Business and Planning Bill

Lord Holmes of Richmond Excerpts

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

[Lord Balfe (Con) [V]]

My Lords, I also intend to speak to Amendments 3 and 11 in my name.

This Bill demonstrates exactly why we need to get back to work as a House of Lords. Some 70 Members will speak in different parts of this Committee stage and there is a large number of amendments to what is a highly contentious Bill. This weekend, the Government said that we should go back to work; perhaps we should start by setting an example and getting the House of Lords back to work.

Before I get to the meat of this, I note that Labour is not supporting any Divisions so we will probably have a Division-free day. However, many items in the Bill deserve considerably closer scrutiny. I hope that, before it comes back next week, there will be considerable concessions from the Government; otherwise, I fear that there will be Divisions. Looking at recent history, the Government are not on a great winning streak there.

By way of background, Amendment 1 seeks to provide that premises in an exclusion zone cannot benefit from the provisions of the Bill. Exclusion cumulative impact zones, as they are called, were introduced in the Blair/Brown years after the Government introduced in the early part of this century a number of changes to the licensing laws, which they felt would help to bring about a café economy. Well, they did not; they brought about absolute chaos.

My wife spent four years on Forest Heath District Council, a rural council up here in East Anglia. For most of that time, she and her Labour and Liberal fellow councillors were involved in trying to get a cumulative impact zone imposed on a town called Newmarket, where we were living at the time. The fact of the matter is that the licensing laws were relaxed to such an extent that they caused enormous problems.

They still do. In the town of Cambridge, where I have lived for a good number of years, there is a cumulative impact zone on Mill Road. We have plenty of experience of the problems that excessive alcohol licences can lead to. There are more than 50 licensed premises in the Mill Road area. We have gone to considerable effort to get alcohol licences either in place or extended. Only a couple of weeks ago, we had an application from Brothers Supermarket. It wanted a licence to sell alcohol from 8 am to 11.30 pm. The person representing it knew all the legal arguments—indeed, they were a good advocate—but it was next door to another premises called Nip-In, where you could nip in at any point and buy alcohol. The problem was that, when this application went forward, it had 76 objections to it and not a single person sent in a representation in its favour because it was widely recognised not that there was anything wrong with Brothers Supermarket but that the area was totally swamped by alcohol licensing.

This Bill seeks to make that even easier, which is why I have tabled this amendment. Where there is a cumulative impact zone, it is clearly already in place and it demonstrates that there are severe problems with alcohol. You do not get a zone declared unless the police are on your side and there is fairly unanimous support from the council. That was the case here. Not only did no one support it; the police were against it and representatives of all three political parties sent in statements opposing this particular licence. After a three-hour hearing, it was rejected.

This Bill seeks to get things decided within seven days. How on earth is that to be done if multiple applications have to be dealt with? It is quite likely that there will be. I seem to remember that the Blair/Jowell Bill was also enacted in August and local authorities were caught off their guard.

I know that the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, and several other noble Lords are vice-presidents of the Local Government Association. I am not and I have not had anything to do with local government since I left the Greater London Council in 1977, so to put it mildly, I am a bit out of date. What I would like to hear in this debate is an explanation of how the LGA proposes to handle this vis-à-vis its councils. The cumulative impact zone is just one of the problems, but there are others, all of which are highlighted here. A second one that I draw attention to in my Amendment 11 is to ask whether the police will be consulted because, at the moment, the Bill does not say that they should be. That is why the amendment seeks to add after “local persons” the words

“including the local police force”.

Surely the police have a vested interest in whether or not order can be maintained, and they should be consulted.

In Amendment 3 I refer to locked-down premises. In our area, and I dare say in the rest of the country, we have had two very different experiences of the period of lockdown. I have already mentioned the licensed premises close to our house, but there are some premises, one called 5 Blends Coffee House and the other Tom’s Cakes, which were locked down for the whole period. Obviously, they need to get back into business again but some of the other ones do not, and, as will become clear in the debate, there are problems with pavements as well as other issues. The 5 Blends Coffee House has room for tables outside because it is on a corner, but Tom’s Cakes, because of the street furniture, has no room, although it does have a garden at the back, which presumably can be used without permission. Further up the road is a health food shop called Arjuna Wholefoods, which has a licence and enough room outside to set up tables. I do not think that the owners will do so, but if they did wish to set up those tables and serve glasses of wine to their customers, that would only add to the problems in the area.

