All 10 contributions to the Business and Planning Act 2020

Read Bill Ministerial Extracts

Mon 29th Jun 2020
Business and Planning Bill
Commons Chamber

2nd reading & 2nd reading & 2nd reading: House of Commons & 2nd reading
Mon 29th Jun 2020
Business and Planning Bill
Commons Chamber

Committee stage:Committee: 1st sitting & 3rd reading & 3rd reading: House of Commons & Committee: 1st sitting & Committee: 1st sitting: House of Commons & Report stage & Report stage: House of Commons & Committee stage & Report stage & 3rd reading
Tue 30th Jun 2020
Business and Planning Bill
Lords Chamber

1st reading (Hansard) & 1st reading (Hansard) & 1st reading (Hansard): House of Lords & 1st reading
Mon 6th Jul 2020
Business and Planning Bill
Lords Chamber

2nd reading (Hansard) & 2nd reading (Hansard) & 2nd reading (Hansard): House of Lords & 2nd reading
Mon 13th Jul 2020
Business and Planning Bill
Lords Chamber

Committee stage:Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard) & Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard) & Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard): House of Lords & Committee stage
Tue 14th Jul 2020
Business and Planning Bill
Lords Chamber

Committee stage:Committee: 2nd sitting (Hansard) & Committee: 2nd sitting (Hansard) & Committee: 2nd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Mon 20th Jul 2020
Business and Planning Bill
Lords Chamber

Report stage (Hansard) & Report stage (Hansard) & Report stage (Hansard): House of Lords & Report stage
Mon 20th Jul 2020
Business and Planning Bill
Lords Chamber

3rd reading & 3rd reading (Hansard) & 3rd reading (Hansard) & 3rd reading (Hansard): House of Lords
Tue 21st Jul 2020
Business and Planning Bill
Commons Chamber

Consideration of Lords amendments & Consideration of Lords amendmentsPing Pong & Ping Pong & Ping Pong: House of Commons
Wed 22nd Jul 2020
Royal Assent
Lords Chamber

Royal Assent & Royal Assent (Hansard) & Royal Assent (Hansard) & Royal Assent (Hansard) & Royal Assent (Hansard) & Royal Assent & Royal Assent (Hansard) & Royal Assent: Royal Assent (Hansard) & Royal Assent (Hansard) & Royal Assent: Royal Assent (Hansard) & Royal Assent (Hansard) & Royal Assent: Royal Assent (Hansard) & Royal Assent (Hansard) & Royal Assent: Royal Assent (Hansard) & Royal Assent & Royal Assent

Business and Planning Bill

2nd reading & 2nd reading: House of Commons
Monday 29th June 2020

(3 years, 11 months ago)

Commons Chamber
Read Full debate Business and Planning Act 2020 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Committee of the whole House Amendments as at 29 June 2020 (PDF) - (29 Jun 2020)
Second Reading
Alok Sharma Portrait The Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Alok Sharma)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Covid-19 has had a profound impact across the economy. It required many businesses to shut their doors on 23 March, and they have taken a significant economic hit to protect the public’s health, so it was vitally important, at the start of this pandemic, that we put our arms around businesses to provide them with support to protect our people’s livelihoods at the same time as we protected our nation’s health.

So far, the job retention scheme has supported over 9 million jobs; 2.6 million people have been helped by the self-employment scheme; over 850,000 small businesses have benefited from around £10.5 billion in grants; and over £40 billion of Government-backed loans have been made to over 970,000 businesses. Every one of these interventions has helped individual families in each of our constituencies, but we are now reopening the economy in a cautious and phased manner, and the measures in the Bill are designed to provide a boost to businesses to help them as they look to bounce back from a period of enforced hibernation.

On 25 June, the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Bill received Royal Assent, and I thank the right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband) and all colleagues for their support in an expeditious passage for that Bill. Similarly, I hope we will be able to expedite the passage of the Business and Planning Bill. I acknowledge the very constructive discussions that we have had on the individual measures in the Bill with the shadow Secretary of State and, indeed, all shadow Ministers.

The overall aim of the Bill is to provide an adrenaline boost to key sectors of our economy. We want to support the hospitality sector by allowing outdoor dining and off-premises sale of alcohol, helping the sector back on its feet with the promise of al fresco dining for all this summer.

Jonathan Gullis Portrait Jonathan Gullis (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Con)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the measures allowing al fresco dining are essential to allowing the food and hospitality sector to bounce back following lockdown, and will he encourage all those businesses to go and update their ceramics and buy purely from Stoke-on-Trent?

Alok Sharma Portrait Alok Sharma
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

My hon. Friend makes a compelling case for his constituency, and he makes an equally important point that this is an opportunity to get businesses going—up and running—after a period of enforced hibernation.

Edward Leigh Portrait Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

We are all very grateful for my right hon. Friend’s efforts, particularly to help small businesses. I have noticed in Lincolnshire that small businesses and shops seem to have done better during the lockdown, as people have wanted to shop locally. As we are helping small business, would it not be a retrograde step if we were to reopen Sunday trading laws, since it is our present Sunday trading laws that do so much to protect small shops and businesses from large businesses and supermarkets?

Alok Sharma Portrait Alok Sharma
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

As my right hon. Friend will know, measures related to Sunday trading are not in the Bill, but of course Sunday trading has been temporarily relaxed in the past, during the Olympics, and that was about ensuring support for businesses and consumers. But as I said, that is not in the Bill.

Through this Bill, we also want to support the construction sector to get Britain building again by enabling the extension of site operating hours and extending until 1 April 2021 planning permissions that have lapsed or will lapse between 23 March and 31 December.

Katherine Fletcher Portrait Katherine Fletcher (South Ribble) (Con)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

Does my right hon. Friend agree that construction is vital to getting our economy going, including in South Ribble, where my constituents are looking forward to the new Tesco’s in Penwortham? For that reason, I welcome these measures. Does he agree that they are vital to supporting growth as we come out of lockdown?

Alok Sharma Portrait Alok Sharma
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

My hon. Friend makes an important point. I know she is working incredibly hard to support businesses in South Ribble, and I am sure she is looking forward to going to the Tesco’s once it is up and running.

We also want to support the transport sector by enabling shorter-term licences for drivers of heavy goods vehicles and passenger carrying vehicles and allowing for the risk-based testing of HGVs and public service vehicles. These measures will allow goods and public transport to keep moving. We want to continue to support small and medium-sized enterprises through the quicker delivery of bounce-back loans, which have provided a financial lifeline for more than 920,000 small businesses so far. This measure is retrospective and will disapply elements of consumer credit law.

Kevin Hollinrake Portrait Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

I speak as co-chair of the all-party group on fair business banking and support the suspension of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 with regard to bounce-back loans due to affordability issues, but does the Secretary of State agree that it is vital that lenders still comply with the requirement to treat customers fairly in the collection process or if there are debt issues later on and that forbearance is applied?

Alok Sharma Portrait Alok Sharma
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

As ever, my hon. Friend raises an incredibly important point. Yes, forbearance is part of these measures, and we would expect that very much to apply.

Before I turn to the detail of the Bill, I want to thank all those across industry and both Houses who have engaged with the Government to help develop the measures in the Bill. I also thank the Local Government Association, the National Police Chiefs’ Council, the Home Builders Federation and the British Property Federation for sharing their expertise. I am pleased to say that the measures in the Bill enjoy wide stakeholder support. The LGA, the Federation of Small Businesses, the British Beer and Pub Association, UKHospitality, the Freight Transport Association, the Road Haulage Association, the Royal Town Planning Institute, the British Property Federation and UK Finance have all expressed their support.

Huw Merriman Portrait Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

I add my name to that long list, but can my right hon. Friend give some confidence to local authorities? There are a lot of planning rules and regulations, and some of our planning officers are quite conservative in their interpretation. Where there is discretion, can we send the message out from this place that decisions must be decided in favour of business and of opening up?

Alok Sharma Portrait Alok Sharma
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

Of course we want to make sure that businesses open up, and we want local authorities to help local businesses do that, which is precisely the reason for these measures. We will publish guidance alongside the measures in the Bill, and I would ask local authorities to adhere to it. If my hon. Friend has any specific suggestions, I would be very happy to hear from him, as would my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, who will wind up this debate.

Greg Clark Portrait Greg Clark (Tunbridge Wells) (Con)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

My right hon. Friend is making a compelling case for giving a boost to many sectors of the economy, but will he reflect on the fact that some sectors will not be able to reopen because of the necessary rules? I am thinking of theatres, concert venues and other music venues. Given the need to adhere to the rules, will he make special provision for those that cannot trade their way out of difficulty?

On the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman) made, it would be very unfortunate if any of these venues, theatres or concert halls fell into insolvency, and we hope to avoid that, but in doing so we should guard against granting planning permissions that take them immediately out of those very valued uses. Will my right hon. Friend reflect on both during the passage of this Bill?

