James
Brokenshire: The hon. Gentleman will recognise that the
emphasis I gave related to the perhaps quite extreme and shocking
example given by the hon. Member for Stourbridge in relation to
activity that she has had to deal with. I recognise that there are
regulated activities—indeed the clause envisages regulated
activities for certain establishments. I was responding to that
specific
point.
Dr.
Harris: I am glad that I have given the hon. Gentleman the
opportunity to make his point even more clear. If the hon. Member for
Stourbridge presses the amendment to a vote, my colleague and I plan to
support it for the reasons I have given.
Mr.
Campbell: I echo the comments of the hon. Member for
Hornchurch about the inappropriateness of the comments to which the
hon. Member for Stourbridge referred. I thank him for his cross-party
support. As was said on Second Reading, all parties have aligned on
this issue and are heading in the right direction. However, over and
above the cross-party support, I place on the record the excellent work
of my hon. Friends the Members for Stourbridge and for City of Durham.
They have campaigned tirelessly on this matter and have made a
difference. If they do not already know, I assure them that their
constituents and constituents across the country will appreciate this
measure if and when it becomes legislation. They are tireless fighters
on this matter and for their
constituencies. I
understand the concerns of my hon. Friend the Member for Stourbridge
and her reasons for tabling the amendment, which would remove the
provision that allows premises to provide relevant entertainment such
as lap dancing less frequently than once a month without having to
apply for a sex encounter venue licence. I wish to return to the other
question raised briefly in her remarks on the voluntary nature of the
1982 Act because we will debate that more fully. She raised concerns
about these provisions on Second Reading and suggested that they will
allow establishments to run monthly lap-dancing
events. My
hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham voiced similar fears and
suggested that the apparent loopholes would cause agencies catering for
monthly lap-dancing events to expand their businesses. I also
acknowledge her concerns on temporary event notices. We discussed
whether those notices can be applied to this sort of event when
debating community empowerment. I share some of her concerns over
temporary event notices and give her an undertaking that I will raise
them with colleagues in the DCMS to see whether anything needs to be
done. In
response to my hon. Friends the Members for Stourbridge and for City of
Durham, I want to put on the record where we are on this issue. We do
not envisage that the consequences they have anticipated will arise.
However, I acknowledge their concerns and fears and those of other
Committee
members.
Lynda
Waltho: The issue is not with foreseeing whether our
concerns will arise. Such things are happening now. They are certainly
happening to a greater extent in Durham. We know from experience that
if people get away with something in one area, it will proliferate
before we know it. There is quite a tight and connected community and
dancers are
shared. 6.30
pm
Mr.
Campbell: I prefaced my remarks because I want to go back
and address those issues. That is why I said that I was giving our
current thinking on these proposals. I will return to the points that
my hon. Friend is
making. I
will set out not only where we are on this issue, but how we arrived at
this position. That will give an understanding of the proposals before
us. The focus of clause 25 is on businesses where lap dancing is a core
part of the business, such as those referred to by my hon. Friends on
Second Reading. Those include
establishments that run lap-dancing events relatively frequently, such
as once a month. We believe that those are the establishments that
local people are most concerned about when they open in their locality.
We have not left a loophole for these businesses and people to take
advantage of. I shall return to that moment in a moment. The new
licensing regime would apply to an establishment that runs monthly
lap-dancing nights. Proposed new paragraph (b) means that only
establishments that stage such events less frequently would not be
required to obtain a sex encounter venue licence. If my hon. Friend the
Member for Stourbridge is about to rise and say, “Well it would
not take a genius to work out how you could get around the monthly
rule”, I shall bear that in mind. I can assure her that I am not
dismissing that point. We believe
that, as it stands, this is an appropriate place to draw the line and
distinguish between those establishments which provide lap dancing as
part of their core business, and those which may occasionally provide
relevant entertainment, while operating primarily as another type of
venue. An example might be a pub that hosts a stag night or a hen
night, where a stripper is booked to perform. I understand,
particularly in the light of the comments made by the hon. Member for
Oxford, West and Abingdon, that this entertainment can still be
regarded as problematic. I know from experiences in my own constituency
how it can inflame public opinion and that residents are alarmed, but
we are trying to draw a distinction between the kind of formalised
establishments for lap dancing that the legislation is primarily set
out to do something about, and the sorts of examples that I am giving.
