Licensing Act 2003 (Liaison Committee Report)

I also press my noble friend to confirm whether a national working group relating to the night-time economy has been established, as the Government promised, to look at reducing alcohol-related offending. If so, who sits on it, and where can information on it be found?

On training, the Government undertook to discuss with training providers whether additional signposting could be included in the Section 182 guidance and to continue to support efforts to ensure that all those involved in licensing work are trained accordingly. Can my noble friend update us on progress, and, equally, on the rollout for training for police licensing officers?

Regarding the sale of alcohol airside, the Government rejected the committee’s request to review its decision not to proceed with licensing airside within three years. Given the potential toxic mix of excessive alcohol consumption and air rage, will my noble friend revisit this decision?

It is highly recommended that the Government do a formal review of the impact of minimum unit pricing across Scotland and Wales.

UKHospitality has made some powerful comments regarding the late-night levy regulations being repealed and supports the committee recommendations that the Government should consult with industry and interested parties on the efficacy of the levy, suggesting that these powers be removed unless meaningful benefits are identified.

When do the Government expect to publish their response to the recent consultation under the Policing and Crime Act 2017?

The Institute of Licensing has called for the agent of change principle to be adopted into the Section 182 guidance to ensure that licensing guidance reflects the National Planning Policy Framework. In the debate on the levelling-up Bill on Monday 24 April, the Minister, my noble friend Lady Scott, said in response to an amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Henig, the noble Lord, Lord Foster, who is present today, and me, that

“the Government agree that co-ordination between the planning and licensing regimes is crucial to protect those businesses in practice. This is why in December 2022 the Home Office published a revised version of its guidance, made under Section 182 of the Licensing Act 2003, cross-referencing the relevant section of the National Planning Policy Framework for the first time”.

The passage that I quote now is the most significant. Crucially, she went on to say:

“we will make sure that our policy results in better protections for these businesses and delivers on the agent of change principle in practice … the Government’s policies embed the agent of change principle and … we will continue to make sure it is reflected in planning and licensing decisions in future”.—[Official Report, 24/4/23; col. 995.]

I raise this as the sense and meaning of that passage is not entirely clear from either the levelling-up Bill or my noble friend Lady Scott’s comments. Any clarification would be appreciated. Do my noble friend’s comments indicate that the Government might bring forward an amendment to the levelling-up Bill in this regard? That would be most welcome.

There are three other issues relating to the agent of change principle. The first is inadequacy of policy. The agent of change principle is found only in policy, in the National Planning Policy Framework and, since December 2022, in the Secretary of State’s Section 182 licensing guidance, both in identical terms:

“Planning policies and decisions should ensure that new development can be integrated effectively with existing businesses and community facilities (such as places of worship, pubs, music venues and sports clubs)”,

et cetera.

The policy is inadequate because it is ambiguous. Currently, the language makes it clear that the policy is necessarily vague in order to be flexible in various circumstances. Terms such as “effectively”, “unreasonable” and “suitable” present challenges for all parties and decision-makers as they attempt to define what the precise meaning should be in any given case. Developers are likely to be in a superior position to argue their case than the existing businesses, who may not have a seat at the negotiating table at all.

In the amendment that we tabled in Committee, we attempted to ensure that statutory provisions will be defined so as to reduce this ambiguity. The proposed amendment sets out concrete expectations, such as the mandatory preparation of noise reports where existing businesses are identified.

The second reason for addressing this inadequacy of policy relates to planning balance. As in any policy area, a balance must be reached between competing interests. Planning and licensing policies compete with each other in a balancing exercise—literally called the “planning balance” in the NPPF. The decision-maker must place weight on the competing policies on a case- by-case basis.

Finally, this should be mandatory. Existing businesses may not even be aware that a planning application that potentially affects them has been made to the local planning authority. Local planning authorities are very dependent on consultees drawing relevant matters to their attention. Decision-makers may be unaware of any “unreasonable restrictions” that might be placed on existing businesses as a result of the decision that they are about to make. Therefore, in my view, this amendment is key to the future agent of change being properly understood and applied.

In conclusion, I return to one of our key recommendations: co-ordination between licensing and planning systems. May I press my noble friend the Minister to clarify what changes have been implemented to improve the co-ordination of these systems?

I am delighted to recommend this report to the Committee and beg to move.

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.

