Business and Planning Bill

Baroness Kennedy of Cradley Excerpts

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

[Baroness Kennedy of Cradley (Non-Afl) [V]]

My Lords, I support the overall aim of the Bill, which seeks to put in place measures to help businesses recover from the hit they have taken during the lockdown, to help protect jobs and return to healthy trading, and to make the most of the summer months. These are measures I support. Today I will restrict my comments to pavement licences and the off-premises sale of alcohol.

With over 47,000 pubs in the UK and a high concentration of them in our cities—there are, for example, in excess of 1,300 pubs in one London borough —many local authorities are expected to process a huge number of applications in a short space of time, publicise them, consult the public, consider their responses and provide ongoing monitoring and enforcement of the pavement licence. Can the Minister give confidence today to local authorities, which are already stretched thin financially, that they will be given the resources they need to deliver this new set of responsibilities?

Many local authorities are already facilitating the greater use of outside space by pubs and restaurants. For example, Brent Council has already agreed to extend the outdoor seating capacity at Wembley Park. The Liverpool Without Walls project, from the city council and the Liverpool business improvement district, is re-imagining the city with outdoor seating, road closures and pop-up parks. These examples are sensible plans to provide additional flexibility for businesses looking to welcome customers to eat and drink as safely as possible. The proposed pavement licences are therefore an economic opportunity for many and, in general, should be welcomed—but it should be acknowledged that they might also be a potential nuisance for local residents. The Government must get the balance right. The new streamlined and quick approach to securing a pavement licence is currently skewed towards businesses. The Government should give equal weight to the public’s view on any proposed licence.

Pubs are invariably in residential areas, which is why some licence conditions allow for on-street drinking but only up to a certain time of night. It is usually 9:30 pm, especially in midweek. We have already seen residents suffering in some areas. Drinking has been banned in London Fields after weeks of public urination and littering—across the green space and in people’s doorways. Seven days, which is in effect five working days, is too short a time for public consultation without additional proactive measures for community engagement. What more do the Government think that they can do to ensure that local residents are aware of new licence applications?

The more that can be done to get the licence conditions right in the first place, the better it will be for residents and council enforcement officers. That is why I am particularly concerned about the default position that a licence is deemed agreed after 10 working days, should there be no response from the local authority. Does the Minister think that this default position is as fair to local residents as it is to the applicant?

The Government must also be clear on how the new licensing requirements will be monitored and enforced. The local authority will undoubtedly have to provide extra street cleaning and deal with more noise complaints, so does the Minister believe that the £100 figure meets the extra cost burden placed on local government? How was that figure calculated? I understand the need to keep cost low for applicants—these measures are, after all, designed to stabilise their businesses—but should the Government not ensure that they cover the full cost to local government for the scheme? In addition, does he believe that litter clearing should be a condition of the licence, as it is with many fast-food restaurants?

Finally, I turn to the proposal for off-the-premises sales of alcohol. What is the reason for turning pubs into late-night off-licences, which will increase street drinking way into the night? Again, is this fair to local residents?

In conclusion, I support these measures, but I want to see the Government rebalance the economic consideration with the impact on local residents as regards pavement licences and off-premises sales of alcohol. I look forward to the Minister’s reply.

Business and Planning Bill

Baroness Kennedy of Cradley Excerpts

Committee stage & Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard) & Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 13th July 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con) [V]]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 44 and 1. As declared on the register, and as I referred to at Second Reading, I chair the board of PASS, the proof of age standards scheme. I was delighted that my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe highlighted this scheme, which has the support of the hospitality and tourism sector, and the retail sector, as represented by the major players. It is true that we are undertaking a consultation at the moment and that there was a slight delay in enabling everyone from whom we had not already heard to respond.

The point I want to make is that obviously I am in favour of a digital verification scheme. However, to me, it is extremely important that any digital scheme should comply with the same standards and meet the same regulatory requirements as any physical provider. I am sure that my noble friend would agree with that.

As my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe and the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, pointed out, a physical proof of age scheme—now moving to digital—is government policy. We look to my noble friend the Minister to tell us, in responding to the debate, that the Home Office stands behind the proposals that we are to make in this regard. As my noble friend and the noble Lord rightly said, it will greatly expedite entrance to clubs, bars, nightclubs and all sorts of places if we have a digital verification scheme alongside the physical scheme. The scheme has been so successful because even the physical scheme offers an alternative to those people—usually young people—who, on a good night out, take their passport or driving licence and come home without it, which obviously incurs a huge expense. So anything that the Minister can do to chivvy things along with the Home Office would be very welcome news.

The fundamental point is that, whichever age verification scheme we use, be it physical or digital, it must meet certain standards. Obviously I would say that PASS is best placed to provide that verification and regulatory role.

