Business and Planning Bill

Lord Blunkett Excerpts

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

[Lord Blunkett (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, as my noble friend Lord Stevenson said, many aspects of this Bill are simple and straightforward and are to be welcomed. However, others are precursors to the wider planning Bill which was referred to by the noble Lords, Lord Kirkhope and Lord Best.

Given that I have only four minutes, I will concentrate on those aspects which concern me and which we should be clear should not be carried forward as a long-term proposition, because one person’s regulation is another person’s protection. The idea that, if we just sweep away many of the blockages in regulation, the enterprise and creativity of local businesses will somehow flourish without damaging the interests of the wider community, is simply untrue. It is untrue because those regulations and requirements have been brought in over many years for a purpose: to retain the balance between economic activity and enterprise, on the one hand, and the safe- guarding of people’s interests on the other. We should bear that in mind.

Other aspects of this Bill slightly bemuse me. While I am totally in favour of kick-starting elements of the economy that have been so badly damaged by the lock- down, I cannot see for the life of me that licensed premises selling alcohol off-premises—as though they will all now be off-licences—will actually do very much, other than fuel the already worrying concerns about activity late at night, particularly in the major cities, which has already been referred to but which I want to reinforce. Eating and drinking outside in an orderly fashion—linked, I stress, to the premises and not detached from them—is very sensible and, in the remaining summer months and next year, could contribute to not only economic activity but a different atmosphere in cities, towns and villages.

However, it must be done in a way that does not, as has been referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, damage the interests of those who will be vulnerable to unplanned and unrestricted obstacles on pavements. I have been asked, quite understandably, by the Royal National Institute of Blind People and others to draw attention to this and to say that there must be sensible safeguards if we are not to have almost Kafkaesque episodes like something out of “Monty Python”. I have a dog; other people do not. My current dog would not take a tender morsel off the table as it passes; one of my previous dogs undoubtedly would have done. I am just trying to lighten the load a bit this afternoon.

I am most concerned about the extension of hours for construction. It is welcome that the Minister, in introducing this Second Reading, indicated that this would not apply to neighbours. Believe me, the light pollution, noise pollution and damage cannot be justified by prolonged hours, as extension into the night will probably lead to less safety rather than more. Turning day into night is not the way to kick-start our economy. By all means, let us ensure that we have the enterprise we need to get us back on stream again, but let us also take the words of Winston Churchill from 1909: the worst should never undercut the very worst.

Business and Planning Bill

Lord Blunkett Excerpts

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

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

My Lords, I welcome the Minister’s statement and the Government’s decision to table an amendment on Report. I have one question to ask the Minister: would it be possible for any premises that wanted to introduce an earlier finish time for off-sales to do so? It is very hard to see from reading the Bill whether there is any flexibility in that regard.

[Lord Blunkett (Lab)]

My Lords, I touched on this very briefly in the limited time available at Second Reading, so I will not keep the House long tonight, but I will try to put this into some sort of perspective. I cannot for the life of me see what this has to do with recovery and regeneration. I do not get at all what this proposal is supposed to achieve. I get what it will do. I understand entirely, as all those who spoke this evening and at Second Reading did, that whatever the cut-off time for every outlet to be an off-licence—I welcome the proposal of restricting it to 11 pm—the drinking will continue afterwards with drink that has been purchased and therefore is to be consumed. No one should get the idea that this will be fine after 11 pm, because it will not be. That is why, if I was in favour of the measure at all, I would err on the side of the noble Lord, Lord Cormack.

I rest my principal case on the speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, at the beginning of this brief debate. Frankly, until the December general election the police did not at all have the capacity to deal with this. They are still trying to recruit. Local authorities’ environmental health functions have been totally decimated over the past 10 years because of the deep cuts and austerity measures, which local authorities have suffered from most. But there is also the absurdity of not leaving this to local discretion, where people know exactly what would and would not work, even if this measure had any justification in terms of deregulation on the grounds of stimulus and recovery.

Are we really saying that, to provide local stimulus and recovery and to help those in the sector who have been devastated, people should have the ability to buy from any licensed outlet, treat it as an off-licence and go on drinking? I am the first to enjoy a drink, but I know from bitter experience, including having been a local authority leader for seven years, just what devastation this can cause. It is not possible for it to be policed, in the widest sense, and age authentication will be more difficult.

However, I rest my case on a very simple fact. When we are faced, as we are now, with withdrawing from the third-largest trading bloc in the world, about to accelerate a trade and economic war against the second-largest trading bloc in the world, and at the mercy, for the time being, of the President of the United States and his attitudes as the leading trade bloc in the world, is deregulating off-licence drinking late into the night anything whatever to do with the recovery of our economy?

[Lord Shipley [V]]

My Lords, I want to speak to Amendment 45. I referred to the same issues raised by this amendment on the late night levy at Second Reading. On 8 June, I noticed an article in my local newspaper, the Journal, headed: “Campaigners Say Levy Should Be Cut To Save Pubs”. It said that fee levels, having been set by the Government, could be changed only by the Government and that the council was having to seek their permission. It was pointed out by CAMRA, the Campaign for Real Ale, that even though pubs registered to trade after midnight in Newcastle had been closed for 10 weeks, they were still being charged the late-night levy. The council claimed it had no power to change that situation but had asked the Government for additional powers to reduce or waive the fees. In Newcastle, some 240 premises pay the levy, which helps to fund extra policing, street cleaning, taxi marshals and the Street Pastors; I should declare that I am patron of Newcastle Street Pastors. There needs to be local flexibility. I hope that the Minister will look very carefully at this issue and recognise that fee-setting should be a devolved area of policy.

I suspect the problem may have arisen unintentionally at the time that the Bill was passed. This is not about the level of alcohol consumption, nor about how alcohol is served. It is about a charge being levied for a service that is not being provided. Maybe there has been some movement on this matter between government and local authorities. There are three principles at stake: we need clarity on the level of fees levied when pubs are required to close, and the rules for remission of those fees ought to be clear to them; we need clarity on the powers that local authorities have, and will have, on this levy; and we need a full review of licensing legislation to re-examine which powers should be held centrally and which locally. I hope very much that the Minister will understand this problem and will agree with my suggestions.

Business and Planning Bill

Lord Blunkett Excerpts

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

[Lord Balfe [V]]

I only really need to say one thing. I am concerned that some of these clauses might turn into permanent legislation—I am aware that there is a tendency for what is temporary to become permanent. Can I have the Minister’s assurance that it is not intended to extend any of these clauses beyond what is absolutely necessary to deal with this emergency?

[Lord Blunkett (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, I share the fear expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Balfe, and by many others during the brief passage of this urgent legislation. We must be mindful that it is on the whole about temporary and not permanent measures, and that we have clearly identified where the temporary should apply. I will not overegg the difference between Amendments 78 and 79, which has been rightly highlighted by my noble friend Lord Stevenson, especially as the Government Chief Whip has reminded us to confine ourselves to getting this Bill through to Royal Assent without keeping people up until midnight. Enough has been said.

[Lord Naseby [V]]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, who I think has done a service to the House and indeed the country. It was interesting to hear what he said about advice from the Public Bill Office. However, Amendment 27, which is the one that took my eye, is precautionary and by definition refers to the coronavirus pandemic and, therefore, one hopes it is time-limited. I thank him for raising this absolutely crucial issue and yet giving the Government the facility to act as they feel appropriate.