Licensing Act 2003 (Liaison Committee Report)

Lord Foster of Bath Excerpts

Wednesday 17th May 2023 Grand Committee

[Lord Foster of Bath (LD)]

My Lords, I suspect that very few of us would doubt the merit of the decision that was made to introduce special Select Committees and ensure that some carry out post-legislative scrutiny. It is equally welcome that, from time to time, the Liaison Committee conducts a follow-up inquiry. I had the opportunity to serve on both the 2017 special committee that reviewed the 2003 Licensing Act and the Liaison Committee in its follow-up work, which reported last year. Both were extremely ably chaired by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering.

As we have already heard, the committee concluded that a radical, comprehensive overhaul of the Act was needed, with the work of licensing committees being taken over by planning committees and appeals going to the Planning Inspectorate rather than to magistrates. The committee made a large number of recommendations, which included: better training of councillors engaged in licensing activities; increased safeguards in relation to the extra powers given to the police; the use of taxation and pricing measures to control excessive consumption; a reconsideration of measures such as early morning restriction orders and late night levies; and bringing the sale of alcohol airside within the ambit of licensing legislation. I want to concentrate my remarks on just two of the other recommendations that we made: greater co-ordination between the planning and licensing functions of local authorities; and measures to embed the agent of change principle into planning legislation, guidance and practice more effectively.

In terms of co-ordination between planning and licensing, the Select Committee recommended:

“Sections 6–10 of the Licensing Act 2003 should be amended to transfer the functions of local authority licensing committees and sub-committees to the planning committees”,


and we suggested that there should be trials of this in pilot areas. When the new regime was being designed at the turn of the century, local authority planning committees were in full control of nearly all aspects of land use other than licensing. The committee concluded that it was—and, frankly, remains—a mystery why, when control of land use for the sale of alcohol was being considered, it was thought necessary to set up committees with different constitutions and powers. The result is absurdities like applications for new pubs receiving planning permission but not alcohol licences, or vice versa, sometimes on the grounds that the noise anticipated would be excessive in a residential area for planning purposes but not for licensing purposes.

The committee’s proposal would have resolved those absurdities. Responding to the Select Committee’s report, the Government acknowledged that there was a problem, saying that they

“recognise that coordination between systems is inconsistent and could be improved in many areas”.

However, as we have sadly heard, the Government have ruled out even trials of our proposals. I will suggest to the Minister two other reasons why the Government should reconsider.

The first is quite simple. As the noble Baroness has already said, planning policies compete with each other but also with licensing policies. Decision-makers must weigh up competing policies—both planning and licensing—on a case-by-case basis. Surely the Minister agrees that managing that balance is best done by a single decision-making body.

The second argument relates to current problems within planning decision-making. The planning process is frequently blamed for a shortfall in the provision of new housing. It is taking longer and longer to approve even planning permission for home extensions. Last year, for example, more than 100,000 such applications took more than eight weeks to reach a decision. It would be easy to blame local planning authorities but LGA research shows that, faced with reductions in funding, 305 of the 343 planning departments are operating at a deficit. As a result, they have significant staff shortages. A quarter of planning authorities do not even have a head of planning reporting directly to a council chief executive. England’s chief planning officer, Joanna Averley, acknowledged this recently, saying that there are

“not enough planners coming into local government”.

She added that the Government do not have the funds to pay for more.

It is plain that a major amendment to the planning process will have to come sooner rather than later. The amalgamation of planning and licensing through economies of scale would go some way towards helping the problems I have described. Does the Minister accept that this would be the time to include reform of the licensing process so that the task is given to planning committees, as the Select Committee first recommended six years ago?

Another example illustrating the potential confusion between planning and licensing is in respect of the agent of change principle; I hope that my comments here will complement those of the noble Baroness. Put simply, the agent of change principle ensures that a new development must shoulder responsibility for compliance when situated near, for example, an existing music venue. Similarly, if a music venue opens in an existing residential area, the new venue would be responsible for complying with residential requirements such as enhanced sound-proofing.

