Strategic Licensing Regulations: London

Debate between Rachel Blake and Jim McMahon

Wednesday 4th November 2026 Commons Chamber

[Jim McMahon]

I will come on to the new burdens funding shortly. I will mention in a short while the built-in review periods and the approach to those that she asks about.

The new arrangements will require some additional information sharing with the Greater London Authority. Those requirements are largely based on information that authorities already collect or have access to through the normal licensing process. Even so, we recognise that meeting those requirements may come with additional costs. The Government will therefore conduct a full new burdens assessment to ensure that local licensing authorities are appropriately reimbursed for new costs resulting from these powers.

We recognise that the new system will place demands on the GLA. It has been preparing for its new responsibilities, in addition to recruiting additional resources to support the operation of the new regime. Our aim is simple: to keep boroughs at the heart of decision making on licensing while ensuring that both they and the GLA are equipped to ensure that the new system works effectively.

[Rachel Blake]

Will the Minister comment on the part of the process where the Greater London Authority makes the decision to call in applications? As I discussed in my opening remarks, we know that there is quite a broad pool of eligible premises. I believe that my residents have a concern about how the decision to call in will be made and the transparency around that decision. They are concerned that some types of premises or premises operating in particular areas might seek to get that call-in, so we really seek transparency on that issue.

[Jim McMahon]

I will talk through that process shortly, and also cover what the criteria for potentially strategically important venues mean. I need to reiterate, though, that although keeping boroughs at the heart of licensing decisions is important to us, so too is ensuring that the system supports London’s wider growth.

That brings me to businesses and the central purpose behind the reforms: better supporting London’s hospitality and night-time economy. A thriving hospitality sector is fundamental to London’s success as a global city. We want a licensing system that gives responsible operators greater confidence to invest, adapt and grow. Giving businesses that confidence means ensuring that the new process does not create unnecessary delay or uncertainty, which is why the regulations establish clear statutory deadlines and procedures.

To address a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster, the call-in power is designed to support a more enabling approach to licensing, rather than giving the mayor a means to block or further restrict applications. An application granted as applied for cannot be called in. Where the mayor intervenes, any conditions he imposes cannot, in his opinion, be more restrictive than those imposed by the licensing authority, and he can only direct that an application be rejected where the authority has itself rejected it. We believe that those protections and safeguards strike the right balance. They are intended to ensure that the new strategic role supports growth without creating unnecessary delay or uncertainty for businesses, while maintaining important protections for residents and the local community.

I now turn to the point about sites that are potentially strategically important to Greater London. As has been said in the debate, we have built in a requirement for the mayor’s call-in power to be reviewed after two years, and then at least every five years thereafter. I am happy to take away the particular point about the role of local authorities in that review process and confirm in writing the position.

To summarise one of the bigger concerns, because the scope of premises can feel quite wide, there is a concern that the proposal creates a completely double-run system—a process on top of the local licensing authority. In supporting this proposal and the new licensing regime, it is not our expectation as a Government that all the premises that are in scope will be called in by the mayor for a strategic decision. Our expectation is that most of them will go on as normal, and for them to be called in by the mayor, they would have to meet at least one of the criteria set out in law.

We believe that these reforms get the balance right between protecting local residents and communities and recognising that in many ways, London’s night-time economy is unique. Many people come to London not only to work and shop, but to experience the night-time economy—our theatres, bars, restaurants and nightclubs.

[Jim McMahon]

We will need to see how that works in practice, because I think it could work both ways. I recognise that rateable values might be lower in outer London than in inner London, but that reflects the economic benefit that premises in inner London bring—that is why the business rates bill ends up being higher. It would be reasonable for the mayor to say that, for that reason, such premises clearly have a more important role to play than those of the same nature in an outer-London borough that might look the same on the outside. Those premises can play quite different roles economically in their contribution to the wider night-time economy, so that can probably work both ways.

Although I recognise all the concerns that have been raised, I believe that these reforms strike the right balance. They recognise London as a global city and the wider considerations that that brings, but balance that with the need to ensure that our local licensing authorities are empowered and their status is respected. I think we have set out how we will do that. Indeed, the extraordinary concentration of restaurants, music venues, theatres and nightlife in these areas is part of what makes them such attractive places, not just to visit but to live. That is why we should not treat the interests of residents and those of the hospitality sector as inherently opposed. These reforms are intended to balance them fairly, supporting responsible businesses and London’s wider growth while preserving the important role of boroughs and their accountability to local communities.

[Rachel Blake]

The Minister should be aware that some of the organisations where residents come together to represent their communities celebrate the nightlife in their neighbourhoods. Some have come together to support the re-establishment of particular celebrated nightlife venues, such as G-A-Y in Soho. I wanted to make it a matter of public record that many residents are clear about their passion for a lively nightlife, while balancing that with the residential character of an area.

[Jim McMahon]

My hon. Friend reinforces how it is not about putting residents in one basket and visitors from outside the city in another. Everybody benefits from a place that is thriving and active, where people feel welcome and that there is something for everyone. That is the balance we are trying to strike. I know from speaking to all the local MPs in the area who have made representations that that is very much the balance they are trying to strike, too. I commit to continuing our communication. I am keen to understand how the new arrangements work in practice and to hear from local experiences, and I know that Members will continue to make the case.

The regulations require the Secretary of State to review how these new arrangements are working in practice and to publish a report within two years of commencement. Further reviews, as I said earlier, will then be published at least every five years thereafter. It is not the case that these arrangements will be introduced and then simply left in place. Their impact will be kept under review, allowing us to assess how the system is working in practice for London businesses, licensing authorities and residents alike. That is the balance we are trying to strike. I once again thank my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster for securing this important debate and for her continued work supporting local residents.

Question put and agreed to.