Business and Planning Bill

Baroness Thornhill Excerpts

2nd reading & 2nd reading (Hansard) & 2nd reading (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 6th July 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Thornhill (LD)]

My Lords, I declare my interest as a vice-president of the Local Government Association. I knew that there would be many speakers and much said, so I will confine my comments to just three quite small but specific aspects of the Bill.

First, the term “local authority”, as used in the Bill, gives the role and responsibility for these now infamous pavement licences to district councils. In two-tier areas this is often the responsibility of the county council, which is the highways authority. While some, such as my former authority, have agreements in place where the county has devolved this function to district councils, for many this is new ground. They have to try to introduce a whole new function very quickly. While they clearly have the best local knowledge, they do not have the policies, the application forms or the processes to do this—and, as we have heard, their capacity has been much diminished. Would it therefore be possible for the Bill to allow all local authorities to administer these licences, enabling local agreements for county or district councils to carry out this function, depending on what suits them best, instead of a default solely to district councils?

Secondly, as my noble friend Lord Paddick articulated very well, things go wrong—we have seen that they surely do. There is a summary review power in the Bill. This, plus existing legislation, ought to give the police and councils sufficient powers to act should problems arise—but I am not confident about this, and I will flag up a reason that I believe warrants further exploration.

In my experience of working in partnership to tame a town centre described by a tabloid as “Ibiza on acid”, the real issue is what has come to be known as the cumulative impact problem, where there are several licensed premises within a compact area. The way the legislation is framed—this Bill is framed the same way—makes it difficult to use available powers to the desired effect. The whole process of reviewing the licence or pursuing a closure under anti-social behaviour legislation is predicated on proving that an individual premise is responsible for the anti-social behaviour, which, as we have heard from many noble Lords, often takes place outside in the street much later on. In my experience, the reality is that reviews often do not happen because of the difficulty of proving that the specific nuisance comes from specific premises. Yet the areas where there have been serious issues in recent days have been, in the main, exactly these sorts of areas. As we have heard from several noble Lords, Clause 11 will exacerbate this problem, so I am not reassured by the summary review power.

Finally, there are some legal uncertainties about whether the regulations in the Coronavirus Act that allow local authorities to hold decision-making meetings remotely until May 2021 preclude council meetings, including licensing hearings and planning meetings, being heard physically if they so wish and can do so safely. Some clarity is sought. Similarly, as mentioned by my noble friend Lady Kramer, the mayoral development corporations, Transport for London and others were not included in the definition of a local authority in either the enabling provisions or the subsequent regulations. They therefore cannot hold meetings remotely, which they might wish to do—in fact, urgently need to do as backlogs mount up. These are small but significant issues that I hope can be amended and clarified during the passage of the Bill, which I support.