Members of the Select Committee were pleased that the Government agreed with our recommendation that the agent of change principle should be reflected in both the National Planning Policy Framework and Section 182 guidance. This has now happened. However, the Liaison Committee heard that the principle is inadequate as it stands and does not sufficiently explain the duties of all parties involved. It needs to go further to protect licensed premises and local residents in our changing high streets. Indeed, coupled with the lack of consistency between the planning and licensing systems, the current arrangements are still not guaranteeing the protection of live venues.

In a recent debate on the levelling up Bill, I cited two examples—the Night & Day Café in Manchester and the Jago in Dalston—both of which have both been served with noise abatement notices as a result of complaints from residents of newly developed properties in their vicinities. Fortunately, the Jago prevailed at appeal and the noise abatement notice was withdrawn by the council. For Night & Day, however, the appeal has still not been resolved after lengthy delays.

Under the present arrangements, the agent of change principle is not covered by legislation; it is only in policy, with language that has proved vague. How do decision-makers interpret words such as “effectively”, “unreasonable” or “suitable”? How do they balance the agent of change principle against, for example, the urgent need for more housing? How do existing businesses know well enough in advance about new developments that may have an impact on them?

To resolve such issues, the Liaison Committee recommended that:

“The Government should review the ‘Agent of Change’ principle, strengthen it, and consider incorporating it into current planning reforms in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill”.


The Government did not disagree; and they also pointed to the then upcoming Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill as a vehicle to address these concerns.

As we have heard, in Committee, the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, moved an amendment, which I strongly supported, which would have incorporated the agent of change principle into law for licensing and other purposes. The amendment would have helped the Government achieve what they agreed was needed: greater clarity about what was expected of councils and businesses. However, the Minister responding, the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Bybrook, claimed that the amendment was not needed and gave the reasons we have already heard. She said that

“we will make sure that our policy results in better protections for these businesses and delivers on the agent of change principle in practice”.—[Official Report, 24/4/23; col. 995.]

But there are currently no such relevant changes proposed in the Bill. So I repeat the question asked by the noble Baroness: can the Minister explain exactly how the Government intend to achieve both the recommendations of the Liaison Committee and, more importantly, their own promise?

I began by welcoming special Select Committee and Liaison Committee follow-up reports. Frankly, it would be even more welcome if the Government paid greater attention to their work and proposals.

Queen’s Speech

Lord Foster of Bath Excerpts

Thursday 12th May 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Foster of Bath (LD)]

My Lords, the responsibilities of the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport have an impact on all our lives in both our leisure activities, from sport to theatre, and our working lives, with the crucial reliance on communications and data. The creative industries boost our economy and the BBC boosts our standing overseas. However, despite all this and much more, it is an undervalued and under-resourced department. As a result, opportunities are missed, such as the role that the creative industries could play in rural areas to help the levelling-up agenda.

Of course I accept that the department is doing things, including reforms in areas such as data, media, digital competition and online safety. However, even in some of these areas, it is simply not going fast enough. For example, I am pleased that the Government recognise the need to tackle tech giants’ anti-competitive practices and say that action is urgent but, instead of enacting the proposals for the Digital Markets Unit, we are offered a draft Bill—hardly urgent action.

I have spoken many times in your Lordships’ House about the need for urgent action to reform gambling; I declare my interest as the chairman of Peers for Gambling Reform. This is yet another area where we have seen dither and delay—sadly, that delay is costing lives—while gambling companies make multi-billion-pound profits. We have well over a third of a million problem gamblers; amazingly, 60,000 of them are children. Some 2 million people are impacted by it all and, sadly, more than one gambling-related suicide occurs every single day. We cannot continue as we are, with outdated legislation designed before the advent of the smartphone. Can the Minister at least tell us exactly when the much-delayed White Paper will be published?