Alok Sharma Portrait Alok Sharma
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

My right hon. Friend, who has previously served as Business Secretary with great distinction, raises a number of important points. On insolvency, he will know that with the support of both Houses, we passed the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020, which came into effect on 25 June. When it comes to providing support to businesses, I think the best thing we can possibly do is to open them up, and I know that that is a sentiment that he will appreciate as a former Business Secretary. I would love to be able to have the whole economy operating and opening up, but we all understand why we are taking a phased and cautious approach: we want to continue to meet our five tests, and we want to ensure that the R value stays below one. In the tourism sector and the theatre sector, which he mentioned, ministerial colleagues are working closely on these issues.

I turn first to the temporary measures in the Bill to step up the recovery of our hospitality sector. Our 127,000 pubs, restaurants and cafés, which employ around 2 million people, are the lifeblood of our high streets and town centres. Social distancing guidelines significantly affect their capacity to accommodate customers, and food and beverage service activity has fallen by nearly 90% in the last quarter. The Bill introduces a temporary fast-track process for pubs, cafés and restaurants to obtain local council permission to place tables and chairs on the pavement outside their premises.

Anthony Mangnall Portrait Anthony Mangnall (Totnes) (Con)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

I spent my weekend in Dartmouth speaking to some of those businesses in the hospitality and tourism trade. May I associate myself with the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman) about making sure that councils are not over-zealous in their approach to allowing businesses to adopt the measures in the Bill for outdoor dining? I think it is very important that we can give those businesses reassurance.

Alok Sharma Portrait Alok Sharma
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

Of course my hon. Friend makes an important point, but I think local authorities will understand that it is in their self-interest to ensure that businesses can open and that high streets flourish. I certainly encourage businesses to look at the guidance and adhere to it.

Meg Hillier Portrait Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

In my borough, licensed premises are a very important part of the local economy, and we work with local residents to support them. This measure, with seven days’ notice, allows an enormous amount of off-sales, which are already causing havoc in my constituency with people defecating, urinating and leaving problems in parks. People are talking about fake Glastonbury. This is going to cost my borough a lot of money to police. We are not party poopers, but we do not want the other sort of pooping, either. Will the Secretary of State make provision to allow councils some discretion where there is a particular problem with a licensed premises causing antisocial behaviour?

Alok Sharma Portrait Alok Sharma
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

Ultimately, it is possible to revoke these permissions, and expedited processes have been put in place. Nobody wants to see bad behaviour, but this is a 10-day process, and there is an opportunity in the first five working days for anyone to put in their views to the local authority. Ultimately, the local authority decides. There is also a clear requirement that a legible notice is put up at the premises, so anyone who is in the locality will be able to see it when they pass by, and they can make representations if they wish. These new measures will cut the time to receive approval for this licence from an average of 42 working days to just 10 working days, and the application fee is capped at £100.

Public safety and access for disabled people using pavements is of course absolutely vital, so I can confirm that local authorities will be able to refuse or revoke licences where appropriate. The Government will be publishing minimum requirements and guidance for footway widths and distances required for access by disabled people.

Matt Western Portrait Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

The Secretary of State spoke earlier about the organisations that he has consulted. Has he engaged with, say, the Guide Dogs for the Blind Association to understand the sorts of risks and challenges that people with sight loss face? We have a centre for guide dogs in my constituency. This is a real issue for these organisations.

Alok Sharma Portrait Alok Sharma
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

I can confirm that we have engaged with disability groups in the preparation of the clauses in this Bill.

We will also be making changes to alcohol licensing. Currently, any licensee wishing to add off-the-premises sales permission has to apply for a licence variation. This takes time, with a 28-day notice period, adverts placed, and sometimes a hearing. Ordinarily, of course, that is necessary. However, hospitality businesses are not operating in ordinary economic times, as we all acknowledge, so the Government are temporarily changing the process. Under the measures in this Bill, most licences will automatically and temporarily be extended to include off-the-premises sales. However, there are safeguards in place. The extension will not include premises that have been denied off-sales permission or had it removed within the past three years. Taken together, these measures will help our hospitality industry to get back to business over the busy summer months.

Meg Hillier Portrait Meg Hillier
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

Has the right hon. Gentleman given any thought to allowing a review of this Bill, because—I am particularly talking about the hospitality industry—it will be coming into operation over a busy summer period, and we will see the effects of that? If he were to agree to a three-month review period where we, as a House, can see the evidence and then, if necessary, amend legislation, that would be a welcome step.

Alok Sharma Portrait Alok Sharma
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

First, these are of course temporary measures. A 90-day rolling review, which I think the hon. Lady is proposing, would undermine the certainty that we are giving businesses in terms of these particular measures. She will know, however, that should the Government wish to extend any of the measures, they will be subject to made affirmative or draft affirmative procedures, so they will come before the House before there is any opportunity to extend them further.

I now return to the issue of trying to get the construction sector moving. In 2018, this sector represented almost 9% of our GDP. Lockdown has had a profound impact on construction sites across the country. We estimate that almost 1,200 unimplemented major residential planning permissions, with capacity to deliver over 60,000 homes, have lapsed or will lapse between the start of lockdown on 23 March and 31 December this year. Therefore, the Bill introduces powers to extend these planning permissions and listed building consents to 1 April 2021. This will be automatic for permissions that have not lapsed at the point that these measures come into force. Lapsed permissions can be reinstated and can benefit from the same extension, but subject to necessary environmental approvals.

We will also make it quicker for developers to apply for longer construction site working hours. This will help to facilitate safe working—for example, by staggering workers’ hours—and to make up for lost progress. Applications will be concluded within 14 days. This measure does not apply to applications from individual householders. Local authorities retain discretion and can refuse applications where there would be an unacceptable impact. Again, this is a temporary measure. Extended hours can only last up until 1 April 2021, unless extended by secondary legislation.

Richard Fuller Portrait Richard Fuller (North East Bedfordshire) (Con)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

Across my constituency, there is already tremendous local sensitivity about excessive developments, the planning process and some of the procedures for public participation in the process being curtailed—there are virtual meetings and sometimes council executives make decisions on their own. Will the Secretary of State assure me that the Bill will not limit public participation in anything that might be the result of an extension or expansion of existing planning permission or indeed a new planning permission?

Alok Sharma Portrait Alok Sharma
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

No, it will not. I will talk a bit about hybrid appeal proceedings, and I think my hon. Friend will find that helpful.

There are two further planning measures that relate to the new spatial development strategy for London and hybrid appeal proceedings. The Mayor of London will shortly publish the new spatial development strategy, setting out plans for new homes for London. The Bill temporarily removes, until 31 December, the requirement for the strategy to be available for physical inspection and to provide hard copies on request. That ask from the Mayor of London will help to address practical challenges from social distancing.

Social distancing has also constrained the Planning Inspectorate’s ability to conduct hearings and inquires, and a backlog has been growing. Through the Bill, we will enable the inspectorate to combine written representations, hearings and inquiries when dealing with appeals. That change was recommended by the independent Rosewell review. A recent pilot undertaken on the review measures reduced average decision-making time from 47 weeks to 23 weeks.

Jim Shannon Portrait Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

The Secretary of State mentioned 60,000 houses that big companies will be able to build, but does he recognise that small and medium-sized companies that do refurbishments, extensions and small works are critical to the core of the economy? Will he ensure that they can also progress their applications through councils for approval? They may be sitting on the line where that may not happen.

Alok Sharma Portrait Alok Sharma
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

As I said, these measures will not relate to residential applications that have been made. The whole point is to get the construction sector moving. I have talked about a range of measures that we have set out for the sector, and I hope that more SME builders will be able to take advantage of them.

The Bill will enable lenders to continue issuing bounce-back loans quickly and at scale. It will retrospectively disapply the unfair relationships provisions in the Consumer Credit Act 1974 for lending made under the scheme. Reflecting current circumstances, the bounce-back loan scheme allows lenders to rely on self-certification from the business that it meets the eligibility criteria for the scheme and can afford to pay back the loan. It also provides for simpler information disclosure requirements to the borrowers. That will ensure that small businesses can continue to access the financial support that they need without undue delay.

Richard Fuller Portrait Richard Fuller
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

I am very grateful to the Secretary of State for giving way. I want to take him back to the point about public participation, because it is such a sensitive area. He said that in clause 20, the procedures for planning proceedings can be altered. Either now or in Committee, can he clarify who will be making those decisions and what impact that will have on public participation in relation to housing developments that might have a dramatic impact in the area? I want to be clear about whether the Bill will affect that dramatically.

Alok Sharma Portrait Alok Sharma
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

The Minister for Housing, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tamworth (Christopher Pincher), will deal with the details of that. The point of these measures is to get the economy going, which my hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller) is keen to do. I understand his point, and we will address it in Committee.

The Bill temporarily allows the issuing of one-year lorry or bus driving licence renewals, rather than the standard five years. Shorter renewals will be allowed if an applicant is otherwise healthy but unable to obtain the medical report required for a five-year licence. That will relieve pressure on GPs and allow drivers to continue to work. The Bill also reforms powers to exempt temporarily goods vehicles, buses and coaches from roadworthiness testing. That will allow the high demand for heavy-vehicle testing, which restarts from 4 July, to be managed in a manner that prioritises road safety by targeting higher-risk vehicles or operators.

