|
Memorandum submitted by Object and the Fawcett Society (PC 09)
POLICING AND CRIME BILL: THE NEED FOR AMENDMENTS TO CLAUSE 25
1. Executive Summary: 1.1 Since the
introduction of the Licensing Act 2003 lap dancing clubs have been licensed in the
same way as cafes. This has acted as a green light to the industry, with the
number of
1. 2 However, Clause 25 is seriously undermined by the fact that the proposed SEV category is voluntary and venues where lap dancing is provided less than once a month are exempt from this category. This will create loopholes likely to be exploited by the industry and a 'postcode lottery' where some local communities are empowered in licensing processes and can raise objections on the grounds of gender equality, whilst others may not. Removal of the exemption and universal application across all local authorities will help realise the stated aim of Clause 25.
2. About Object and the Fawcett Society 2.1 Object
is the women's rights group which challenges sexism in the representation of
women in the media and popular culture. The Fawcett Society is the
3. Introduction 3.1 Lap dancing clubs are currently licensed solely under the Licensing Act 2003 with a Premises License; the same licence applied to cafes and karaoke bars. Yet lap dancing clubs form part of the commercial sex industry and normalise the sexual objectification of women, feeding a sexist culture in which it is acceptable to view women as sex objects, not human beings. Whist such venues have a very different social impact from other venues licensed under the Licensing Act 2003, local communities may only raise objections on four limited grounds (public disorder, public nuisance, crime and disorder, protection of children). Concerns relating to gender equality are currently excluded from licensing objectives.
3.2 Clause 25 will reform this by allowing local authorities to licence lap dancing clubs in the same way as sex shops and sex cinemas, via adoption of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982, as 'Sex Encounter Venues' (SEVs).
3.2 This aim of this reform is to give local authorities greater control over the licensing of lap dancing clubs. SEV licensing enables local authorities to consider important factors such as gender equality, the character of a locality and whether a lap dancing club is appropriate for a local area when considering a licence application. The reform aims to give local authorities control over the total number of venues licensed in their area and empower local people by allowing objections to be raised on wider grounds than are currently permitted.
3.3 However, Clause 25 in its current form will see inconsistent application of this reform due to two key flaws outlined in sections 4 and 5.
4. Licensing reforms must require universal application 4.1 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 this outcome will depend on whether the local authority in question chooses to adopt the legislation. Yet there is widespread public demand for a greater say in lap dancing club licence applications, as evidenced by the 10,000 signature petition handed in to Number 10 Downing Street in 2008 by Object (1), and campaigns run by local communities to protest against the licensing of lap dancing clubs (2). In its present form, Clause 25 will give rise to a 'postcode lottery' over whether local communities have a say in the licensing of lap dancing clubs.
4.2 The voluntary nature of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982, and therein the SEV category, will create an uneven licensing landscape vulnerable to exploitation by the lap dancing club industry. Prior to the Licensing Act 2003, uneven licensing across different local authorities enabled lap dancing clubs to exert pressure for looser regulation. For example, in 2002 the City of Westminster licensing authority came under pressure to relax a 'no nudity' clause following the decision of a neighbouring borough, the London Borough of Camden, to do so (3). Clause 25 will reintroduce this risk.
4.3 In order to prevent these problems and ensure SEV licensing is robust, adoption of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982 should be universal. This would still afford each local authority significant discretion over the control and regulation of lap dancing clubs in their jurisdiction. For example it would be up to each local authority whether a maximum number of lap dancing clubs should be set, where they are permitted to establish, and what controls are imposed on lap dancing clubs that are granted a licence. The universal nature of SEV licensing would simply ensure that every local person is guaranteed a say in the licensing of lap dancing clubs, and local authorities are protected against exploitation by the lap dancing club industry.
5. Venues hosting lap dancing less than once a month must not be exempt
5.1 Clause 25 currently exempts premises which provide
lap dancing less frequently than once a month. This will exclude a large number of premises
which hold 'lap dancing nights', catered for by lap dancing agencies that take
bookings in a range of public houses, bar and hotel venues. This sub-market of
the lap dancing industry is likely to grow in the light of such an exemption,
particularly in the context of falling alcohol revenue and economic recession.
