My Lords, I am aware that throughout our debates on the gang injunctions concerns have remained that these innovative provisions could be used against groups that the Government do not intend them to be used against. As I stated in my explanatory letter, I believe that scope for misuse is extremely small. However, I agree that it would be sensible to review the use of the provisions to consider the overall implementation and impact of these new powers.

On Report, I committed to returning to the House with an amendment to the effect of a statutory review. This is set out in Amendment 1, which inserts a new clause at the end of Part 4 introducing a requirement for the Secretary of State to review the operation of the provisions. A report detailing the findings of this review must then be published within three years of commencement and laid before both Houses of Parliament.

When the report is laid before Parliament, it will present noble Lords and honourable Members from the other place with a clear opportunity to review the evidence from the implementation of the provisions and make such representations to the Government as they think appropriate. I am minded that three years will be required properly to review the provisions on account of the injunctions being time-limited to two years. As the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, noted on Report, it is important to allow for the possibility that a number of these maximum-length injunctions may be granted and we should include these within the scope of the review. I hope that this amendment addresses noble Lords’ concerns and I commend it to the House.

My Lords, I am most grateful to the Government for bringing this amendment forward and to the Minister for taking this issue so seriously. He is correct that we were worried about such big powers being given without any sort of review required in the Bill. The amendment goes quite a long way towards meeting our concerns. His helpful letter said that the review must be laid before Parliament. No doubt Parliament will debate it to see whether any further action is necessary. This is most helpful and I am very grateful.

My Lords, it would be churlish of me not to thank the Minister for this amendment, even though I have a concern about it. I note that the Minister used the words “both Houses of Parliament” when speaking to the amendment, whereas the amendment refers only to Parliament, which could in certain circumstances mean one House or the other. Even at this late stage in the parliamentary Session, it is not beyond the wit of the Government to replace the word “Parliament” in this amendment with “both Houses of Parliament”. I hope that the Minister will take that into consideration.

My Lords, I do not know whether that can be done off my own bat but I will certainly take it into consideration. I cannot see why it should not be done but no doubt some of the legal beavers might stop me. I will see what I can do.

My Lords, Amendments 2, 3 and 4 amend Schedule 3 and place a duty on those local authorities that have not resolved to adopt the lap-dancing provisions introduced by Clause 27 within one year of commencement to consult local people on whether to make such a resolution.

The amendments respond to concerns raised by several noble Lords on Report about the optional nature of the lap-dancing provisions in the Bill. We considered whether these concerns could be addressed in guidance but, having listened to noble Lords saying that such guidance could simply be ignored by local authorities, we resolved to ensure that a statutory duty was placed in the Bill. Therefore, these amendments will ensure that local authorities that have not adopted the provisions within one year of commencement must consult local people to give them the opportunity to express their views on whether the provisions should be adopted. They further empower local communities with regard to the regulation of lap-dancing clubs in their area and mitigate the concern that there could be a mismatch between the local authority and local people’s views on the licensing of lap-dancing clubs.

The Government have listened carefully and responded to concerns raised here and in the other place on this clause. I firmly believe that, with this amendment, Clause 27 now strikes the right balance and will ensure that local communities are appropriately empowered to have a say in the opening and ongoing licensing of lap-dancing clubs in their area. I commend the amendment to the House.

My Lords, I have not previously spoken on this part of the Bill, but I was minded to when I received a briefing this morning from the Local Government Association. It is extremely concerned about this amendment, which it feels will force local authorities to undertake a burdensome consultation if they decide not to use powers available to them.

The association is concerned that the new duties were not consulted on. It feels that the amendment is in direct contradiction to the principles already enshrined in the Bill, stating that councils have the power to adopt the new licensing regime where it is locally appropriate. It feels that this goes directly against the principle of closer working between central and local government.

Councils have been at the forefront of campaigning for the introduction of the new licensing powers and they will not neglect the chance to take them up locally when they are needed. I would be most grateful for the noble Lord’s comments on the association’s views.

My Lords, it is always a problem when the Government drip-feed amendments through the last stages of a Bill. I rather hope that I have understood what this composite group of amendments, tabled today and on Report, means. I understand that, on Royal Assent, local authorities will be able to choose whether to implement the new regime. If a local authority implements the new regime, the people living in its area will immediately be able to take advantage of the new provisions for taking their concerns into account. That is right and proper.