However, I do not think it is legitimate to classify a pub hosting such
entertainment on a sporadic basis as a sex encounter venue. That would
not be a fair description. We accept that communities should have the
right to voice their concerns about establishments that conduct lap
dancing on a regular basis—that is the aim of the
policy—but at the same time we recognise the need to ensure that
these provisions are not over-burdensome for
businesses. We
believe that the exemption we have made is sufficiently restrictive to
prevent lap-dancing nights being run by an establishment not licensed
as a sex encounter venue, with any regularity. It would certainly
ensure that the monthly lap-dancing nights, which my hon. Friends are
concerned about, would be covered by the new licensing
regime.
Dr.
Blackman-Woods: Nevertheless, the Minister is saying that,
if there were 10 days in a year in a specific club, perhaps 10 a year
in the club next door, and 10 in the club across the road, that would
be okay and that residents would not be particularly worried. If that
is the case, that is not my experience: once residents have decided
that they do not want a lap-dancing club in the area, they do not want
lap dancing every other week in some venue in close proximity to the
area that they are talking about
either.
Mr.
Campbell: I can reassure my hon. Friend that I am
certainly not saying that. The scenario that she paints is attempting
to use the very loophole that we do not intend to create in the
legislation. That is not its
purpose; the legislation is there to deal with a lap-dancing club that
people would recognise as such—a core business which is set up
for those purposes and where activities are carried out on a regular
basis. Whatever my hon. Friends’ views of establishments that
might have the occasional exotic dancer or stripogram, we are trying to
draw a distinction between pubs and clubs that we believe should not
fall under this particular legislation. Whether we need to strengthen
the legislation, either by this particular measure or by temporary
event notices, is an interesting question.
Having set
out the Government’s position, I am particularly concerned with
the agency approach that my hon. Friend the Member for Stourbridge has
raised. I remain to be convinced that sufficient pubs in an area would
be drawn into such an arrangement, however she has furnished important
evidence of what is either happening or is threatened to happen in her
particular area and it means that we have to pay attention to that. I
accept the premise she is putting forward and I undertake to go away
and look at that. The purpose of the Bill is to empower communities,
and if there was a loophole that prevented communities from having
their say and being empowered, not only should we seek to close the
loophole, but we should not create it in the first place. I hope that
my hon. Friend the Member for Stourbridge takes my remarks in the
spirit in which they are offered. I will go away and look at the issue,
and come back—no doubt—after further conversation with
her and my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham. On that basis, I
hope that she will withdraw her
amendment.
Lynda
Waltho: First of all, I thank the Conservatives and the
Liberal Democrats for their support—we have received cross-party
support throughout, stuttering now and again, but generally it has been
great. I am grateful for the clarification of the position on facial
expressions. However, that indicates that hon. Members and Ministers
sometimes do not appreciate what it is like on the streets or in the
clubs. People who are involved in the industry are out to make a fast
buck. They make money out of the women who dance—we know the
following arguments—the women have to pay for their pitch, do
not take all the money that they collect and pay for their costumes.
Generally, the women whom I have met in clubs that I have visited have
not worked for employers who were particularly interested in the
welfare of their dancers. When the employers perceive a loophole, they
will jump straight through it. In fact, the club owner whom I spoke
to—I would have called him a gentleman, but perhaps that is not
the right description—saw it as an opportunity to expand his
business, because if the lap-dancing club became too expensive, he
would move to the agency, his girls would move over and he would be
able to function as well, if not better, because he would have fewer
overheads—that is the reality on the streets.
Notwithstanding
that, I accept what the Minister is saying. He looked almost alarmed
when my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham and I were ready to
jump up. I think that he is aware, after having been virtually chased
around Westminster since he was appointed—in the nicest possible
way, in a professional capacity—that he needed to get the Bill
right. It has been a long, hard road, and it will be so sad and empty
if we do not close the loophole, because people will jump through it,
please believe me.