There are many gaps: there are no measures to improve the protection for our world-beating creative, design and brand industry, the success of which is continually threatened by digital piracy and counterfeiting. It is now 18 months since the Government’s Digital Markets Taskforce recommended solutions, so can the Minister tell us whether the Government plan to progress these recommendations and, if so, when?

Our world-leading sports industries rely on income underpinned by intellectual property rights, yet their digital rights are poorly protected and their TV rights are now under threat, as we increasingly see drones feeding TV pictures to the betting community without the permission of the organisers. Bizarrely, this is entirely legal at present. Sporting bodies have developed sensible proposals to rectify the situation, so will the Minister at least agree to meet them?

The Government claim they are prioritising improvement in intellectual property protection in those countries with which we are negotiating trade agreements, yet industries that rely on IP are not convinced. They point to the CPTPP, from which it is clear that, rather than a rule-maker, we will be a rule-taker and there will be little deviation from the existing agreement with its poor IP protection. That is hardly prioritising intellectual property in trade negotiations.

Even over Brexit, because the DCMS lacks any clout in Whitehall, it was ignored when the deal was being negotiated. As a result, BEIS failed to protect our second-largest sector, the creative arts, which covers one in eight businesses. The perfectly sensible cultural visa waiver scheme offered by the EU was rejected for mistaken ideological reasons. The consequent increase in complexity and red tape for touring musicians and other performance artists will not be fixed, as the Government try to claim, by what my noble friend describes as the “quagmire” of differing bilateral deals with individual EU countries.

Finally, given that so much needs to be done, can the Minister explain why vital legislative time is to be used to provide a solution where there is no problem and no public support? The Secretary of State claims that the privatisation of Channel 4 is necessary because the current ownership model has “serious challenges”, yet your Lordships’ Select Committee, like many others, stated:

“We are not convinced … by those who claim that privatisation is an urgent necessity”.


I will not repeat the many eloquent arguments made by other noble Lords, but will ask just one question. The remit of Channel 4 includes several quotas, such as the percentage of production that should be made outside London. But Channel 4 committed to exceeding them and Ofcom confirms that it has. The broadcasting White Paper specifically says:

“The government will require this new owner to adhere to ongoing commitments, similar to those Channel 4 has today”.


Can the Minister explain whether this means that a new owner must maintain the quotas Channel 4 has achieved or the lower ones set out in the remit? Surely, if it is the lower ones, this totally contradicts the Government’s promise that they expect the new owner to continue to

“deliver outcomes in line with those we see today”.

With so much else that needs fixing, I fail to understand why an underresourced and undervalued department is wasting time on an unnecessary and unpopular project.

Metropolitan Police: Live Facial Recognition

Lord Foster of Bath Excerpts

Monday 16th March 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Strasburger]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what discussions they have had with the Metropolitan Police about the use of Live Facial Recognition deployments; whether the watchlists for such deployments are composed exclusively of serious criminals; and what is the definition of serious criminals for this purpose.

[Lord Foster of Bath (LD)]

On behalf of my noble friend Lord Strasburger, and with his permission, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in his name on the Order Paper.

[The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)]

My Lords, the Home Office has regular discussions with the Metropolitan Police Service about a wide range of issues, including facial recognition. It has published detailed information about its approach to the deployments, including on the composition of watchlists.

[Lord Foster of Bath]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. As this dangerously invasive technology develops, taking us ever closer to a surveillance society, the Government continue to claim that it is for use in the catching of only serious criminals, not people with overdue parking fines. However, the Metropolitan Police’s operating procedures make no mention whatever of limiting its use to serious criminals. How does the Minister explain this discrepancy? When will the Government end their wilful blindness and halt the uncontrolled use of facial recognition until Parliament has had an opportunity to legislate to manage it?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, there were several points in that question. First, the High Court has said that the police are operating within the legal framework. Secondly, this technology would not be used in relation to overdue parking tickets. To quote the Metropolitan Police, its use of this technology targets

“those wanted for imprisonable offences, with a focus on serious crime, with a particular regard to knife and gun crime, child sexual exploitation and terrorism”.