancing club with all the same issues that apply to current clubs and premises without my local residents—or anybody else’s local residents—being able to object. Local authorities cannot deny permission, which can be denied only if the police suspect severe public disorder should the event go ahead. That is the very big problem. We will still be denying our residents the right to object. Evidence from local authority officers suggest that many venues already exploit the loophole to hold monthly events. Once again, residents are denied the chance to object. Indeed, under the Bill they will have even less ground for an objection than under the Licensing Act 2003.
The exemption allowing venues to apply for temporary events notices, rather than as sex encounter venues, renders the clause almost worthless. It undermines the work of all those, including MPs, who have worked on and supported the campaign. Our work has been rendered useless. Residents are still to be denied their right to be heard. Thousands of men and women object, including councillors and those in the Fawcett Society, residents associations and, in one case, the National Organisation of Residents Associations, which represents more than 500,000 people. They are all aware of this loophole and are asking for it to be closed. The contradiction in the Bill must be resolved by removing paragraph (b), as proposed in my amendment. It would empower communities, such as that in Stourbridge town centre, as they deserve to be, and as I think this clause intended.