I tabled Amendment 88 to highlight the concern among highly regulated venues, which are currently operating under a premises licence, that they are being punished for the crimes of the unregulated sector. My noble friend Lady Hanham touched on this point earlier and I would like to probe the Minister a little further on the reasons behind these provisions, and to raise some concerns about the enormous impact they will have on a significant number of clubs.
The group of amendments after this raises various aspects of the new regulations that will be particularly burdensome. There is a significant danger that clubs that have been operating under the existing licensing regime will struggle to survive the transition to the new regime. Is that the Government's intention? Bleeding a business dry through expensive and complicated regulation seems a very convoluted way of reducing the number of lap-dancing venues in the country. If that is not the Government's intention, why have they not inserted a grandfathering safeguard to soften the blow on existing businesses? My amendment would completely exempt existing businesses from the new provisions, but many alternatives could be considered; for example, a staggered timeframe or a presumption that they will at least get their first year's licence. I beg to move.
Policing and Crime Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Viscount Bridgeman
(Conservative)
in the House of Lords on Monday, 6 July 2009.
It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL)
and
Debate on bills on Policing and Crime Bill.
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
712 c509 
Session
2008-09
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-21 12:37:51 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_574868
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_574868
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_574868