I will mention one example to make my point. Under the Bill, the consultation time for pavement licences for cafés or other venues is currently proposed to be cut from 28 days to 14 days. Does my noble friend the Minister really believe that there is a need to take a fortnight out of that consultation process? Potentially, this would be a prima facie breach of the public sector equality duty, as it is likely that it would adversely impact disabled people, who often need increased time to have the consultation in different formats and to be made aware of the consultation. Can it be right to put in the Bill measures which were introduced for a specific purpose at a specific time and seek to make them permanent?

In conclusion, as has already been said, there is a clear need to tidy up the real issue between planning and licensing. If we could enable the system to be inclusive by design, with venues’ access requirements clearly being reviewed at the time of the licence application, it would benefit the venues. There would be a financial benefit, and it would benefit patrons. It would benefit not just disabled people or older people but all people. Communities, our cities and our country made better—would not my noble friend the Minister want to get right behind that?

My reason for mentioning this is to highlight the differences between those who are tasked with operating under the Licensing Act and those tasked with enforcing it. If a person wants to run a pub or bar, they must be trained and qualified to hold a personal licence. The same does not apply to the person granting the premises licence to the property. To me, that seems counterintuitive and is a matter which could be very easily resolved without having to create something from scratch.

The irony is that sales of alcohol in the off-trade—supermarkets—overtook the sale of alcohol from the on-trade—pubs and clubs—some four years ago. The price of drinks in bars is too high for most people to get drunk and pre-loading with cheaper drinks bought for consumption from the off-trade, where training and supervision are almost non-existent, is where many of the problems occur. The late-night levy effectively remains a form of additional taxation on some businesses which operate during the evenings and night time. The fact that, since its creation in 2011, only a handful of the 350 local authorities in England and Wales have introduced a late-night levy, while others have issued consultations on it but not subsequently introduced it, continues to make me wonder why the levy has been kept—particularly as councils are obliged to spend their 30% of the late-night levy share on matters tackling alcohol-related services connected to the management of the night-time economy, whereas the police have no obligation to spend their 70% on any such measures, but can spend it on anything of their choosing. I am pleased therefore that this topic is being looked at again in detail.

The introduction of minimum-unit pricing in Scotland and Wales has proved to have no discernible beneficial effect on problem drinking, as many of us suspected, but has had the effect of making alcohol more expensive to those on low incomes. I hope this experiment will dissuade any plans for a similar scheme ever to be introduced elsewhere.

Of course, overconsumption of alcohol is unhealthy, but our modern-day temperance movement needs to start acknowledging that most people have common sense and just enjoy a modest drink. In moderation, alcohol plays an important and beneficial role in the nation’s life. A society that socialises together is a stronger society. For many people, drinking provides, and has always provided, social cohesion.

We know that per capita alcohol consumption has fallen. Alcohol-related crime is down, while the number of young people consuming alcohol is down significantly and has been falling since 2004. The UK today drinks less alcohol than 16 other European nations, according to the World Health Organization. I simply ask my noble friend the Minister to always bear in mind that licensing legislation should remain concerned solely with licensing management and never become an attempt at social engineering.

Is the Minister aware that 70% of local authority funding has to be dedicated to mandatory services such as children in care, elderly people who are reliant on public funding for their care, and residential care for people with physical and learning difficulties? This means that non-mandatory services, such as drug and alcohol services and others, have had to be cut. In light of all this, what progress have the Government made on the sincere recommendation of the committee for better training of councillors and co-ordination between planning and licensing?

Although licensed premises play an important role in what is called the night-time economy and keeping town centres alive, and indeed provide a lot of jobs, particularly for young people, it is the public services that bear the costs when things go wrong. One area where things have gone wrong recently is in the behaviour of people who have been drinking to excess before boarding an aircraft. There have been a number of cases where airline staff have had to delay a flight or detain or remove a passenger to avoid not just annoyance but actual danger to other passengers. It might avoid the need for this if the sale of alcohol airside was brought within the ambit of the licensing regulations. Will the Government please reconsider their intention not to act on this?

Most licensees are responsible people and carry out their business in the interests of customers and their community, but there are some who do not. The committee recommended that any future national database of licence holders should include records of refused, suspended or revoked licences to avoid such people getting licences elsewhere unless they change their ways. Will the Government ensure this happens?

