Hansard

I will speak specifically about section 68 of the bill, which will introduce a licensing regime for sexual entertainment venues such as lap-dancing clubs. I pay tribute to Sandra White for the work that she has done on the issue over the years; I am sure that she is very pleased that the bill has been introduced.

The licensing of such venues became an issue in Inverness, where the licensing committee said that it was powerless to prevent a licence from being granted to a lap-dancing club in the city, despite the violence against women partnership’s warning about the impact that such a venue would have on the area. I therefore welcome the move to empower local authorities to prevent such clubs from opening in our towns and cities.

The Scottish Government’s document, “Equally Safe: Scotland’s strategy for preventing and eradicating violence against women and girls”, recognises commercial sexual exploitation, including stripping, lap-dancing and pole dancing, as violence against women. It tells us that

“these activities have been shown to be harmful for the individual women involved and have a negative impact on the position of all women through the objectification of women’s bodies”.

It therefore seems to be a little perverse that we are licensing venues that perpetrate violence against women.

My preferred option would be that we ban all such venues from our country and seek to create an equal society in which women are valued and not sold as commodities. However, the proposed licensing regime is better than the current situation, in which licensing committees feel powerless to prevent such venues from opening. Zero Tolerance tells us that there is

“no place for a highly gendered form of sexual entertainment in Scotland.”

In its briefing, it states that these venues are places where men often seek to buy sex, which means that women are often moved from sexualised entertainment into prostitution.

Such venues also encourage gender inequality, which impacts on all women and, indeed, on our whole society. If we are to live in an equal society, we have to stop such venues operating, because they treat women as commodities to be sold for the sexual pleasure of men. They are not normal entertainment venues, and other countries have none—for example, Iceland. The countries that will not tolerate such forms of entertainment tend to give gender equality a much higher priority than those that do.

The licensing regime must be mandatory. Every venue, regardless of how often it provides adult entertainment, should be subject to the licensing regime. Local authorities must carry out equalities impact assessments on the venues before issuing licenses, taking into account the venues’ impact on the wider society in their local area. I also wish to see violence against women partnerships being statutory consultees when licences are applied for. Local communities must have a say on whether licenses should be granted, and local authorities must be allowed to have a policy of having no venues at all in their area.

Other members have talked about the bill allowing young people under the age of 18 to work in venues at times when sexual entertainment is not taking place. However, there are often in such premises pornographic images that children working there would have access to. Again, Zero Tolerance warns us of the implications of allowing young people to work in such environments and tells us that, in essence, it creates a groomers charter.

Allowing that would also normalise such entertainment and exploitation in the eyes of very young and vulnerable people working there. Young girls would also be vulnerable to being enticed to become sexual entertainers when they turn 18. Any young person working there would be at risk of developing unhealthy attitudes to sexual relationships. I believe that the bill must be amended to protect young people from the exploitative nature of those premises.

The committee received a submission from Child’s Eye Line UK regarding public display of sexualised images to children. I believe that that organisation has a point and that Cara Hilton’s point on that was well made: such images should not be on display publicly. We have the power to ban the display of cigarettes—and are proposing to do so—because they are dangerous and harmful, but so are sexualised images because they impact on gender violence and inequality. The bill provides an opportunity to ban the public display of such images, so I hope that the Government will give that due consideration.

The bill does not have a fit-and-proper-person test for licensees of sexual entertainment venues, although people who apply for liquor licences are subjected to a fit-and-proper-person test. That is surely an oversight, so I hope that the bill will be amended to change that anomaly.

Licensing must also ensure that employment law is adhered to. Women who work in sexual entertainment venues are often charged appearance fees and can be fined, meaning that they can end up earning little or nothing at all. We all agree that we should be implementing the living wage and not promoting zero-hours contracts, and that we should be protecting workers. If we allow those venues to operate, we need to make sure that they are working within the law and that the people who work in them are treated and paid properly. Again, that can be addressed through the licensing regime.

I firmly believe that sexual entertainment venues have no place in a modern equal society, and that we should be banning them rather than licensing them. However, the bill’s provisions are a step in the right direction, and I hope that all local authorities will take the opportunity to refuse all licenses for such venues in their areas.