This is demonstrated by the recent case of the 'White Hart' lap dancing
application in Lewisham,
Nearly half of these openings were public houses or bars now providing 'lap dancing nights' (5).
5.2 Evidence from local authority licensing officers (6) suggests many venues already exploit a loophole to hold monthly lap dancing events, by applying for the maximum number of Temporary Event Notices (TEN), permitted in a year (twelve). Given that a TEN can only be opposed by a policing authority on the grounds of crime and disorder, this leaves licensing authorities powerless to control such events whilst residents are denied even the limited channels of objection set out in the Licensing Act 2003.
5.3 This loophole will be reinforced by Clause 25, which will allow such venues to continue applying for TEN's instead of SEV licences. The exemption for venues holding lap dancing less than once a month therefore significantly undermines the central aim of Clause 25 - to empower communities to better control the number and location of lap dancing venues and events in their area.
5.4 The exemption will also prevent local authorities from fulfilling their obligations under the Gender Equality Duty 2007, by allowing some premises to circumvent the SEV regime.
These contradictions should be resolved by removing the exemption and ensuring that local communities are empowered in licensing processes for all lap dancing venues.
(1) www.object.org.uk/downloads/DowningStPetition25.11.08.doc (2) 'A Growing Tide: Local authorities restricted by inadequate licensing of lap dancing clubs', Object, April 2008 (3) http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-360942-details/Lap+dancing:+behind+the+scenes/article.do (4) http://www.thisislocallondon.co.uk/whereilive/localheadlines/3808887.Hotel_owner_appeals_strip_club_refusal/ (5) 'A Growing Tide Update: The Need to Reform Licensing of Lap dancing clubs', Object, December 2008. (6) This emerged during conversations held by
Object and Fawcett Society with local authorities across
LEGAL NOTE BY PHILIP KOLVIN, 1. The Fawcett Society and Object propose two amendments to the Policing and Crime Bill so that the aims of the proposed legislation may be realised. Occasional uses 2. The Bill as drafted exempts from regulation premises at which relevant entertainment is provided less frequently that once a month. 3. The effect of this is liable to nullify the benefits of the legislation. 4. It means that the proprietor of a lap dancing business could take his stable of dancers from venue to venue without any form of regulation at all, provided that no venue permits performance as much as once a month. 5. It also means that high street pubs could run lap dancing nights, provided that they do not do so more than 11 times a year. 6. It is presumed that there is a market for this type of entertainment, otherwise there would be no need for the legislation, and that there is a need for some regulation of the entertainment. It would be deeply regrettable if the effect of the legislation were to remove the regulation which it is the purpose of the Bill to provide. 7. If the Bill is passed in this form, if a venue decides to hold occasional lap dancing events, all that would be needed is a temporary event notice under the provisions of the Licensing Act 2003. However, the only party that may object to such entertainment is the police and then only on crime and disorder grounds.[1] The procedure therefore excludes all the considerations which are relevant under the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982, and also excludes local residents from the process. This is counter-productive and anti-democratic. 8. Furthermore, to exclude temporary events from the scope of the legislation means that local authorities would be unable to take issues of gender equality into account, which in itself would create a conflict, or at least an inconsistency, with gender equality legislation.[2] 9. The purpose of this legislation is surely to give local authorities control over the quantum and location of lap-dancing. To create an exemption for temporary events is to create an unjustifiable lacuna in the legislation which is liable to rob it of much of its effect. Applicability 10. The regime for sex shops and sex cinemas is at present optional for local authorities, who have to pass a resolution if they wish for powers to regulate such venues.[3] 11. There is cross-party support for the regulation of sex encounter venues, following a widespread consultation of local authorities. It would be far preferable for such regulation to be universally applicable, so that local people can participate in the decision-making process. Of course this does not mean that all local authorities will take the same approach to lap-dancing applications, but clearly the regime itself, like licensing in general, ought to be universal. 12. The question then arises of whether the regulation of sex cinemas and sex shops should continue to be optional. It would be illogical and potentially confusing to create a bifurcated regime. Therefore, it is suggested that the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982 should apply to all sex establishments without the need for an empowering resolution by individual local authorities. January 2009 [1] Section 104, Licensing Act 2003. [2] The Sex Discrimination Act 1975 (Public Authorities) (Statutory Duties) Order 2006 (SI 2006/2930). [3] Section 2, Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982. |