About a third of the victims of domestic violence claim that the perpetrator was under the influence of alcohol when the attack occurred. This suggests that licensees have a great responsibility to stop serving someone who has clearly had enough. I understand how difficult that is, not only to make the judgment itself but to take action and ban the person, who will undoubtedly object loudly. Is the ability of the licensee to take such difficult decisions taken into account when considering renewal of his or her licence? Is there any co-ordination between the local police, who may have to deal with offenders, and the local licensing authority? The police will know which premises are the culprits, since they will often have to deal with the consequences. Are they sufficiently well trained for this duty? On the matter of alcohol-related offending, the government response promised “a National Working Group” to reduce such offending, share good practice, trail innovative solutions and ensure that “existing licensing powers” are applied in full. Can the Minister say who sits on the working group, to whom it answers and when it will report?

As we know, there has been a large increase in the amount of alcohol bought from supermarkets—we just heard that from the noble Lord, Lord Smith—especially during the pandemic. This brings us to recommendations about the use of taxation to control excess consumption. Following years of resistance, the Government have taken welcome action on high-alcohol white cider, because of its use by alcohol abusers. However, there is more to do. I welcome the Government’s commitment to review the new alcohol duties after three years but ask the Minister what further action they plan to take—for example, by reviewing the effect of minimum unit pricing in Scotland and Wales. In doing so, will they always bear in mind the needs of those licensed businesses which serve alcohol to moderate drinkers with or without a meal? They are legitimate businesses and their profits are already under a great deal of pressure.

The temporary pavement licensing scheme is to be made permanent through the levelling-up Bill. That is all very well—we all like a drink in the open air when the weather is fine—but what do local authorities get out of this extension of the premises of commercial businesses into the pavement area which they own and have a duty to clean? Will the bars pay a fee or increased business rates for the privilege of extending premises from which they make money? Local authorities are desperate for cash; might it not be a good idea to help them out a bit here?

I support what the noble Lord, Lord Holmes of Richmond, said about the danger of obstructions on the pavement to people with disabilities, particularly visually impaired people. I recently had to speak to the manager of my local Co-op, in the interests of local visually impaired people, about no less than four large free-standing advertisements on the pavement outside the shop.

I turn to access. Recently, a former colleague put a photograph on her Facebook page of her disabled husband in his wheelchair outside a new local restaurant. Unfortunately, there was no way he could get inside. She went in to ask the manager what arrangements they had made for disabled customers, and they had not made any. I got the impression that he was not too polite either. I am sure that this is not typical of managers of licensed premises and I realise that some premises might be difficult to make accessible, but they will lose customers if they do not adapt. It is quite wrong that they do not make every effort. I would like to see an access and facilities statement as a requirement in licence applications and renewals. Can the Minister say what progress has been made on the review of Part M of the building regulations regarding access if, as they say, the Licensing Act is “not the appropriate vehicle”?

Finally, the committee recommended that the late-night levy should be reviewed in consultation with the trade and the local community. It says that it is a blanket measure that may not be appropriate everywhere. When will the Government respond to this recommendation? As I understand it, they have not done so yet.

Licensed premises contribute a good deal to local economies, provide jobs and allow us all to go out, relax and enjoy ourselves—all of us, not just those with working legs. I am a great believer in a bit of joy, so I hope the Minister in responding to this debate will have inclusive joy for everyone in mind.

The report also highlights clear shortcomings in equality of access to licensed premises. The Government have noted the legal routes available when premises do not comply with equalities law. It also points out that the EHRC has a role in monitoring how the Act is being complied with in particular sectors and can take action where it is considered necessary. Does the Minister feel that cultural change needs to be encouraged—by this, I mean greater acceptance and encouragement of people with disabilities attending licensed premises? If so, how will the Government work to support bringing about such change to ensure that, rather than taking action against premises that do not comply, we are encouraging premises to comply because it would be in their own interests?

The report mentions the late-night levy and issues with its current application. The Government recently consulted on the late-night levy with the consultation period ending around six weeks ago. Do they yet have a timetable for their response?

Finally, the Government did not provide a full response to the committee’s recommendations on a national database of personal licence holders. Has there been any progress on this since the Government’s response was published in November? The report covers a large number of issues within licensing and our night-time economy, not all of which I have covered.

Although most people drink alcohol in a sensible, responsible way, it is clear that there are persistent problems with the way some people behave because they drink too much. We hope that by implementing these small changes this harm can be minimised. I conclude by endorsing the sentiments laid out by the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Hindhead, about managing alcohol because the vast majority of people enjoy a drink and going out with friends and it is very much a cornerstone of the way many people live their lives. Nevertheless, this is an opportunity which I hope the Government will fully embrace when implementing these changes.