What I am asking the Minister and the Government to do is to agree to take a much closer look at this and, particularly where there are cumulative impact zones, to say, “Right, a problem with alcohol has already been identified in the area and that should be enough for it not to be exacerbated by making it even easier to extend licensing facilities and thus make it easier to buy alcohol.” I also do not think that it is unreasonable to ask that the police should be consulted, and when we consider locked-down premises, is there any reason why the Sainsbury’s shop in Mill Road should not be allowed to open an off licence on the pavement, given that it has a licence to sell alcohol? I do not think that it would wish to open an alcohol vending service, but what if it did? The shop has been open throughout the lockdown and, if anything, its trade has gone up because more people have been tending to shop locally. There is a need to distinguish between a firm that sells alcohol which has been open for the whole time and one that has not. With those words, I beg to move.

[Lord Holmes of Richmond (Non-Afl) [V]]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow my noble friend Lord Balfe on his interesting and in-depth trip down Mill Road. That brings back all kinds of memories from being a student at Cambridge. I will speak briefly, but I ask my noble friend the Minister to address all my points in detail when she sums up the debate because that may be the most expeditious way of resolving them. I shall speak to Amendments 36, 37, 40 and 43 in my name, and I thank other noble Lords who have put their names to them and have agreed to speak.

These amendments all have a clear purpose, one that I believe is in line with the purpose of the Bill, which is to get the economy moving again. We should have done this earlier and we could have done so, but we are doing it now and that is a good thing. I have a few issues with this part of the Bill, where I believe that we could improve the outcome for businesses, for individuals and for society.

The amendments address the position of small independent breweries which find themselves shut out of the provisions of the Bill—and thus the economic restart—as currently drafted. The amendments seek to enable small independent breweries to sell alcohol directly to the public for a temporary period in a safe and measured way that is in line with the other temporary measures being put in place for other sectors of the economy. In the circumstances, I believe that this would be both proportionate and low in risk. It could be done by using the normal licensing procedure in these circumstances and for this to be seen as a minor variation, as set out in Amendment 40.

Similarly, Amendment 43 seeks to allow the use of temporary event notices. Increasing the number of these notices would give the local authority even more control over the situation because it will issue them to businesses that have already been issued with them. There will be a track record and the authority will have a knowledge and understanding of how those businesses operate. That would not be a shot in the dark because HMRC knows these businesses. They will be on the system and they will have passed the fit and proper person test. The notices would be for a temporary period to enable small independent breweries to get back into business rather than potentially going to the wall or, indeed, needing to come cap in hand to the Government. This would resolve those issues.

There is also an important secondary benefit in having more venues open: patrons would be more able to observe social distancing because there will be more places to go to have a drink. Moreover, small independent breweries are not often located in residential areas or in zones such as those described by my noble friend Lord Balfe. It makes sense to spread people out so that they can go out for a drink safely and thus help start up the economy again.

As I have said, I hope that my noble friend the Minister can address all of the specifics raised in Amendments 36, 37, 40 and 43. I look forward to her response and to hearing the comments of other noble Lords.

[Lord Addington (LD)]

My Lords, I shall confine my comments predominantly to Amendment 38, which stands in my name. It is an attempt to bring sports clubs and other similar concerns with licences into line with the rest of the off-sales from the licensed premises sector.

We spoke about this at Second Reading and the Minister, the noble Earl, Lord Howe, said in his usual disarming way, “Oh, don’t worry. You can get a licence or special arrangements can be made.” We are talking here about a short-term move that may last for two or three months. If sports clubs need to get a licence every time they require one, a fast-track system for doing so is needed or they will miss out on many opportunities. Those opportunities are important because sports and other clubs need their bar revenues to continue to function; it is that simple. The model for a sport such as cricket is that the bar is part of how the club ensures that it can maintain the ground, maintain kit and run the juniors programmes. That is why we want this provision in the Bill—we want these clubs to operate on similar terms to those of other businesses.

If there is a way around this that we have not come across before, that is great. It is not about doctrinaire issues but is purely practical. If there is another way of dealing with this, let us hear about it—but if we do not get this and have to have a process of licensing down there, people will miss out. I appreciate that the Government have to act fast with the difference in the two licensing applications, but can we have a practical solution to this? That is all I am really asking for.