If the local authority considers that the new regime is not necessary in its area, it must, under today’s amendments, still hold a consultation within a year on whether the community that it represents agrees. If the consultation shows that local residents have concerns about lap-dancing venues, the local authority should implement the new regime giving those people the opportunity to have those concerns addressed. If the consultation shows that local residents are, on the other hand, relaxed about lap-dancing clubs, the current licensing system will continue, but the new regime could still be introduced at any point in the future. That is the important point.

As the new regime includes an annual review of existing clubs, as well as strict controls on new clubs, any delay in the implementation of the new regime will not prevent objections or concerns from being raised against existing or new venues. Similarly, as the noble Baroness, Lady Harris, knows far better than me, local authorities already have several avenues by which residents can make suggestions and complaints. So even if someone were to miss a consultation, they could still make their feelings known, whether they are for or against the new regime.

I, too, received the briefing this morning from the Local Government Association. I ask only that this should not be yet another imposition on local authorities without their being given some sort of monetary recompense for carrying it out.

My Lords, I spoke briefly on the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Gould, at Report, to which the noble Lord, Lord Brett, replied, when he indicated that he might well follow the line now being taken by the Government. I share the views expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Harris, about local government, if possible, being allowed to decide what it wants to do, rather than having something imposed on it. I recall the Licensing Bill, now the Licensing Act 2003. Those of us who were familiar with the problems in central London were disappointed because it took so long for the disadvantages of the Act to become known throughout the country. It is a sensible fail-safe device to have the opportunity for consultation later to prevent communities from suddenly, through sheer ignorance, finding lap dancing imposed on them. I therefore congratulate the Government on the compromise solution that they have reached.

My Lords, of course, I, too, read the LGA document issued today. Part of the problem, reading between the lines, is that it cannot decide whether it wants something mandatory or not. Perhaps that is a false judgment, so I shall not pursue it. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, for his support, because we have had a negotiated balance in this House to arrive at the provision. What is clear is that, if authorities adopt the provisions, they will not need to consult. It is important that local people, rather than just local authorities, are consulted on whether to adopt provisions.

Is it a new burden? As has been said, there are already duties on local authorities to consult local people on an ongoing basis on a wide range of issues. We are fairly confident that the duty can be absorbed into the existing processes without imposing any particular new burdens. It is a one-off duty to consult and would not apply if the local authorities had already adopted the provision. So it is not overly onerous. In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, this is not an imposition. Authorities have structures in place; it is a one-off consultation. I believe that it strikes a sensible balance.

I do not think that the LGA statement today helps to move things on. I take the point about consultation. We have tried to consult and I will raise with some of my people what the difficulties have been. However, that has not just been from our side, as it were; it has come from both directions and we need to resolve that. It is unfortunate to have a statement coming out today that shows perhaps a lack of discussion, but I do not believe that the LGA’s concerns are real. This is a sensible way forward. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, for his input and commend the amendment.

That the Bill do now pass.

My Lords, I would like to say a few words of thanks to all those who have taken part in today’s short debate, but also in the preceding days. Throughout, our debates have been knowledgeable, forceful, often passionate but also genuine and constructive. They have been held in a particularly good spirit, even when we have crept up towards midnight on occasion. The Bill leaves the House in a much better state—that is something that this House does.

I thank my noble friends Lord Brett and Lord Faulkner, and my noble and learned friend Lady Scotland, for all their help. They have borne the full force of your Lordships’ inquiry on the Bill and I am extremely grateful for their support. I also thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Miller and Lady Neville-Jones—and, before, the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham—as well as the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, who joined us during Committee after the summer, the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, and the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, for the role that they have played in sharpening up the Bill, which is much improved. I do not want to detain your Lordships any longer than necessary, but I extend my thanks to all noble Lords who have taken part.

Finally, I am sure that all of your Lordships will join me in thanking the members of the Bill team, who have been particularly focused and have tried to be helpful across the House, and those others who were behind the scenes, including opposition researchers, who have all helped in the smooth passage of the Bill.