Clause 1 - Licensable activities and qualifying club activities
Licensing Bill [Lords]
10:00 am
Mr Mark Field (Cities of London and Westminster, Conservative)
I want to deal with one or two of the issues referred to by the Minister. It is fair to say that there is a certain balance in the Bill and that it has been assisted in the other place. It will be interesting to see how many of the amendments made in the other place are maintained when we examine the matter in the weeks ahead. I hope that some element of balance will have its part to play.
I accept the Minister's view that licensing has to be integrated alongside the planning system, but that integration involves a serious examination of the issues of cumulative impact and saturation. They should not just be seen as a planning matter; in my view and that of many Conservative Members, they should have a part to play in the licensing process. I do not wish to insult the Minister or accuse him of naivety about how the planning system works. I think that all of us might have read textbooks about how Government or Parliament works before coming here, and in those books planning procedures all seemed dry and straightforward. We all know that the practical reality is different.
The reality is that the planning process, particularly in central London for the bars in Soho and Covent Garden to which I have referred, is far less easy on residents, residents associations and the local authority than the Minister would have us believe. Large-scale operators, who rely on thousands of people being in their Soho or Covent Garden bars until 3 or 4 am on a Saturday or Sunday, will have deep pockets; they will go to court umpteen times to ensure that they get their way, notwithstanding the safeguards of various district policies. The real problem is twofold, along the lines that the Minister pointed out.
Small operators in areas such as Soho and Covent Garden will suffer. They include businesses that have been run by the same families for years. The owners
have a stake in the community, not least because the business is based there. Many owners and employees of such businesses live in the vicinity. They will suffer under a much stricter planning and licensing regime.
Moreover, consumer choice will be affected. One of the great charms of going into Dean street or other parts of Soho is the fact that, alongside the large national chains, small local pubs, restaurants, bars and cafés are open until the early hours of the morning. No one wishes to drive those organisations and institutions out of business, but the reality is that they are the most vulnerable businesses. Genuine consumer choice means that we should have not just a Burger King or a McDonald's. That does not represent a wide choice. We want a broad consumer choice that will attract tourists to London not just once but many times. I am concerned that the balance that all of us are looking for will not be achieved unless amendments such as those in this group are brought into play.
Obviously, the hon. Member for Selby has Bet Lynch as one of his correspondents. I must confess that the antics that he was talking about seem to be similar to what goes on in the Strangers Bar every night of the week, and that does not have a kicking-out hour. I am sorry that he and, indeed, the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr. Jones) assume that our amendments would encourage red tape—given my political persuasion, perhaps that should be blue tape. On this occasion, I will happily—but with a heavy heart—withdraw the amendment. However, I hope that serious consideration will be given to ensuring that we get the balance right on these matters, particularly as the subjects are pervasive, and come up in other parts of the Bill. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 1, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.