In conclusion, the Government have stood shoulder to shoulder with businesses throughout the covid-19 emergency and now, as we emerge from this pandemic, we need to support our economic recovery and help businesses with more flexible ways of working. The great British economy, helped by a willing public, is reawakening from its enforced slumber. Taken together, the measures in the Bill are designed to provide a much-needed economic boost, and I commend it to the House.

Edward Miliband Portrait Edward Miliband (Doncaster North) (Lab)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

May I start by thanking the Business Secretary for the constructive conversations that he and I have had on the Bill? As he knows, we support the measures contained in it.

The wider context to this Bill is the economic crisis that we face, the scale of which we have not seen for a very long time. As an Opposition, we have tried to work constructively with Government. Indeed, we have welcomed a number of steps that the Government have taken. We called for the furlough scheme and indeed have welcomed it, though we believe that too many people remain excluded from support. We called for the 100% underwriting of Government-backed loans, and we have welcomed the bounce back loans, too. We have also supported the Government on the difficult decision to move from 2 metres to 1 metre-plus where 2 metres cannot be observed, although we do have concerns about the test, track and trace system.

I hope that we can agree that the past few months have shown the power of Government to step in and protect jobs and businesses at a time of crisis. My case today is that that power has not gone away, and neither has the need for it to be exercised. The Government must not shrink from that, because, let us be clear, we are not at the end of this economic crisis, but just at the beginning of it.

Let me deal first with the provisions in the Bill. It is a short Bill and there is a large degree of agreement on it. The headline provisions, as the Secretary of State has said, will enable the hospitality industry to reopen quickly and serve a greater number of customers in a safe environment. We welcome the temporary loosening of planning regulations to enable bars, restaurants and cafés to serve customers outside their premises. I take the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier) has made about the need for some caution here. It is important that local authorities continue to have discretion in these matters because they are best placed to make the judgments about the local impacts. It is also right to put on record the concerns of the shop workers’ union, USDAW, which has worried about the safety of staff. The guidance is very clear about the mitigation and reduction of risk that is needed if 1 metre-plus is in place, and I am sure the Secretary of State agrees that that is really important, and that it is also very important that the Health & Safety Executive takes a tough line in enforcing safety as well.

We also welcome the measures in enabling construction sites to get back to work more easily through extended working hours. Again, and I am sure that Members across the House will agree with me, it is in the interests of local residents that local authorities have discretion in these matters.

Meg Hillier Portrait Meg Hillier
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

I think we agree about the need for local authorities to have discretion, but they also need resources. In my borough, we have more than 1,300 licensed premises in a very small area of London, and a lot of licensing officers are needed just to deal with the flow of applications. Does my right hon. Friend not think that the Government need to address that?

Edward Miliband Portrait Edward Miliband
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

My hon. Friend in her customary eloquent way anticipates my next point. We have seen—and I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon North (Steve Reed), the shadow Secretary of State for local government, for giving me the exact figures—£10 billion of costs loaded on to local authorities during this crisis, and only £3.2 billion provided by Government, despite the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government saying that the Government would stand behind councils and give them the funding they need. We have another Bill that puts yet more pressure on local authorities, but with no clear plan about how they will be reimbursed, and our new clause 5 speaks to that issue.

We also welcome the changes to transport licensing and the removal of the unfair relationship provision in the Consumer Credit Act to ensure that bounce-back loans are more easily accessed.  I am grateful to the Secretary of State for the detailed discussions that we had about that particular provision.

Those are the main provisions of the Bill and, as I said, there is cross-party agreement on them. Obviously, there will be detailed discussions in Committee. However, I have to say to the Secretary of State and the House that we are under an illusion if we think that the measures in this Bill will go much of the way towards addressing the crisis that we face: 4 July represents a reopening of pubs and restaurants, but it does not represent recovery.

It is important to note that many sections of our economy employing hundreds of thousands of people, including gyms, leisure centres, live entertainment venues, beauty salons, conference facilities, night clubs and swimming pools, will still not be able to open for public health reasons. We support those public health decisions. Other parts of our economy will open only with severe restrictions, including large parts of our hospitality industry, which employs 3 million people or one in 10 of the whole workforce. The British Beer and Pub Association says that 25% of pubs will not be able to reopen even at 1 metre. The Government themselves acknowledge, in the scientific assessment of the change to 1 metre, that the hospitality industry will lose 25% to 40% of its revenue even at 1 metre distancing. That revenue translates into a risk to hundreds of thousands of jobs. Live performance remains prohibited, which affects the theatre sector, employing 290,000 people. Manufacturers, too, are reeling from the fall in domestic and worldwide demand.

I say all that not to cast doubt on the public health measures being taken or to speak against the Bill, but to point to the wider context, which is that the Government are taking a one-size-fits-all approach to the furlough, for example, demanding an employer contribution from August and a cliff edge at the end of October. The shadow business Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester Central (Lucy Powell), received this letter from a venue in Manchester in the past week: 

“As the Government furlough scheme draws to a close, I will be making very difficult decisions this week so that I can give notice during the period of 80% furlough contribution to commence a redundancy consultation with the majority of my venue staff. With zero income and no appropriate financial Government support, I have no choice but to make these decisions.”

We are not asking the impossible of Government; we are saying, “Look at what other countries are doing”, whether that is Spain, Italy, New Zealand, France or Germany. They are taking a sectoral approach to the furlough. They are saying that specific sectors are more affected by the public health measures and that, therefore, the economic measures have to match that.

Richard Fuller Portrait Richard Fuller
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

The shadow Secretary of State will be aware that the Government measures taken across the economy, which he has welcomed, already raise issues of fairness between those who fall one side of the line and those who fall on the other side. What is his proposal for those sectors? Some businesses will fall just to one side, but who will be the expert to understand who fits where? I am all up for it if he can reconcile that, but there are risks, are there not?

Edward Miliband Portrait Edward Miliband
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

Of course there are, but just because we cannot do everything does not mean that we should not do anything. The grants programme that the Government introduced was done by sector—retail, hospitality and leisure. The hon. Gentleman makes an important point about boundaries, and some business organisations would raise that issue, but I worry that technical concerns about boundaries, which have been overcome for the grants scheme, stop us doing something that makes real sense.

Kevin Hollinrake Portrait Kevin Hollinrake
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

What the right hon. Gentleman says about the sector-based nature of the grants scheme highlights the problem in his argument. All MPs in this place, I am sure, have been contacted by people—in the hospitality supply chain, for example—who were not getting support. It is so difficult to take a sector-based approach. Will he concede that that is not as easy as he thinks?

Edward Miliband Portrait Edward Miliband
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

Of course it is not easy, but the hon. Gentleman’s implication is that nothing can be done for those sectors that are obviously more affected by the public health measures.

Kevin Hollinrake Portrait Kevin Hollinrake
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

indicated dissent.

Edward Miliband Portrait Edward Miliband
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

The hon. Gentleman is shaking his head. If things can be done, they should be done, but my point is that the strength of the Government response is that it has been comprehensive. It has used the power of Government and it has not necessarily taken a one-size-fits-all approach. I am worried—we see this in the evidence that has been brought forward—about the one-size-fits-all approach.

Kevin Hollinrake Portrait Kevin Hollinrake
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

I speak as a business person as well as a Member of Parliament. In my view, the Chancellor made the job retention scheme very generous, continuing it a lot longer than many thought it would; and rather than have a sector-based scheme to help some people and not others, he has tried to help all employers and make it flexible for all the different categories of employer.

Edward Miliband Portrait Edward Miliband
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

I do not disagree with the hon. Gentleman that it is important that we have had the furlough, but I disagree that it should be cut off at the end of October, because I really worry about the economic impact. We have 2.8 million people already claiming unemployment-related benefits, and I worry about the implications for these other industries.

The tragedy is that the Government have spent £22 billion on the furlough, but I fear that we will throw away some of that investment  by not recognising that specific sectors face specific challenges. I urge the Business Secretary —he knows this, as he talks to the same people that I do—to use all the powers of his office to make representations to the Chancellor to find a way of fixing that, so that we have a sector-specific approach to the furlough, including an extension beyond October.

Just as I do not believe that the furlough should be abruptly ended, I believe that there are issues of access to loan finance. As I have said, the bounce back loans scheme has been successful at getting money out of the door, but the same cannot be said of the other small business loan scheme, the coronavirus business interruption loan scheme. In the case of CBILS, only half of all applications have been approved, and the supposed freeing up of the scheme as a result of bounce back loans being made available is yet to materialise. We still do not know why 48,000 out of 98,000 CBILS loans are stuck in a holding pattern, and we do not know how many have been rejected and how many are still in the queue. One of the things we are asking for in the Bill is for the Government to publish data on the true number of rejections and the total number of inquiries.