I turn briefly to Amendment 1, moved so eloquently by my noble friend Lord Balfe. In most circumstances, it will be environmental health officers who enforce and police these arrangements. But there might be circumstances in which there is an outbreak of public disorder and the police are called. If it is indeed the case that the police have not been consulted, I would be interested to know the reason.

[Baroness Kennedy of Cradley (Non-Afl) [V]]

My Lords, I will speak in support of Amendment 40, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Holmes of Richmond. This amendment seeks to insert a new clause, requiring the Secretary of State to make regulations to ensure that small independent breweries can make an application for a temporary premises licence easily and quickly. This is an important addition, as it would allow small independent breweries that would otherwise be excluded from the benefits of the licence measures in the Bill to take full advantage of them.

Like other businesses, independent breweries have struggled through the lockdown. A recent survey of small independent brewers, conducted by the Society of Independent Brewers, showed that 84% expect the pandemic and subsequent social distancing measures to have a lasting negative impact on their business. It is therefore right that the measures in the Bill, which are after all designed to help businesses recover and to protect jobs, can apply equally to small independent brewers. They should not be excluded.

After all, local breweries have a positive effect on local economies. Where I live in south London, Brockley Brewery—the local brewery, which was started in 2013—employs local people and is a London living wage employer. To survive the lockdown, it has been running a beer delivery service, alongside a weekend brewery shop. I am sure that these innovations have been a lifeline for the business. This amendment will allow other small independent breweries to benefit from innovations such as this. It will give them the option to use the measures in the Bill to keep their business going and to protect jobs. It will allow them to develop more innovative ways of getting their business back on its feet.

I can see no reason to exclude small independent brewers from benefiting from the measures in the Bill. I hope that the noble Baroness will accept the need for Amendment 40 and ensure that this vibrant part of the hospitality sector is not overlooked.

Business and Planning Bill

Baroness Kennedy of Cradley Excerpts

Report stage & Report stage (Hansard) & Report stage (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 20th July 2020 Lords Chamber

The need to update this guidance is obvious, and has been for some time. The coalition Government’s 2012 accessibility action plan set out a goal to complete an update of Inclusive Mobility by 2014, but this did not happen. The previous Government made updating it a goal in their 2018 inclusive transport strategy, but we are still waiting. I strongly urge the Government to see the Bill as a cue for clear minimum distances to be specified. The conditions and guidance will be published only after the new system of licensing is up and running, but this requirement needs to be clear from the outset. Will the Government commit to publishing updated inclusive street design guidance, reflecting the new reality of social distancing and to communicating these changes to planning authorities?

[Baroness Kennedy of Cradley (Non-Afl) [V]]

My Lords, I will speak briefly in support of the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Holmes of Richmond. It is important that we make sure that the additional street furniture—the tables and chairs—do not restrict access or movement for individuals, especially disabled people. We must guard against creating potentially dangerous situations where people need to walk in roads, navigate around tables and chairs, or break social distancing rules to get past people on the street because of pavement licences. We need to get this balance right. Applications should not be granted if pedestrians are forced to cross a pavement in a dangerous manner, or if there is insufficient space between tables and chairs to enable disabled people to use the new space comfortably and safely or to pass through it without risk of incident. If properly managed and located, so that the needs of all pedestrians and customers are considered, pavement licences can make outdoor places vibrant and socially distanced safe places to be in the summer.

If the Minister does not accept these proposals and relies instead on the amendment in the name of his noble friend Lord Howe, it is important that he sets out, for the record, a clear framework to give clarity to those who need to enact this legislation on the direction they need to go in, and the guidance they need to follow to get this balance right. Finally, will the Minister assure the House that the relevant stakeholders have been consulted on the Government’s amendment on this issue?

[The Earl of Clancarty (CB) [V]]

My Lords, at this stage, I would like to suggest something which the Government might include in the guidance. I do not fully support Amendment 1, as is not about access but about erecting barriers, which is often unnecessary and counterproductive. It should be perfectly possible, as in other European cities, to do something as simple as mark the corners of the café’s territory with an object, such as a wooden tub of flowers, so that that territory is fixed in what I termed in Committee an open but rigid structure. In Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, correctly used the term “segregation” if barriers were installed, although I disagree with his inference. The problem with barriers is that those who have them imposed on them push back against them. They start to move, whereas fixed markers do not.

I appreciate that the reason for extending the café on to the street is to increase business at this time, but it should be done in a way that enhances the community. It is wrong that we insist, even before the local geography is assessed, that the café be cut off and isolated physically from everything else. The Government’s draft guidance only says that the use of barriers should be “considered” by local authorities. However, I notice that markers of the kind that I referred to are not listed in that guidance as a possible strategy. Will the Government consider this? I am not talking about permanent fixtures, just something solid enough to help determine the territory designated but able to be carried off the pavement at night and replaced in precisely the same position the following day.