(1 day, 17 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Rachel Blake (Cities of London and Westminster) (Lab/Co-op)
I am grateful for the opportunity to raise this matter this afternoon, and I thank the Speaker’s Office for granting this debate.
I am sure I am not the only Member of Parliament to have had a late night, to have spent time in Bar Italia as a young person, or to have enjoyed the wonderful culture of central London, whether at the Royal Albert Hall, the Theatre Royal, Haymarket or the Soho Theatre. The west end’s history and culture is synonymous with the openness, creativity and diversity that define modern London. However, I am the only Member of Parliament to represent the communities in the Cities of London and Westminster. Few places have contributed more to our cultural life, and few places demonstrate more clearly the importance of striking the right balance between supporting a thriving night time economy and making sure that residential communities can also thrive.
I represent some of the most vibrant, economically critical and culturally significant communities in the country, from the City of London to Pimlico, from Covent Garden to Marylebone and from Fitzrovia to Soho. These are the places that help power London’s economy and define our global reputation, and they are also places where people live, where people enjoy their own lives and where people bring up families. They enjoy their homes and the internationally renowned nightlife that exists alongside them. Many of them raise families there, they sleep there, and they expect to have a meaningful say over decisions that affect their neighbourhoods and their quality of life. That balance between a thriving city and a liveable city is at the heart of any licensing policy, and it is why these regulations matter.
Let me be clear at the outset of this debate: I support devolution; I support economic growth; and I support thriving communities. And I support the principle that genuinely strategic issues may require a strategic voice. I also recognise that the Government’s final regulations that they published a few weeks ago are narrower and more objective than many feared they might be. The Government have rightly moved away from the broader and more subjective approach originally proposed. Concepts such as economic importance, reputational importance and strategic geography have not been adopted. Instead, the regulations rely on statutory criteria based on venue size, operating hours and licensing classifications.
Deirdre Costigan (Ealing Southall) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate this evening—this afternoon, even! Does she welcome the fact that the Mayor of London will still need to take into account the four strategic licensing objectives in coming to any decision: protecting public safety; protecting children and young people; preventing public nuisance; and preventing crime? Does she also note that there is a facility for people to then appeal the Mayor of London’s decision if at that point they do not agree with it?
Rachel Blake
I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention. She makes a powerful point about the overriding significance of the four licensing objectives. Public safety and preventing crime are critical objectives, and they mean an awful lot to my constituents.
These criteria provide greater certainty for residents, businesses and local authorities alike. However, Parliament should still ask whether the thresholds now adopted reflect the expectations created during the consideration of the parent legislation. During the passage of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Act 2026, Ministers repeatedly described these powers as exceptional, carefully constrained and a measure of last resort. The House of Lords approved the principle before seeing the detailed definition. Parliament has now seen both the regulations and the accompanying guidance. It is therefore reasonable now to ask whether the practical operation of these powers will remain consistent with those assurances.
Joe Powell (Kensington and Bayswater) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate. She makes a very good point about how the criteria have been drawn. The Kensington Society in Kensington and Bayswater has estimated that 45% to 50% of venues that currently have a licence would be between D and E, which is what is specified in the secondary legislation. So they obviously have concerns that that volume could generate a whole set of call-ins for things that would not really be considered strategic by any sort of common understanding. Does my hon. Friend have a similar concern about the volume, particularly for that licensing band in part A of the relevant statutory instrument?
Rachel Blake
My hon. Friend makes a very good point about the number of premises that will be affected in central London by the statutory instrument as it was laid down. A large proportion will be open to this call-in power and that raises a really important question about whether City Hall is expecting to be able to call in that many, and indeed whether it would want to, and whether that fits in with what most people would consider a strategic intervention. I will come on to some questions for the Minister about how we might closely define a strategic intervention and monitor what a strategic call-in power might look like. We do have to ask whether the practical operation of these powers will remain consistent with the expectations during the passage of the Bill.
The concern today is not whether strategic powers should exist. There are many places across London that are of strategic significance to our future as a successful world city—and Parliament has already settled that question, and I recognise that. The concern today is whether strategic powers will remain genuinely strategic.
For communities such as Soho, where hospitality, culture and late-night activity are an integral part of the area’s character, a significant number of applications might fall within the category of strategic importance, and that really matters in Westminster and in the City of London. The City of Westminster contains around 4,000 licensed premises, with nearly half located in the west end and in St James’s ward, and I have some figures that I think are going to be really interesting for everyone present. I know everybody will be really pleased and interested to hear that 1,000 premises are licensed to 11 pm, 1,692 to midnight, 478 to 1 am, 131 to 2 am, 221 to 3 am, 22 to 4 am, 19 to 5 am and—this is really neat—24 premises open until 6 am so they are more like 24-hour premises. It is really important for everybody to acknowledge the number of premises that are open into the later hours, making sure that we are a truly global world city that is welcoming to people who want to be entertained through the night.