The problem is not just with the small loan scheme. We have seen a wave of job losses in manufacturing, from Rolls-Royce to McLaren to Jaguar Land Rover. Make UK is predicting that as many as 170,000 jobs could be lost this year in the manufacturing sector alone. Any talk of levelling up will come to nought if we lose those jobs—I am sure that sentiment is shared across the House—and I urge the Secretary of State to look at the international comparisons of France and Germany, which have protected and supported strategic sectors of the economy, such as steel, aerospace and automotive, in a number of different ways. That is why our amendment to the Bill calls on the Government also to publish the true number of rejections in respect of the larger loan scheme, the coronavirus large business interruption loan scheme, and explain why 400 larger businesses have not been able to access support through the scheme. Again, we do not know whether they are stuck in a holding pattern and still waiting in the queue or have just been rejected. These sectors are calling for tailored Government support to help them through the crisis, but it has not been forthcoming. The big point is that, from hospitality to leisure to manufacturing, this is a general recession, but it was also much more acute in specific sectors, and the Government need to recognise this far more in their response.

If one part of the Government’s strategy is about shielding sectors of our economy from the sectoral recession, the other part must be about job creation and employment. We are to have a speech tomorrow from the Prime Minister. It is a shame that we do not have a Budget; I do not really understand why we do not have a Budget in what is potentially the worst recession in 300 years. If now is not the time for a Budget, I do not know when is the time for a Budget, but there is a speech tomorrow and big promises are being made about it.

The Bill rightly talks about what can be done in the construction sector. The way to help the construction sector is not just to tweak the operational hours, although that is important, but also to deliver on some of the promises the Government have made. Again, I think this view can be shared across the House; I do not often quote the Conservative manifesto approvingly—[Interruption.] —or at least not enough, but it promised £9.2 billion for energy efficiency in public and private buildings. Conservative Members all stood on that manifesto and I am sure that they support it.

We know how behind the Government are on building retrofits. The Committee on Climate Change recently said that there has been “negligible progress since 2015” and that the challenge of retrofit and renovation has gone “largely unaddressed.” We know that investing in retrofit is the ultimate win-win. This is the ideal opportunity —it would help the construction sector, not just in relation to operational hours, and could create tens of thousands of jobs—but today there are reports that it is being blocked by none other than Dominic Cummings. Apparently, he is uninterested and thinks it is “boring old housing insulation”. The Secretary of State and I have a good relationship, and I am happy to give way to him so that he can say that the £9 billion is going to happen. We need the £9 billion, so I am happy to give way. He has overruled Dominic Cummings on Sunday trading; now is the time to overrule him on this.

Let us also bring forward the £12 billion of social housing spending that has been promised. All these things are important, and they are also part of job creation. I think the idea that we need a green recovery is shared throughout the House, as least at the level of principle. Some people—assiduous readers—will have read over the weekend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster’s rather long speech, which mentioned Franklin Roosevelt 17 times. [Interruption.] I see Members nodding. Let me tell the House about Roosevelt: he put 3 million people back to work in the Civilian Conservation Corps. We need that kind of ambition on retrofit; on manufacturing low-carbon engines; on adapting our towns and cities to walking and cycling; on creating green spaces; and on reforesting and rewilding. We need what I call a zero-carbon army as part of a youth jobs fund.

We should see all these things as part of the green new deal because—this is the point—we face an unemployment emergency in this country. We should be under no illusions: a million young people are forecast to be out of work this year. We need a scale of action that matches that. That is my point. The Government measures we have supported over the past few months have recognised the power of active government in a crisis like this. My appeal to the Government is not to shrink from that now, because we are just at the beginning.

To conclude, we welcome the Bill as a step to help the hospitality and construction industry to reopen, but it is not nearly enough. The Government have shown that they are willing to take action, but we face the deepest and sharpest recession, possibly for hundreds of years, and Government power has to be continued to be used. The decisions taken by the Government in the coming weeks will determine how many jobs are lost and how many businesses survive. The commitment to do whatever it takes cannot be a hollow promise. We are calling for an extension to the furlough for specific sectors; an urgent job-creation programme with a green recovery at its heart; and real action on infrastructure, not just words. I urge the Government not to step back when our economy, our businesses and our workers desperately need support.

Nigel Evans Portrait Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

To make her maiden speech, I call my constituency neighbour, Katherine Fletcher.

Katherine Fletcher Portrait Katherine Fletcher (South Ribble) (Con)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker. Due to covid, this maiden speech risks being something of an old maid—no comments in the Gallery, thank you. I rise to give this speech in tribute and with thanks to the wonderful people of South Ribble who, throughout this horrible once-in-a-century pandemic, have kept their heads, asked sensible questions and looked out for each other in myriad ways, small and large. Their humour and perseverance truly are the best of British, and I am chuffed to bits to serve them in this House.

I must also pay tribute to that fantastic Lancastrian, my predecessor Seema Kennedy. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] From her work securing millions to prevent flooding in Croston and Penwortham to her championing of our communities with Jo Cox, she is an intelligent, warm, generous, true lady. I extend my very best wishes to Seema and her young family and look forward to working for her at some point in the future.

And so to South Ribble and our history. Around 15,000 years ago, as the ice sheets retreated, fertile soils were carried down off the majestic Pennine hills to form the deep rich loams of Rufford, Longton and beyond. This soil of the very best grade, along with the skilled farmers and horticulturalists who look after it, produces some of the best produce in the world. Who in this House can say that their white turnips grace Harrods food hall? Not many, I’ll warrant. I pay personal tribute to all our growers, whose skill is legendary.

In advance of the next bit, I am going to have to apologise to Professor Mary Beard and her colleagues, because this is not something I have been taught. I have just read it in books, so I am going to get something wrong. If we look at Lancashire in the Roman era, we have the first written evidence of our proud culture. The ancient historian Tacitus describes how the northern tribes prepared for war: singing, chanting, drinking, tattoos and blue woad, and even being roused to laughter by a man at the front of the group. It strikes me, 2,000 years later, that Peter Kay has an ancestor and that Tacitus would have recognised the same in the people of Penwortham as they walk to Deepdale, Old Trafford, Anfield or, if you must, Ewood Park. Plus ça change!

Before you think our northern history is all about blokes, let me introduce a peer of the famous Boadicea, Queen Cartimandua of the Brigantes. The Brigantes were the iron age tribe of the north, and at the time of the Roman invasion we were ruled by Queen Cartimandua. Now, that was a politician! As Channel 4’s “Time Team” found, to its televisual disappointment, our lands are not covered by huge Roman forts, temples or mosaics. In doing pragmatic deals with local leaders, Queen Cartimandua protected her peoples, focused on trade, avoided oppression and avoided being killed by the Romans—in many ways, a woman who would approve of recent Bills in this House. For example, in her later years, when she tired of her king, she divorced him and took up with a handsome man in uniform, the head of her guard—[Laughter.] A development that I can see has caught the imagination of several genders in the House.

Slide forward another 1,000 years and South Ribble is at the heart of the Danelaw, the proud lands above the line between Chester and the Wash. Here we find the first reference in history to southerners up north. In about 1069, a bunch of people with silly accents—apparently they were Normans—rolled up in helmets and said “Gud moaning, we own all of this now.” Funnily enough, the north of England’s response was, “Er, no thanks!” There then followed quite a lot of genocide and burning people in their houses. In the recent history books, this is entitled the harrying of the north. Something of an understatement, that. While the he details may be largely forgotten, the sentiment of mistrust is not.

To my friends in the north, I say in the here and now: what is in the interests of the north is in the interests of the Tory party and the country. Full stop. You have made the right choice. Despite what you may hear from those who want you to know your place, I see no conflict at all in being proud to wear both the red rose of Lancashire and the blue Conservative rosette. We want a fishing rod, not a fish. We do not want a force-fed narrative of being downtrodden and oppressed; we want to rewrite a century of complacency. We need infrastructure to get to our work quicker and get back to our families without getting stuck. We want to be respected and cherished, and in all honesty we probably want to win the premier league every year with about 2 billion people around the world watching, although I am happy to concede to the House that there is a tiny bit of internal division about which team should actually do it.

A few hundred years later still, we enter the age of machines and steam. Take one look at the skills in Leyland, the trucks they built and still build, and their contribution to engineering across Lancashire, and it warms my heart. I am a sister, cousin, niece and friend to engineers across the north, but I must mention one in particular: my dad. A man who comes from the same political tradition as Mr Speaker, as you well know, Mr Deputy Speaker. Having a daughter who comes home and announces she wants to be a Tory MP was something of a surprise to him.

When we used to go on holiday as a family to Llandudno, there were people on the front selling see-through plastic macs that had emblazoned on the back in large, colourful letters, “The views of this child are not necessarily those of the parents.” It has been a family joke for some-ty years that I should have been bought one. However, attending the work’s old buffers’ buffet this winter, shortly after the general election, my dad was assailed with an astonished, “Fletch, I didn’t realise you were a Tory. Is it your daughter that’s just been elected next door?” With shock, he has now realised that the shoe is on the other foot; it is he who now needs a badge that says: “The views of this child are not necessarily those of the parents”. That is no way to repay a man who made huge sacrifices to feed his family, climbing in toilet windows to earn a wage but break a strike, moving halfway across the world to work on his own when jobs were tight in the early ’80s. Dad, I am sorry that you need the badge, but thank you anyway.