We have other stages to go through on this Bill. If we can find one that works, I will be happy and the people who have been nudging me forward will be happy—at least, I hope so—but we need to make sure it is dealt with. The bars of clubs are important to their function, and their function is generally regarded as a public good. Surely putting them on the same terms for one or two days a week as a pub or anywhere else selling alcohol will not damage society greatly, and indeed may improve it.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Holmes of Richmond]

2: Clause 1, page 1, line 9, after “furniture” insert “safely (including a barrier being sufficiently visible to separate the furniture from the pavement and furniture placed sufficiently away from the pavement to allow for the safe passing of pedestrians)”

[Lord Holmes of Richmond [V]]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to open debate on this second group of amendments. In doing so I state, as I did for group 1, my general support for the intent of the Bill. I am fully supportive of all and any credible attempts to get the economy not just going but motoring again. There is no reason whatever why, if we really focus on this, we cannot have a sharp and reassuring V-shaped rebuilding and recovery. However, the point in this set of amendments is that, as we do that rebuilding, we either rebuild together or will not rebuild anything particularly worthwhile at all. Everything must be predicated on inclusive design; then everything would be taken care of and sorted at that stage. This is in many ways emergency legislation, and the first real test is: in the crisis, can we hold fast to that concept of inclusive design, even when time is tight and we seek to get our economy motoring again? As I said, I am completely supportive of that.

At Second Reading last Monday the noble Earl, Lord Howe, referred on this issue to “guidance”, “may” and “consider”. If we put them together as “guidance may consider”, that would be far too conditional, whatever issue we were describing. When we look at something as significant as accessibility and whether somebody is able independently to access their local streets and community, we need something far more solid on which to pursue it than “guidance”, “may” and “consider”. Regarding the amendments in my name, I will speak to Amendments 2, 5, 8, 12 and 17. I thank all noble Lords who have signed my amendments and all the other noble Lords who have tabled amendments in this group. It shows how significant these issues are, and how much we need to ensure that the reopening of the economy and its rebuilding is done in an inclusive manner.

Specifically, Amendment 2 simply talks about a potential barrier around seating areas to enable particularly the blind and visually impaired, but in reality all street users, to access the area safely and inclusively. It is about having clear demarcation rather than seating areas potentially strewn across the pavement.

Amendment 5 makes it clear—and would put it in the Bill—that anything in this needs to comply with the Equality Act 2010. It is absolutely the case that all legislation has to do so but, considering the seriousness of what we are talking about, it is worth probing the Government on this point and having the provisions of the Equality Act understood in the Bill.

Amendment 8 demonstrates how pervasive this question of accessibility and inclusion is. This goes to the means by which local authorities publish notices and enable people even to be aware of a notice, and that a potential change is happening in their local area. If those notices are not published in an accessible format, not least online but considering all potential accessible formats, it would clearly be in breach of the local authority’s public sector equality duty. Can my noble friend the Minister give her views on that point?

Amendment 12 not only seeks to ensure that accessibility means that there is a clear pathway through any seating development; it also speaks very much to the need for social distancing. It sets out clearly that not only should it be possible for two persons to pass—be they wheelchair users, white-cane users, guide-dog users such as myself or people who use a walking frame—but that they should be able to pass with a 1-metre distance. Can my noble friend comment on the current guidance on which this distancing is to be based, given pavement width? Has this guidance been updated in the light of Covid-19 or is it still rooted on an understanding of distances to enable passage which take no account in reality of social distancing requirements?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Greenhalgh]

I thank my noble friend for his comments. Of course, I noted the points about the need for a minimum access requirement.

[Lord Holmes of Richmond [V]]

I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this interesting debate. First, I thank my noble friend the Minister for his change of heart on the footing of the guidance and his commitment to bringing forward an amendment on Report; all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate will certainly wait so see the nature and extent of it.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, for his excellent speech. He made his point perfectly clearly: we should make Acts of Parliament and statutory instruments that are clear and to the point. His setting out of how guidance can get into trouble with a whole series of different lengths and distances made the point clearly, to the extent that, if at any stage the noble Lord cared to make that film, I would be happy to take part in it with him; there could be no greater way of demonstrating how not to go about things.