However, I am
willing to put my faith in the Minister, and I hope that he will come
back to us with something that is much tighter than what we have at the
moment. I would also like to push the issue of temporary licences with
the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, and I hope that he is able
to do that. I reserve the right to come back at some future
opportunity, but at the moment, I am prepared to put my faith in him,
and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the
amendment. Amendment,
by leave,
withdrawn.
Dr.
Blackman-Woods: I beg to move amendment 62, in
clause 25, page 22, line 4, at
end insert— ‘(8A) In section
2 of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982, for
subsections (1) to (4)
substitute— “(1)
Schedule 3 to this Act shall have effect with respect to the licensing
of sex
establishments.”’.
The
Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss
amendment 63, in
schedule 3, page 122, line 3, leave
out paragraphs 1 and
2.
Dr.
Blackman-Woods: I shall be brief because we have already
touched on the nature of the amendments. They deal with the second
loophole and how community empowerment is overlooked under the clause.
As drafted, it is enabling legislation, as a result of which local
authorities may not necessarily take it up so the community served by
such local authorities might not have a greater say in whether there is
a lap-dancing club in their area. Will the Minister consider whether
the Bill should be universal and require local authorities to enact the
provisions locally? If that does not happen, there will be an uneven
licensing landscape and those local authorities that do not take up the
clause might find that many lap-dancing clubs set themselves up in
their area, which could be detrimental to their local
communities. I
do not need to labour the point. The Fawcett Society and others, such
as my hon. Friend the Member for Stourbridge, who support the Bill,
really want the clause to be strengthened. We want more control and
regulation of lap-dancing clubs and a greater role for the community so
that all communities have an opportunity to make their voices
heard.
Dr.
Harris: I am grateful to you, Sir Nicholas, for calling me
before the Conservative party spokesman—perforce, I
think.
The
Chairman: He was not here, and you
were.
Dr.
Harris: I was not suggesting that you recognised where the
real opposition lay, Sir Nicholas.
Moving
swiftly on, I want to express my support for the amendment for the
reasons that applied previously. If it is appropriate for local
communities through their elected representatives to have the
decision-making power in such matters, all local authorities should
have it.
My only
question relates to the basis on which local authorities would make the
decision under the clause. It is a stand part-type question, but I do
not think that we will necessarily need a clause stand part debate. Is
it the Minister’s intention that councils can make moral
judgments about the provision of lap-dancing establishments? If
that is the case, I have a particular worry. Lap dancing is sex
encounter entertainment and it is for adults, and local authorities
should have greater power than they have under current arrangements to
decide how many such establishments—if at all—they want
in their area, based on the usual requirements that they have to take
into
account. According
to the Library notes, there is a question about whether the authority
can directly evoke moral reasons for not permitting the operation of a
lawful business that is offering a lawful activity, even though it is
one that has some sexist implications, if there is no valid reason
other than its moral objection. It concerns whether the clause will
allow an authority to do that. I quote from the comments of a textbook
cited in the Library
briefing: “while
the authority is not itself to make moral judgments, it may react to
local sensibilities, which in truth may well be based precisely on
moral condemnation of the activity in
question”. Clearly,
a line has to be drawn between what is a genuine public concern and
what is the moral position of individual
councillors. 6.45
pm Part
of the problem is set out in the note from Object. A number of other
organisations have an a priori objection to any lap dancing, on the
basis that it is demeaning to women and, therefore, should be prevented
from occurring. As I said earlier, I have a great deal of concern about
how the lap-dancing industry and the lads mags portray women, but my
personal disapproval is not a basis upon which to ban the so-called
responsible approach to this activity taking place, with appropriate
health and safety, and in appropriate places. Does the Minister
envisage a council being able to say, for moral reasons, “We
shall not allow any lap-dancing clubs in our area under the powers that
we have been given under this provision”? Or is it the
Minister’s view that councils would need to have specified
reasons, such as where establishments are sited—around
educational establishments, leisure facilities frequented by children
or families, near shops used by families, in or near a residential
area—rather than simply an a priori moral
objection? With
that caveat, we support the Government’s decision to change the
law in this area, but I would be grateful for clarification on that
point.
| 