Of course, that concentration of licensed activity is unparalleled anywhere else in the country, and therefore even small shifts in licensing policy can have significant consequences not only for residents and local businesses, but for London’s wider cultural and night-time economy. That is precisely why Parliament must be confident that powers described as strategic remain genuinely strategic in practice.
Residents therefore have a reasonable question: if large numbers of applications—as my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington and Bayswater (Joe Powell) has drawn attention to—are potentially eligible, where is the line between a strategic exception and a routine intervention?
That leads to perhaps the most important point: being eligible for a call-in is not the same thing as being called in. The regulations determine which applications may be considered by the mayor. They do not require the mayor to intervene. The revised section 182—of Licensing Act 2003—guidance now provides greater clarity about the operation of the new regime. It establishes a London-wide framework, confirms the mayor’s strategic role, and explains how call-in powers are intended to operate.
But the publication of guidance does not in itself answer the practical questions that matter most to residents and local authorities. How many applications do the Government expect to qualify each year? How many call-ins does the mayor expect to make? How many venues across London are likely to fall within scope? On what basis will potentially eligible applications be selected for intervention? What evidence informed the thresholds that have been chosen? Those questions remain important because the impact of the regime will depend not on what may be called in, but on what is called in.
The City of London Corporation has also raised concerns about the practical implications of the new arrangements, and about the scale of applications that could potentially fall within scope, and local authorities across London continue to ask many of the same questions as residents. When will these powers be used? What criteria will guide the decision to call in? How will strategic considerations be balanced against local evidence? These are reasonable questions, and they deserve answers.
One of the strongest concerns I hear from residents is about local democratic control. Throughout the passage of the parent legislation, Ministers rightly spoke about neighbourhood voice, community empowerment and maintaining a strong democratic basis for decision making. The revised guidance itself emphasises the importance of community involvement in licensing decisions and the opportunities for local residents to have their say. Yet many residents still ask a simple question: if a resident speaks at a local licensing hearing, presents evidence on crime, noise, antisocial behaviour, dispersal and residential amenity, What democratic links exist between that participation and a subsequent determination by City Hall? Residents have every right to expect a meaningful voice in licensing decisions that affect where they live.
Licensing decisions often depend on highly local evidence about noise, crime patterns, dispersal routes and residential amenity. Anyone who has attended a licensing hearing, as I am sure many of us here this afternoon have done, will know that these cases frequently turn on detailed local knowledge of a particular building, street or neighbourhood. That local knowledge matters, and Westminster’s experience demonstrates that clearly. Soho’s success depends on getting the balance right between supporting culture, hospitality and economic activity and protecting the people for whom Soho is home.
What additional rights will residents have when an application is called in? How will they be able to make representations directly in a mayoral determination? What weight will be given to evidence heard by local licensing committees? How will borough licensing committees remain primary decision makers, rather than advisory bodies? How will the Government assess whether the new arrangements are strengthening, rather than weakening, community empowerment? My purpose here is not to argue against strategic objectives, to challenge the important role of London’s nightlife in its economic growth or to challenge these powers in principle; my focus is on safeguards, transparency and accountability. That is why I will continue to press for five practical measures.
First, we need clear public guidance from the mayor on the circumstances in which call-in powers will be exercised and what factors will inform those decisions. Secondly, we need annual transparency reporting, rather than waiting two years for the first statutory review. Thirdly, we need publication of every call-in decision with full reasons. Fourthly, we need meaningful opportunities for resident participation in every mayoral determination. Finally, we need the publication of annual data, broken down by local authority area, showing how many applications became eligible, how many were called in and which criteria triggered the intervention. If these powers are genuinely intended to be used sparingly, there should be no objection to that degree of transparency.
London’s success depends on maintaining the balance between growth and community. Soho’s success depends on maintaining the balance between being a world-famous destination and a place that people proudly call home. Residents deserve confidence that local voices will continue to matter; Parliament deserves confidence that powers described as exceptional will remain exceptional; and we all deserve confidence that implementation will match the assurances that Ministers gave when these powers were first proposed.