For those who do not know us, it is easy to think that the innovations of the industrial revolution were all brownfield, so what if I told you of the canals and land reclamation delivered for more rural areas such as Tarleton or the village—the clue is in the name—of Banks? Banks possesses the wonderfully named road Ralph’s Wife’s Lane, a long, wide thoroughfare that on first introduction leads to a couple of immediate questions. Who on earth was Ralph? Arguably more importantly, why was he so awful that his wife had to live down a long, massive, wide road to get away from him? And why did she not have a name? I look forward to hearing her story.

In fact, let me highlight the continued strength throughout the ages of the northern female. Rightly, there are wonderful statues to the Pankhursts and the fight for women’s votes, but I argue to the House very strongly that the movement’s success was due in part to symbiosis with a Lancashire culture that has roots far deeper than the industrial revolution. Step into Edwardian shoes in a Manchester terrace—can you imagine the conversation between the educated middle classes and a bunch of working-class Lancastrians like Annie Kenney and Mary Leigh? “Actually, we have campaigned for votes since the 1860s and have yet to succeed in our aims.” “Right, yeah, we’re just going to have to blow something up.” I add my voice to their quote:

“I’d rather be a rebel than a slave.”

My grandma passed grammar in Salford shortly after the votes for women movement succeeded. My auntie won prizes for academic achievement, but at 12 she had to leave and work in a shirt factory. Her experience means that my family values education beyond anything else as an engine of getting on—we aspire. “Do your best. Try harder. See what you can get up to.” My mum was the woman who said to her daughter, “No, you can’t go and knock-on and go out and play; you’ve got to do this next practice paper for your exams”. She regularly said: “Katherine, I’ve been saying since you were two that you’ll either be a stripper, a social worker or a scientist.” Well, mum, given that I have a biology degree, and with the nature of modern politics, there is a very good chance that I have achieved all three. Thank you, mum—you were right about the exams.

You may have guessed that I am very proud of what I am and where I come from—a community that says, “Go on, succeed, but don’t get too big for your boots. Don’t be patronising or ignore us or make assumptions about who we are or what we want. Definitely don’t come up here with southern accents to gain access to safe seats and explain how oppressed we are. You will get two words to that: ‘Look, love’”. Call it the northern powerhouse, call it levelling up—I am interested in labels only if they help communicate real action, and I will tirelessly advocate for exactly that. Championing the old lands of the Danelaw will guide my actions in Parliament.

To conclude, I think the ultimate lesson we should take from the suffragette movement is not actually one of women’s lib. It is that we are always only going to achieve big things—huge changes—when the people who say, “Actually—” and the people of different cultures and classes work together. We are best as one nation, not divided by class war or political tribalism. Look around me on these Benches. Look at the breadth of experience of culture, of vowel sounds—it is true. I can report to you that while some of the accents in this place are still silly, I have yet to see a southerner in a northern helmet, and I am struck by how serious they are about investment and growth and jobs. In short, they’re all right.

This flipping covid. It is a huge test for us, and we will pass it only if we take a leaf out of the suffragettes’ book and work together equally. I say to South Ribble, the north and the country: “Let’s combine our efforts, turbo-charge business and trade the hell out of our current position with all the peoples of the world.” I look forward to working with the descendants of everyone to make that happen, and I almost definitely promise not to metaphorically blow something up to make that happen.

Richard Thomson Portrait Richard Thomson (Gordon) (SNP)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

May I take this opportunity to warmly congratulate the hon. Member for South Ribble (Katherine Fletcher) on her fantastic maiden speech? The Business and Planning Bill was perhaps not the most auspicious starting point for a maiden speech, but she gave us an industrial, geological and historical tour de force of the constituency. She follows a distinguished predecessor in her constituency, and I am sure I will not be alone in saying that I look forward to hearing more from her throughout this Parliament.

I will keep my remarks comparatively brief, as the Bill only really affects Scotland in respect of three clauses: clauses 12, 13 and 14. However, it would be remiss of me to miss the opportunity to say, on some of the licensing aspects, that the picture painted by the Minister of pavement cafés opening up the length and breadth of England presented a very—what’s the word?—European picture of England, which my party certainly, and I am sure others too, very much looks forward to seeing.

I turn to clauses 12, 13 and 14. The changes in the Consumer Credit Act are welcome. I hope that they lead to more instances of loans being given to the businesses that require them. I must say, though, that I am somewhat sceptical that that will lead to the transfer of cash that we need in that respect. The right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband) was absolutely right that we are really only at the start of our response to this crisis, and we are going to have to revisit this.

It is extraordinary that we have not heard from the Chancellor about his coming back to deliver what should be an emergency Budget. Much more still needs to be done as the crisis and our response to it evolve. In that respect, I very much commend the 10-point plan announced earlier today by Scotland’s First Minister, who talked about a major fiscal stimulus for the economy, VAT reductions for hospitality, investment in low carbon and digital, and of course changes to increase flexibility in the Scottish fiscal framework.

I will now deal with the other clauses that affect legislation in Scotland. The changes to the Road Traffic Act 1988 regarding driving licences and vehicle certifications are reasonable, proportionate and risk based, and we support them. It would be sensible to keep those measures under regular review, along with other aspects of the Bill. However, I make this plea to the Minister: we must return to the status quo ante as soon as reasonably possible, once it is possible to clear the backlog of testing of drivers’ continued fitness to drive and of vehicles themselves.

The Bill is a narrow one and a necessary one, but what we should really be hearing about is the emergency Budget that we need as we plot our way out of this crisis economically.

Nigel Evans Portrait Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

I call Paul Howell to make his maiden speech.

Paul Howell Portrait Paul Howell (Sedgefield) (Con)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

They tell us all that it is a challenge to make a maiden speech—I knew that I should not follow my hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble (Katherine Fletcher). I am one of the last of my intake to deliver my maiden speech, but I am probably one of the last who was expected to be here anyway, so that fits.

This Bill is a critical step in the recovery, but before contributing to this debate, I would like to talk a little bit about Sedgefield and give you a context for my comments. Sedgefield as a constituency has a significant rurality, with many farms, including the outstanding Archer’s ice cream, and around 40 different settlements. We have the William Beveridge-designed Newton Aycliffe as the biggest town. We have businesses ranging from the well-known, like Hitachi and 3M, through to the iconic Cleveland Bridge, to Crafter’s Companion, founded by our local Dragon, and some of the most innovative companies in the UK, like Kromek and the Centre for Process Innovation, and so many SMEs.

I was born in one of the mining villages, Ferryhill, before going to school in Newton Aycliffe and spending close to 40 years as an accountant in the manufacturing industry. I have also had the opportunity to sit as a councillor in both my local authorities, Durham and Darlington. I have an insight into the rural communities because I have been married to a farmer’s daughter for around 35 years. We have Charlie, born in 1993, whom we are both immensely proud of, being the first in our family to go to university—somewhere called Cambridge.

My dad was originally a miner but mainly a fireman, who, along with my mother, provided my brother and I with an upbringing that was loving, stable and showed us the value of hard work as he rose to be a divisional officer. I have to thank my agent, Charles Johnson, and his sadly recently departed wife, Carol—Carol did not know where a fence was to sit on it; she had views—who were particularly instrumental in me becoming involved in local politics in the first place. I, of course, thank my campaign team—this is all of them: Keith, Catherine, Oliver, Giles and, of course, my wife Lillian. There was a little bit of a target around me—some target seats. Their support in the campaign was invaluable, and I certainly would not be here without them.

Some notable politicians have held Sedgefield over the years. [Laughter.] I, of course, think first of Roland Jennings, who held the seat from 1931 to 1935 and served in the Durham Light Infantry in the first world war. He was the last Conservative Member of Parliament for Sedgefield. He had an entry in Hansard with him asking the Minister of Transport for help—nothing is changing there.

My immediate predecessor is Phil Wilson. I thank Phil for his magnanimous speech at the count. He was Labour, not Corbyn, and with that conflict, he found it a very difficult campaign. I have heard good comments from Members on both sides of the House about Phil—in particular, the work he did on the all-party parliamentary group for the armed forces—and I wish him all the best.

I said in my campaign that I would listen to the people of Sedgefield, and that is what I will do. So far, I have been lobbied on everything, from the price of pipe tobacco to HS2. One of the early pleasures in my role has been to meet the young ambassadors from Ferryhill and Chilton, whose latest campaign is “#dontthrowitallaway”, and it is about the rubbish that comes out of McDonald’s and places like that. I will give them all the support I possibly can.

I have started in this place with two primary areas of focus for Sedgefield: to work for the communities left behind as our economy became too London and financial services dependent, and to support local business. To that end, I am now joint chair of an APPG for left-behind communities, and I have been elected to the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee.

It is, hopefully, from this informed base that I would like to contribute a little to the debate. I would first like to say that I support the measures in the Bill as necessary first steps that will undoubtedly help pubs and restaurants, and I encourage as many of you as possible to join them—of course, in a socially distant way. While I am strongly in favour of developing pavement café space and so on to help with the recovery, we must remember to be as inclusive as possible and not forget that some of our visually challenged people might find these changes difficult.