I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Grey-Thompson and Lady Thomas of Winchester, for their interventions. It has been made clear in the debate that, at their heart, these amendments essentially have nothing to do with disability and disabled people. They have pertinence to disabled people only because we are the individuals on whom this stuff bites if it is not got right. It is no more significant for a disabled person seeking access than for a man pushing a double buggy or a woman from a store down the road pushing a trolley full of goods to get to the other branch around the corner.

I am sure that my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe did not intend to make this point, but there is no sense whatever that economic activity, economic growth and economic motoring are any sense diametrically opposed to inclusive design and accessibility. Inclusive design is the bedrock for the best economy and society that we can build. Inclusion is in no sense a clog at the heel of economic activity; it is the basis on which a better, more prosperous economy and a more integrated and prosperous society is built.

To the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, I say this: my noble friend made perfectly clearly the point as to how inclusive design and economic activity go hand in hand in the specific case of the situation in Berlin. We really need to see from my noble friend the Minister amendments on Report that can have us all saying when it comes to pavement dining and pavement socialising, “Ich bin ein Berliner.”

On the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Harris, his forensic analysis is spot on. With modern techniques, there is absolutely no reason why consultation should be seen and characterised as a laborious process. Things can be done in real time by connecting to the people who are in the vicinity and have particular expertise to bring to bear on the consultation on a specific issue. Similarly, the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, was spot on with his laser focus on exactly the point at hand: ensuring that the guidance is not only fit for purpose but takes into account the current context.

It is interesting that most of the arguments about the need to get on with this seem to fit very well with the previous group, in terms of enabling small, independent breweries to have licences, with an aim to get on with it and drive economy activity in that way. But I will leave that to one side and come back to it on Report.

In conclusion, I thank all noble Lords who have participated in this debate. In essence, none of these amendments asks for anything other than for every policy practice, procedure and area to be predicated on inclusive design—not because of Covid but because that should have always been the case in every situation. Either we build back together or we do not build back anything that is worth while and sustainable and that optimises social activity and economic growth. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 2 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Low of Dalston [V]]

My Lords, I wish to speak to Amendment 14 in this group. Applications that have not been decided by local authorities within 10 working days are automatically deemed to have been granted for a period of one year. This is too long and could mean automatic approval for a significant proportion of licences and the volume of applications overwhelming local authorities. Combined with the absence of an opportunity to appeal, the automatic approval process risks allowing hazardous street furniture being permitted inappropriately in inappropriate locations.

If the automatic approval process is to be retained, the period should be reduced to three months in order that licences should not be approved automatically for an excessive period of time and in order to give local authorities the opportunity to revisit licences that have been approved simply due to a lack of resources within a reasonable period of time. Therefore, I would be most grateful for the Minister’s serious consideration of this amendment, and I would be grateful to other noble Lords for their support of it in the course of this debate. I beg to move.

[Lord Holmes of Richmond [V]]

My Lords, I shall speak to Amendments 13, 15 and 16 in this group, which build on the discussion we have just had. Amendment 13 would put in a right of appeal similar to what was discussed in a previous group but in the context of the situation ably set out by the noble Lord, Lord Low, for his amendment.

Amendment 15 changes the date in the Bill from 2021 to 2020 for precisely the reasons that the noble Lord, Lord Low, set out. We may be in extraordinary times and certain measures can be changed but I do not believe that it is proportionate at this stage to have a wave-through to 2021. It would be more appropriate to set a date of 2020, and that is what Amendment 15 seeks to achieve.

Amendment 16 brings out again the whole question of consultation and its being properly undertaken with the potential to incorporate views as expressed. It echoes many of the points made in the previous group around consultation. These amendments are specific to this group and to this Bill, but the reality is that these amendments are good not just for this time but for all times, in the sense of enabling full participation, full inclusion and full enablement for all across society.

There is precious little wealth in an argument that tries to push through at pace—understandably—and in so doing states that this is only a temporary measure and thus does not matter, and that we can suspend issues around inclusion, accessibility and full participation. If inclusion and inclusive design matter, and I believe they do, as I am sure everybody in your Lordships’ House does, then they matter for a second, an hour and a day as much as they matter for a month or a year.