Lap-dance protesters need to know the law

Dec 4 2007 By The Journal

SINCE the Licensing Act 2003 came into force in November 2005, I have attended more than 100 hearings up and down the country. Hearings only become necessary when an application is objected to and in most cases concerns are raised by local residents.

Over time I have developed a degree of sympathy with residents, not because their representations have merit, and they often don’t, but because licensing hearings are sometimes their only forum for formally complaining about wider issues that affect their community.

It is not uncommon for individuals to attend hearings intent on discussing matters that have absolutely nothing to do with the particular premises. Unfortunately, the licence trade is often blamed for issues that has nothing to do with it and it obviously doesn’t help that the media seem intent on unfairly portraying the trade and exaggerating the impact that the sale of alcohol has.

The Act is clear on what is and isn’t relevant and residents often have to be reminded that, no matter how passionately they believe in what is troubling them, only law and order and safety and nuisance issues which are directly influenced by the premises are relevant and should form part of the discussion in the licensing hearing. In addition, licensing committees can rightly take into account the need to protect children from harm but this is very rarely raised.

Licensed premises should only be taken to task for things that they can reasonably be expected to have control over. How people behave beyond the vicinity of the premises are matters of personal responsibility of individuals under the law.

The above was highlighted recently in an application for variation of a premises licence in the city centre which would allow part of an existing premises to trade as a lap-dancing venue. This form of entertainment has gradually become part of the nation’s zeitgeist and many people wouldn’t give it a second thought. However, there are others who find it immoral and unacceptable. In licensing terms the reality, coincidentally proven by evidence, is that premises of this sort cause less trouble than, for example, nightclubs. This is confirmed by police forces throughout the country. We now have around 150 lap- dancing venues nationally and there is no evidence that their presence makes women any more vulnerable. If this were the case, we would expect incontrovertible evidence.

We have had lap-dancing venues for more than 10 years. Children, who are of course excluded, aren’t exposed to any moral dangers. This is the only context in which morality in licensing is relevant. The Licensing Act 2003 has its faults but it has managed to define what licensed premises can and can’t be rightly blamed for. It is also not to be viewed as a method of imposing censorship.

In this particular application we received more than 1,000 objections, many prompted by a campaign instigated by the Church. Understandably they have a moral agenda but, as we discussed at length in the hearing, this can’t be imposed upon others. Adult entertainment is perfectly legal and a well- run premises has as much right to be allowed to operate as a pub or a restaurant. Indeed, evidence suggests that it would, in terms of impact, be preferable if more existing venues converted to this type of use.

No licensee can guarantee that there will never be problems at their premises. Most operators do their best to ensure that measures are in place to minimise the impact of their businesses, recognising that pubs and clubs are sophisticated retail venues and that customers are happy to go elsewhere if they don’t feel safe. It should also, however, be recognised that pubs and clubs play an important part in our economy and culture. Their positive contribution is enormous and the sooner that this is generally acknowledged, the better, so that premises are allowed to operate to their potential and provide the public with yet more to enjoy.