In deciding what our next actions should be, we need to ensure that we do not look to recover to where we were—we need to go to where we want to be. Remember that before coronavirus, we had committed to the communities that had been left behind that we would level up this United Kingdom. With Sedgefield being equidistant from the north coast of Scotland and the south coast of England, we are a great place to start.

We must be aware that, even with these measures, some great businesses will need to reposition themselves for a new future that requires fewer people. One example would be the outstanding Rockliffe Hall hotel, whose staff have been writing to me, praising the way they have been treated during the lockdown, but the hotel is still having to make redundancies because of forecast lower occupancy rates. We need to take every opportunity to find ways to support job retention and creation and to minimise as far as possible the impact on our people and their economic opportunities. There are businesses, particularly many new start-ups and the self-employed, that have fallen through the gaps of the incredible efforts delivered by the Chancellor, and I would ask, if at all possible, for the Government to take another look at how we can help them to survive and grow.

There are many options we can take to move forward. As is typical of the north-east, we have some suggestions about what and how. A local business fellowship forum that I have listened to has written to the Chancellor providing some suggestions. It says that infrastructure needs accelerating and should not be frustrated by overly protracted planning processes. Tax breaks are needed to support construction and in particular green construction. The forum also argues for some 100% capital allowances, bonds for local authorities to support local investment and supply chains that maximise local content for integrity and the socioeconomic benefits that come. We need to consider mass contingent equity investments to drive investment.

The forum also asks us to lift some of the restrictions on the enterprise investment scheme and venture capital trust funding to improve access. In the end, cash is king, so it also asks the Government to push the importance of prompt payment and to broaden the Government-backed insurance scheme. Those suggestions show that businesses are looking at how to deliver growth, and I encourage the Chancellor to listen and to be as expansive as possible in his consideration of such suggestions.

I suggest that we can combine economic delivery with our levelling up agenda, for example, by delivering promises on infrastructure. In Sedgefield, several of our villages are named after railway stations. We have Ferryhill Station, Trimdon Station and Station Town. They have one thing in common: none of them has a railway station anymore. Ferryhill is an obvious place to rectify that. It is something that had been campaigned for since it was closed in the Beeching era, and not even Tony Blair, who was Labour Prime Minister for 10 of his 24 years as the Sedgefield MP, managed to deliver that. Maybe its time has come.

Broadband is key infrastructure and it needs to be for all. In Sedgefield, we have a number of rural blackspots, such as Killerby, which has close to zero broadband, never mind gigabyte broadband, and that needs to change. The delivery of local management for local need could be further developed. I would like to see people such as the Tees Valley Mayor, Ben Houchen, given the opportunity to drive more agendas and for devolution gaps such as Durham, which fall between combined authorities, to have their situation sorted and for them all to have the latitude to crack on and deliver.

I would like to see a mechanism for getting some funding support direct to community groups, such as Deaf Hill Regeneration Group and Ferryhill Ladder, which are so embedded in their communities and can ensure that all the money hits the target for maximum benefit.

The opportunity to relocate some Government Departments, such as possibly the Treasury and others to the north-east—and preferably to Sedgefield—could both improve local economies and Government understanding, but also reduce pressure on the housing and travel densities in London.

It has been noticeable during the crisis how much people have stood up and helped their neighbours, and that is something we need to encourage. I will therefore look to my immediate neighbour, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, to pop over the bridges on the Tees and give me a hand.

Those are the key strands that should be part of our approach to starting the process of levelling up, while at the same time invigorating our economy. People will no doubt question whether it can be done. Well, we got Brexit done, and this is a Government who can get things done. I remind the House of a poem by Edgar Albert Guest, which starts:

“Somebody said that it couldn’t be done

But he with a chuckle replied

That ‘maybe it couldn’t,’ but he would be one

Who wouldn’t say so till he’d tried.

So he buckled right in with the trace of a grin

On his face. If he worried he hid it.

He started to sing as he tackled the thing

That couldn’t be done, and he did it!”

For us, it is now all about getting it done.

My message to the Government is that we have the ideas and talent to deliver the economy and welfare of the UK from these challenges, and my message to the people of Sedgefield is that we can get it done. I will do everything in my power to listen to you, represent you and shout for investment in our amazing constituency to deliver the connections and visions that create the aspiration and opportunity for you to get it done, too.

Meg Hillier Portrait Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

It is a pleasure to follow the maiden speech of the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Paul Howell). He may be surprised to discover that between Sedgefield and Shoreditch there is a bigger connection than he might imagine and that we might be on the same side on tackling the issue of broadband, because my constituency, like his, has notspots, even in the heart of what some people call Tech City. So we can perhaps work together on that. I am also a supporter of relocating Government departments outside London, championing it when I was in government, so we have two points in common. In other ways we may be hammer and tongs against each other, but we can find the points of agreement, and if we disagree, let us disagree well. He was right to pay tribute to Phil Wilson and to describe him as magnanimous. Phil is a good, kind, thoughtful and wise men, and it was a real mark of the man that despite losing Sedgefield to the other party, he did not take defeat badly. It is noble of the hon. Gentleman to acknowledge that.

I want to focus on the Bill’s clauses relating to hospitality. Before doing so, I wish to stress that my borough of Hackney is very pro-enterprise. We support it to such an extent that we have more than 1,300 licensed premises in a 19 square mile borough; we are the third most densely populated borough in London, and there has been a 66% growth in the number of premises since 2006. So this is something we have been pushing, and I pay tribute to the many exciting and interesting entrepreneurs who have set up businesses. In one ward alone, Hackney Central, we have five microbreweries. So this is a great place to come to drink, party and have fun, but we have always tried to balance that, for the most part, with the needs of residents. I worry that with this Bill the balance is shifting so far one way that we will rue the day, in a few months’ time, when we see what residents have had to put up with.

I need to describe what our local residents are already putting up with. We may have had lockdown, but businesses have been able to sell off the premises in open containers, and some of my local parks, notably those without boundaries—London Fields, Well Street Common and others—have become party places. They have not just become party places for people having a responsible, quiet drink in a gathering with friends, within the social distancing rules. I am afraid to say that we are talking about people who have no regard for other people, and who have defecated and urinated in the parks, and in people’s doorways and stairwells. People are having to scrub down their front doors and remove human excrement to get out of their house cleanly. That is not acceptable, and it is not down to the shortcomings of the local authority or the police.

The volume has been so great that this has been very difficult to keep on top of. The police are receiving complaints about antisocial behaviour, with about 70 to 90 on a sunny weekend, depending on the day. The local authority noise patrols and wardens are out in force doing what they can, but they are simply outnumbered. Fines have been issued, and more than 100 of the 193 issued were to people from outside the borough, be they from south London or as far away as Bishop’s Stortford or St Albans. We welcome people to Hackney— we want people to come to support our vibrant businesses —but they need to have some personal responsibility. My fear about this Bill is that it rushes through one of the most radical changes in licensing laws in a matter of a couple of hours this evening, with a handful of Members engaged. The Bill was unveiled only on Thursday and we had until Wednesday, or until today, to make amendments—this is going very fast.

I wish to refer to a couple of clauses. Clause 3 deals with the determination of applications, with subsection (3) setting out what happens at

“the end of the public consultation period.”

The business has to put in an application to the council, and the day after that it is deemed as received. This is deemed as being the start of the public consultation. Ten days later, at the end of that period,

“the local authority may—

(a) grant a pavement licence to the applicant, or

(b) reject the application.”

Of course if there is a public concern, the application can be looked at again, but subsection (8) states:

“If the local authority does not make a determination under subsection (3) by the end of the determination period, the licence for which the application was made is deemed to be granted by the authority to the applicant.”

We are quite willing to support businesses with looking at extended licences and so on—that happens all the time in my borough. But with some 1,330 licensed premises, the pace at which this is going means that there will not be enough resources in Hackney Council, or in any council in the country unless there are few licensed premises in the area, to deal with the onslaught of licence applications.

The clause is very much in favour of business, and of course I am in favour of businesses getting support, but we need to ensure that we get a balance. The Secretary of State talked about limits—for example, a premises that has had problems or an application for an off licence refused in the past three years is not eligible, but that has not happened to many businesses. A lot of businesses will be applying for the first time because of the peculiar and difficult circumstances of covid-19.

An obligation on the business to deliver a restrained service is missing. Such a service is difficult to control because once people are spilling out of a premises on to the pavements and into car parks, it does not take much to spill further into our parks and create more of the nuisance that we have seen recently, to the real detriment of residents.

For some, this may be a dilemma, but for me it is about getting the balance between what is right for residents and what is right for business. The Bill goes far over the line to support business. Yes, it is a difficult time, but there are not enough safeguards for local councils and not enough resources. The Government need to provide the resources to councils such as mine and that of the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Nickie Aiken), whose constituency must have even more licensed premises than Hackney South and Shoreditch and the borough of Hackney, so that they can cope. That is difficult to do. They cannot rustle up licensing officers with the right experience in the time available. The Government also need to give powers to councils where there has been antisocial behaviour so that there is a quicker way of withdrawing a licence.