It is my responsibility as the Member of Parliament for Cities of London and Westminster to stand up for centuries-old communities who live side by side with thriving nightlife. I am absolutely determined that they will do so into the future, and I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Jim McMahon)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Rachel Blake) for securing this important debate and for the significant effort that she has put into representing her constituents on this matter over a long period of time; I know how much it matters to her and to them. Hopefully I will address the points that she has made in the course of her speech, but I know that this will not be our final conversation on the issue, nor should it be.
This is about how we balance competing interests. We must recognise that London is a global city and acts as a draw, but it is also where people live and are part of a community. I know that my hon. Friend is trying to strike that balance. The new strategic licensing arrangements came into force yesterday. They give the mayor a strategic role in licensing across the capital, with a duty to publish a London-wide policy and a power to call in certain applications of potential strategic importance. Before I address their impact, it is important to explain the problem that the reforms are intended to solve.
London’s hospitality, cultural and night-time economy is central to the capital’s success and its appeal as a global city, but licensing decisions can have implications that extend beyond a single premises or borough, affecting London’s wider economy, cultural offer and international reputation. Individual boroughs are rightly focused on their local circumstances, and these reforms are intended to complement that local expertise with a strategic role for the mayor where an application may be significant to London as a whole. The aim is not to set local and London-wide interests against each other, but for them to complement each other. The aim is to support a licensing system that is capable of balancing those interests fairly while continuing to protect residents and uphold the licensing objectives.
Let me start with residents and the concerns that my hon. Friend has rightly raised on their behalf. I want to be clear that the protections at the heart of the licensing system remain unchanged. The four statutory licensing objectives—the prevention of crime and disorder; public safety; the prevention of public nuisance; and the protection of children from harm—continue to apply. Those protections apply equally where the mayor intervenes. Any application that is called in will still be determined in accordance with the Licensing Act 2003 and with regard to the importance of promoting those objectives, while residents and other interested parties will retain their existing ability to make representations on individual applications. Residents have also had the opportunity to respond to the mayor’s consultation on his new strategic licensing policy, which will set out the wider framework for his strategic licensing role.
Alongside those opportunities for residents to make their voice heard, the new arrangements include specific transparency requirements around the mayor’s new strategic role. Advertising requirements will ensure that residents are informed when an application is identified as being potentially strategically important, and, if the mayor intervenes, of the decisions taken. There are clear lines of accountability. Mayoral directions remain subject to the existing rights of appeal, and where a direction is appealed, the mayor is legally responsible for defending it. Overall, residents will retain the protections at the heart of the licensing system, and transparency and clear accountability are built into the mayor’s new strategic role.
Let me turn to London’s licensing authorities. I recognise the concerns about what the mayor’s new role could mean for local decision making, as well as the additional responsibilities that it will place on licensing teams. I should reiterate that local licensing authorities will remain the default decision makers. They will continue to receive applications, consider representations, hold hearings where necessary and determine applications in the first instance. The mayor’s new role does not replace those core functions; it provides an additional strategic role for applications that meet the relevant criteria, with call-in decisions remaining discretionary.
Deirdre Costigan
The Minister makes a point about supporting local authorities in London. Will he commit to ensuring that local authorities are included in the two-year review of this measure? Will he look at the potential new burdens funding that might be required for local authorities?
Jim McMahon
I will come on to the new burdens funding shortly. I will mention in a short while the built-in review periods and the approach to those that she asks about.
The new arrangements will require some additional information sharing with the Greater London Authority. Those requirements are largely based on information that authorities already collect or have access to through the normal licensing process. Even so, we recognise that meeting those requirements may come with additional costs. The Government will therefore conduct a full new burdens assessment to ensure that local licensing authorities are appropriately reimbursed for new costs resulting from these powers.
We recognise that the new system will place demands on the GLA. It has been preparing for its new responsibilities, in addition to recruiting additional resources to support the operation of the new regime. Our aim is simple: to keep boroughs at the heart of decision making on licensing while ensuring that both they and the GLA are equipped to ensure that the new system works effectively.
Rachel Blake
Will the Minister comment on the part of the process where the Greater London Authority makes the decision to call in applications? As I discussed in my opening remarks, we know that there is quite a broad pool of eligible premises. I believe that my residents have a concern about how the decision to call in will be made and the transparency around that decision. They are concerned that some types of premises or premises operating in particular areas might seek to get that call-in, so we really seek transparency on that issue.
Jim McMahon
I will talk through that process shortly, and also cover what the criteria for potentially strategically important venues mean. I need to reiterate, though, that although keeping boroughs at the heart of licensing decisions is important to us, so too is ensuring that the system supports London’s wider growth.
