Memorandum submitted by London Borough of Hackney (PC 58)

Lap dancing licensing reforms must be

comprehensive and robust

 

1. Executive Summary

 

1.1 The current licensing system for lap dancing clubs is urgently in need of reform. The current legislative arrangements are inadequate and non specific. This has left local authorities unable to act on the concerns of residents and unable to adequately monitor such venues. Clause 25 attempts to address these problems by giving local authorities new powers in the licensing of lap dancing clubs. However, the clause is fundamentally undermined by the fact that licensing reforms will not be applied universally across licensing authorities. It is also undermined by an exemption which will allow premises holding lap dancing less frequently than once a month to continue doing so with just a Premises Licence.

 

1.2 Hackney Council calls on the Policing and Crime Bill Committee to amend Clause 25 by making the reforms mandatory and removing 'the less than once a month' exemption.

 

2. Hackney Council

2.1 As a lead Cabinet Member for Safer Neighbourhood I took active role in this issue. I wrote to Garry Sutcliffe MP, DCMS on the 10 December 2008 (in addition to my authority's consultation response letter dated 5^th August) expressing my concern. DCMS responded to my letter a few weeks ago and I was pleased to hear that this the consultation paper attracted 117 responses, the vast majority of which felt that new legislation should be introduced in order to allow local authorities to regulated lap dancing clubs under the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions )Act 1982. I was also please that the Government on the 18 December 2008 introduced measures as part of the Policing and Crime Bill to reclassify lap dancing clubs and similar establishments as "sex encounter venues" under Schedule 3 of the 1982 Act.

 

3. The need for mandatory licensing reforms

3.1 Clause 25 amends Schedule 3 of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982, which is itself adoptive. It is unlikely that all 410 of the licensing authorities operating across England and Wales will adopt the new powers systemically. Many will not anticipate a need for the new powers, having not previously dealt with any lap dancing applications - despite evidence showing that the industry is rapidly spreading countrywide. We have serious concerns about the effect this will have on the regulatory environment.

 

3.2 Adoptive reforms will give rise to a 'patchwork' of licensing regimes - whereby some local authorities utilise the powers outlined in Clause 25, whilst others continue to rely on the Licensing Act 2003. In the meantime the lap dancing club industry is likely to displace to areas where weaker regulation is in place.

 

3.3 This will also leave local authorities exposed to pressure for weaker regulation - as was the case prior to the introduction of the Licensing Act 2003 when operators such as Peter Stringfellow successfully lobbied for the relaxation of 'no nudity' clauses. Local residents will also face a 'postcode lottery' whereby their concerns (including those relating to gender equality) can be fully taken on board by some licensing authorities, but not by others. Both these issues run counter to the underlying aim of the reforms - to bolster regulation so that local communities are able to control the proliferation of lap dancing clubs in their area.

 

3.4Hackney Council therefore supports the amendment tabled by Dr. Roberta Blackman-Woods MP which amends Clause 25 so that licensing reforms are universally applied across England and Wales. This will create a consistent licensing landscape and protect local authorities from exploitation by an industry which is well-known to respond quickly to regulatory changes.

 

4. The reforms must apply to all lap dancing activities - regardless of frequency

4.1 Sub-paragraph (b) of page 20, Clause 25 exempts all premises where lap dancing is provided less frequently than once a month.

 

4.2 This will create a significant loophole for the growing number of venues that hold 'lap dancing nights'. It will also reinforce an existing loophole that exists in relation to Temporary Event Notices (TENs) - which are currently used to obtain permission for up to 12 lap dancing/stripping events annually. TENs can only be opposed by a policing authority on the grounds of crime and disorder. Clause 25 as it stands will allow this loophole to continue.

 

4.3 This is of particular concern given that 'lap dancing/stripping nights' of this kind occur in informal settings not equipped for such activities. Adequate regulation is essential to ensure satisfactory working conditions for performers.

 

4.4 It is not logical for extra controls to apply in some situations, but not in others. The definition of Sex Encounter Venue is founded on the nature of the entertainment provided, not the frequency it occurs.

 

4.4 London Borough of Hackney therefore supports the amendment tabled by Lynda Waltho MP which removes this exemption from Clause 25 so that adequate controls apply to all lap dancing activities, regardless of frequency. This is amendment is crucial if local communities are to be empowered in the licensing of lap dancing activities in their area.

 

February 2008