We have to get the balance right. Of course we want things to return to normal as soon and as safely as possible, but the Bill will create other problems. I am sure that the Minister does not need me to remind him that one of the challenges of becoming a Minister is the unintended consequences element of the work. A Minister makes a decision and officials say that they have checked everything, it is all great, everyone has looked at it, but there is one little bit that perhaps they have not thought through fully. That usually connects the decision to life out there in the real world. The Minister is very welcome to visit my constituency—we might even go for a socially distant drink in a responsible establishment—but the reality in my part of the world right now is not pleasant. It has become a party place and it has been very difficult, almost impossible, for the council to keep on top of.

I urge the Government to reconsider the matter and think about any safeguards, support and succour they can give local authorities. I am not a party pooper. I support enterprise and the licensed premises in Hackney, but there must be a balance. Any measure must not be to the detriment of residents who have had to put up with the fouling and bad behaviour of recent weeks and months.

Saqib Bhatti Portrait Saqib Bhatti (Meriden) (Con)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

I pay tribute to my hon. Friends the Members for South Ribble (Katherine Fletcher) and for Sedgefield (Paul Howell) for their maiden speeches. They truly demonstrated the depth of talent in the party and why I believe that this side of the House will be a formidable force for many years to come. I congratulate them.

Covid-19 has posed not only one of the most significant public health crises that many of us will ever experience, but significant challenges to our economy, the way we do business and our life as we knew it. Social distancing, self-isolating and the new normal are all terms that I would never have guessed I would use regularly when I first entered the House in December ’19. Indeed, we do not yet know what the new normal will look like, but we can all agree that it will be different from the old one. It has been a long, hard slog and as we find that new normal, it is vital that we pass legislation such as the Bill that allows us, our businesses and our economy to emerge from this economic slumber.

I was pleased that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor took decisive steps to protect the livelihoods of as many people as he could. The decision to put our economy on life support was supported by Members of all parties and hopefully means that we have been able to soften the blow of covid-19, as I hope the Bill will also do. When I spoke to business owners in my constituency, everyone relayed to me their relief at having the business support packages, including the bounce back loan scheme, the job retention scheme—the original and the revamped flexible one—the rates reliefs and the grants. In Meriden, 14,900 people have been furloughed, representing 22% of our resident population. Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council has distributed more than £25.4 million of grants to almost 94% of the eligible businesses. I thank Solihull MBC, the leader, Councillor Ian Courts, and the chief executive, Nick Page, for their hard work in ensuring the money got to where it needed to be, and the Chancellor for taking the decisive steps that needed to be taken at the time.

I welcome this Bill, particularly the opening up of outdoor spaces, which could mean the difference between a business surviving and failing completely. I wholeheartedly welcome the reduction of the fees to permit the opening up of new spaces and the reduction of red tape. Of course, I encourage everyone to behave responsibly as they enjoy this new al fresco Britain, as these are new hard-earned rights, earned by the whole nation.

Finally, the bounce-back loans scheme is a timely intervention and, once again, the Chancellor’s proactive approach has provided businesses with a lifeline. Banks were struggling to lend as they had to do so in accordance with the Consumer Credit Act 2006, so it is right that we agree to clause 12 to stop the BBLs being subject to the unfair relationship provisions. We needed our banks to step up and they needed this to do so. Not to have done this would have had the result of delaying vital funds for businesses and would have posed onerous requirements for checks, which would have inhibited the very purpose of the BBLs and irreparably damaged our economy.

This virus has meant that we continue to adapt to an ever-changing landscape, and this Bill is part of the responsive and responsible way that we have dealt with one of the most testing periods of our time.

Sarah Olney Portrait Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

May I add my congratulations to the two new Members have made their maiden speeches, the hon. Members for South Ribble (Katherine Fletcher) and for Sedgefield (Paul Howell)? I recall that when I made mine, I harked back to the wars of the roses, so I feel somewhat outdone by the hon. Lady’s references to the ice age.

From my conversations with local businesses over the last few weeks, it is clear that the coronavirus has affected different businesses in different ways. Many have been able to continue their services across digital channels, and to expand or diversify their offering to new and existing customers. Food and drink stores have been able to continue trading, and some have even seen sales increases, as people have had more time for shopping and cooking. Other forms of retail, such as books, music and clothing, have been able to maintain some level of sales via online shopping and delivery. I have been really impressed by the ingenuity of our business community and the way they have responded to this crisis. I have a great deal of confidence that, in this nation of shopkeepers, we will continue to respond to the challenges of the post-lockdown world.

There is one sector, however, that has been badly hit by the lockdown and continues to face enormous challenges in its ability to revive—our hospitality sector. Encompassing cafés, restaurants, pubs, events, tourism and accommodation, it exists to bring people together, to encourage contact and to promote social gathering. They are facing an existential threat from a new world that needs people to keep their distance from each other.

I cautiously welcome the Government’s moves to lift restrictions on people visiting pubs, cafés and restaurants, although, like many of my constituents, I remain anxious about how this can be achieved while maintaining social distancing guidelines. This virus remains far from beaten, and I am dismayed at the mixed messages from the Government about how people should conduct themselves in the face of what is still a major threat both to our health and to the economy. We would face the future with more confidence if we had an effective system for tracking, tracing and isolating future diagnosed infections, and the lack of such a system constitutes a major risk to the effective functioning of our whole economy.

In that context, the Liberal Democrats welcome the provisions in today’s Bill. In particular, the provisions to ease the process for cafés and restaurants to apply for permission to provide pavement seating are very much to be welcomed. It will give many businesses the flexibility they need to open back up, while adhering to social distancing guidelines.

I particularly welcome the fact that councils are to continue to play a major part in the granting of such licences. In many parts of the country and in many town centres, our hospitality businesses play a major role in the local economy. To encourage that economy, councils can play a major part in reconfiguring our town centres to enable more pavement seating—closing roads to motor traffic and introducing pedestrianised areas, for example—which can support businesses in meeting the conditions of their licences.

Can the Government confirm that they intend to include mobile catering units in their plans? Many of these micro-businesses are missing out on their regular trade at festivals this year, and would benefit from the boost to business that being able to set up in a town centre could give them. We also support the powers given to councils to vary the terms of licences.

While we are all keen to see our hospitality sector given this essential support, it does not come without costs. I really want to echo the point made by the hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier), because we have seen many of the same problems in Richmond and Kingston, and it is really appalling and a huge burden on local residents. Local residents may experience additional nuisance, for example, from strong lighting and noise later in the evening, and also an increase in antisocial behaviour after closing time. Additional pavement furniture may cause accessibility issues for those in wheelchairs or those who are partially sighted. It is to be welcomed that councils will have the power to judge each application on its own merits and to apply its own acceptability criteria. It is also welcome that these changes are temporary. Short-term changes to support local business owners during this difficult time are more likely to be welcomed by our local communities than permanent changes that threaten to cause a long-term nuisance.

In the same vein, we support the changes to allow businesses with an on-site licence to convert to an off-site licence, but we have some concerns about the overall provision for off-site licences. Like many areas of the country, Richmond and Kingston have needed police interventions to disperse large crowds who have gathered on our open spaces to drink and play loud music. This has led to considerable antisocial behaviour, including drunkenness, public urination and drug taking. Local residents and police report that they have not seen antisocial behaviour on this scale before, and it is causing considerable distress to residents affected.

Meg Hillier Portrait Meg Hillier
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

The hon. Lady is describing very delicately, I have to say, the reality of what this is like when you are living through it. Does she not think that the Government need to recognise that we want businesses to be supported, but the cost to councils, and to the police, of enforcing this and managing antisocial behaviour will be huge?

Sarah Olney Portrait Sarah Olney
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

I am really glad that the hon. Lady has made that point. I have had lots of conversations with both the local council and the local police. It is clear that for suburban boroughs such as mine in London, where the Met police have, quite rightly, violence reduction as their priority when it comes to targeting their resources, the resources are simply not there to pay for the neighbourhood policing that we need to be able to keep on top of this kind of menace to our local residents. It is a really important point. I take this opportunity to press once more for further funding for neighbourhood officers in the outer boroughs in London, because that is a really urgent priority.

From my conversations locally, it appears that, by and large, our licensed premises are behaving responsibly in their provision of off sales and that a lot of the problem is coming from supermarkets promoting the purchase of alcohol in large quantities. There is a debate to be had about whether this is ever a good idea, but during a pandemic when people are being instructed not to gather in large groups, it is completely irresponsible. Supermarkets were quick to introduce limits on a number of toilet rolls or bags of pasta that customers could buy at the beginning of the lockdown, and they ought to do the same for alcohol now. If they do not act reasonably in this regard, councils ought to be able to take action, in the face of threats of large gatherings and antisocial behaviour, to require shops to restrict their alcohol sales. These increased powers to councils, while welcome, will come at a cost, as the hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch pointed out, and there should be greater financial assistance to councils to enable them to administer, review and enforce the new licensing regime.