That brings me to businesses and the central purpose behind the reforms: better supporting London’s hospitality and night-time economy. A thriving hospitality sector is fundamental to London’s success as a global city. We want a licensing system that gives responsible operators greater confidence to invest, adapt and grow. Giving businesses that confidence means ensuring that the new process does not create unnecessary delay or uncertainty, which is why the regulations establish clear statutory deadlines and procedures.
To address a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster, the call-in power is designed to support a more enabling approach to licensing, rather than giving the mayor a means to block or further restrict applications. An application granted as applied for cannot be called in. Where the mayor intervenes, any conditions he imposes cannot, in his opinion, be more restrictive than those imposed by the licensing authority, and he can only direct that an application be rejected where the authority has itself rejected it. We believe that those protections and safeguards strike the right balance. They are intended to ensure that the new strategic role supports growth without creating unnecessary delay or uncertainty for businesses, while maintaining important protections for residents and the local community.
I now turn to the point about sites that are potentially strategically important to Greater London. As has been said in the debate, we have built in a requirement for the mayor’s call-in power to be reviewed after two years, and then at least every five years thereafter. I am happy to take away the particular point about the role of local authorities in that review process and confirm in writing the position.
To summarise one of the bigger concerns, because the scope of premises can feel quite wide, there is a concern that the proposal creates a completely double-run system—a process on top of the local licensing authority. In supporting this proposal and the new licensing regime, it is not our expectation as a Government that all the premises that are in scope will be called in by the mayor for a strategic decision. Our expectation is that most of them will go on as normal, and for them to be called in by the mayor, they would have to meet at least one of the criteria set out in law.
We believe that these reforms get the balance right between protecting local residents and communities and recognising that in many ways, London’s night-time economy is unique. Many people come to London not only to work and shop, but to experience the night-time economy—our theatres, bars, restaurants and nightclubs.
Joe Powell
I thank the Minister for his important clarification of the Government’s intention. Does he also accept that there is a big difference in rateable values between inner and outer London? One of the concerns of inner-London MPs such as myself and my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Rachel Blake) is that, almost by definition, we will end up with more venues in the potential call-in zone compared with outer London. That clarification for inner London is therefore particularly important.
Jim McMahon
We will need to see how that works in practice, because I think it could work both ways. I recognise that rateable values might be lower in outer London than in inner London, but that reflects the economic benefit that premises in inner London bring—that is why the business rates bill ends up being higher. It would be reasonable for the mayor to say that, for that reason, such premises clearly have a more important role to play than those of the same nature in an outer-London borough that might look the same on the outside. Those premises can play quite different roles economically in their contribution to the wider night-time economy, so that can probably work both ways.
Although I recognise all the concerns that have been raised, I believe that these reforms strike the right balance. They recognise London as a global city and the wider considerations that that brings, but balance that with the need to ensure that our local licensing authorities are empowered and their status is respected. I think we have set out how we will do that. Indeed, the extraordinary concentration of restaurants, music venues, theatres and nightlife in these areas is part of what makes them such attractive places, not just to visit but to live. That is why we should not treat the interests of residents and those of the hospitality sector as inherently opposed. These reforms are intended to balance them fairly, supporting responsible businesses and London’s wider growth while preserving the important role of boroughs and their accountability to local communities.
Rachel Blake
The Minister should be aware that some of the organisations where residents come together to represent their communities celebrate the nightlife in their neighbourhoods. Some have come together to support the re-establishment of particular celebrated nightlife venues, such as G-A-Y in Soho. I wanted to make it a matter of public record that many residents are clear about their passion for a lively nightlife, while balancing that with the residential character of an area.
Jim McMahon
My hon. Friend reinforces how it is not about putting residents in one basket and visitors from outside the city in another. Everybody benefits from a place that is thriving and active, where people feel welcome and that there is something for everyone. That is the balance we are trying to strike. I know from speaking to all the local MPs in the area who have made representations that that is very much the balance they are trying to strike, too. I commit to continuing our communication. I am keen to understand how the new arrangements work in practice and to hear from local experiences, and I know that Members will continue to make the case.
The regulations require the Secretary of State to review how these new arrangements are working in practice and to publish a report within two years of commencement. Further reviews, as I said earlier, will then be published at least every five years thereafter. It is not the case that these arrangements will be introduced and then simply left in place. Their impact will be kept under review, allowing us to assess how the system is working in practice for London businesses, licensing authorities and residents alike. That is the balance we are trying to strike. I once again thank my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster for securing this important debate and for her continued work supporting local residents.
Question put and agreed to.