We cautiously welcome the extension to hours that can be worked on a construction site, but support the discretion granted to local councils to restrict those hours in residential areas. Building work is one of the chief sources of nuisance in residential areas, and that nuisance is compounded when people are spending many more hours at home. We also welcome the extension of planning consents already granted. It will save local authorities a great deal of time and money not to have to review planning consents already granted that may have expired during the lockdown. However, in acknowledging that construction has been delayed for many developments, the Government also need to consider that local authority housing targets will also have been put at risk, and they should look again at any proposed sanctions against local authorities in this regard.

In summary, we support this Bill principally because it recognises the important role of local authorities in supporting our local businesses and safeguarding our local communities. This Government place too much faith in technological solutions, whether for their doomed contact-tracing app or as a way to make the Irish border magically disappear, so it is reassuring to see that they still recognise the value of local leadership and decision making in meeting the health and economic challenges of this pandemic.

Tim Farron Portrait Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney), and indeed to speak in the same debate as two excellent maiden speakers. The hon. Member for Sedgefield (Paul Howell) made an excellent speech. It reminded me that we are next-door-but-one neighbours, because I am also a neighbour of the Chancellor of the Exchequer—they are big seats up north, some of them. I would be delighted to work alongside the hon. Gentleman in making sure that we get the right investment for the north of England.

Once upon a time, in 1997, when Sedgefield was on the map for a different reason, I was a candidate for South Ribble and got annihilated, just about holding my deposit, so I very much congratulate the hon. Member for South Ribble (Katherine Fletcher) on an excellent and very entertaining speech. However, she has the biggest and most formidable task ahead of her, because she is now my dad’s MP. That will make life difficult for her. I note that she was very on the fence, shall we say, on which team she supports. Just to be clear, her predecessor supported the right team. Anyway, it was a marvellous speech and I thank her ever so much.

Tim Farron Portrait Tim Farron
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

Not North End? Fair enough. Anyway, all the best. Both maiden speeches were wonderful. On to even more serious matters, Mr Deputy Speaker. You must really have to sit on the fence where you are—good golly. Burnley? Blackburn? My goodness me. Stick with Clitheroe—that is my advice.

The Liberal Democrats support the provisions in the Bill and recognise how necessary they are. We recognise the colossal sacrifice that so many people have made in the last three and a bit months. Many did so before there was any guarantee of any kind of financial support, which might have made it a little easier for them. My constituency has an average age 10 years above the national average, and we were one of the infection hotspots right at the beginning. The number of deaths was tragically high in our community in south Cumbria. Many people running businesses of all sorts closed down or restricted their economic activity right at the beginning, before any compensation was available to them, because they put the interests of their neighbours and people they had never met before their own financial interests. I pay tribute to my constituents and indeed folk around the country for doing that.

At the head of the movement to try to get people to restrict their economic activity right at the beginning, even telling people not to visit the Lake district—Britain’s biggest tourist destination after London—was Cumbria Tourism itself, our tourism board. It led the calls for people to visit us, but just not now, not yet, in order to keep people safe. We need to remember that sacrifice. I am very moved by and proud of it.

Of course, the Government package did come weeks later and it is very welcome. It is important in this process—in this crisis—that we find ways of working together and being collectively responsible for the mission to get Britain through the covid crisis as much as possible. It is right for those on the Opposition Benches, and indeed on the Back Benches, to hold the Government to account, and to do so constructively. I take my role as Cumbria’s only Opposition MP seriously. I have a responsibility, which must not be abused, to speak out, but I recognise that my job would be undermined, and I would be undermining my constituents and folks across Cumbria, if I was oppositionist for opposition’s sake. So it is important to congratulate the Government and work with them, when they have done the right thing. The furlough scheme, the grant schemes and so on undoubtedly saved, at least for the time being, millions of jobs around the country and thousands of jobs in my constituency.

There are, however, some gaps, and I want to spend a moment or two talking about them. It is still beyond me that the Government have still not been able to find a package to support people who make their living by being directors of very small limited companies. I can think of a person I know well in my constituency who is a photographer. He is a one-person band, effectively; he is not the director of some large corporation. His income has been completely stopped these past three months. The Government surely could still find ways of ensuring that directors of small limited companies are able to get support.

I also think, in relation to this package of measures, of the plight of people in the mobile catering industry, whose interests have been represented incredibly well, especially by my hon. Friend the Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain). It is important that they are explicitly referenced in the Bill so that they are supported to be able to make a living, and supported for the shortfalls in their incomes over the last few months.

I am bound, though, to focus on the gap in provision for those who have been self-employed for not so long. One in four people who work in my constituency work for themselves; they are self-employed. Our community is hugely entrepreneurial and we are very proud of that. New business start-ups are one of the council’s most important focuses. Many small business do not make a profit in their first, or even their second, year; it just does not happen. People put their effort, money and capital into getting going, and they maybe turn a profit in year three. Those innovative, risk-taking people, who have perhaps made a lifestyle choice to earn a bit less money, but to live in a nice part of the world, put their kids through the local school and add to our community, are falling through the gaps. When Westmorland and Lonsdale had the largest single increase in umemployment in the United Kingdom—of 312%—we know that many of those were those hard-working, innovative people who were starting off, and the Government did not find a way to be able to support them.

The Government said that they were not able to support them because there was not 12 months’ worth of evidence of them operating. I would argue strongly against that, but even if that is an argument, why, when we came to the second iteration of support—when some of the people who were denied the first time round would have then done 12 months—were those people not included? It is so important that those people are not forgotten and that we as a country invest now in supporting them.

In my constituency, 37% of the entire workforce is on furlough. That is the biggest number anywhere in the north of England and the biggest number of anybody outside London. It is important to remember that a large part of that will be down to the significance of the hospitality and tourism sector, with 60,000 people working in it throughout Cumbria, the bulk of whom are in my constituency, the Lake district, the Yorkshire dales and other parts of south Cumbria. While we look forward nervously and cautiously, but with a level of excitement, to 4 July and the comeback of much of the hospitality and tourism industry, we recognise that many, many businesses will not be able to fully function. I am thinking of, for example, the survey that Cumbria Tourism did of its members just last week, when they discovered that 69% of those businesses will not be able to open fully even after 4 July. We must not assume that everything is back to normal in just a week or two’s time.

With your permission, Mr Deputy Speaker, in Committee, I will want to talk about our new clause 1 and hospitality and tourism in a bit more detail, so I will not go further at this point, save to say that I recognise many of the comments from my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) and the hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier) about antisocial behaviour sometimes coming with the immediate upsurge in visitor numbers. That is not just in urban areas. The road on the east side of Coniston water had to be closed down in the last couple of weeks because of the antisocial behaviour we have seen there, and many of the florid descriptions from my hon. Friends can be repeated about the Lake district and the Yorkshire dales. I could say many things about that. One is that the countryside code is very good. It does not need amending. It needs publicising and embedding in our schools and to be promoted by the Government. I hope that they will do just that.

I turn to planning and the easing of planning restrictions being seen as underpinning the revival of our economy. That is absolutely right—at times, that will be worth pursuing. However, I point out to the Minister that in some cases, the revitalisation of a local community can be helped by restrictions or new changes in planning law. In particular, I am thinking of absentee ownership, or second home ownership, in places such as the Lake district, the Trough of Bowland, Yorkshire dales and other places of natural beauty.

In my constituency, 7,000 of our properties are not holiday lets, but second homes—they are boltholes that are not lived in for nineteen twentieths of the year. That means it is a home owned by somebody who sends no children to the local school and who rarely contributes to the local post office, the bus service and so on. It is possible to make planning laws that would enable places such as the Lake district and the Yorkshire dales to have a lid on the number of empty homes in our communities. Therefore, a community that has been built and shown to be vibrant during the covid crisis can have the opportunity to grow still and not peter out due to a lack of full-time homes.

I am intrigued by the speech the other night about Roosevelt—we will wait to see whether there is anything behind that. Undoubtedly, the only answer as we build back better from all this is to take that Keynesian, investment-based approach and do so in a thoroughly green way, with renewables, recycling, making sure that we have retrofitted insulation and moving forward with public transport. This is an opportunity not only for us to build back better and demonstrate our ambition for a different kind of country, but to do so in a way that our children and our grandchildren will thank us for, because we did so sustainably, renewably and in a thoroughly green way.

Felicity Buchan Portrait Felicity Buchan (Kensington) (Con)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

I will keep my remarks short, Mr Deputy Speaker. First, I congratulate my hon. Friends the Members for South Ribble (Katherine Fletcher) and for Sedgefield (Paul Howell) on two remarkable maiden speeches.

There is no question but that we need to get the economy up and running again, and that we need to do so with a sense of urgency. There is also no question but that the hospitality and construction sectors have suffered, and that they need our help. I welcome a number of things in this Bill, such as allowing tables and chairs to be put on pavements on a temporary basis. However, I am concerned about one particular provision in the Bill, which has already been referenced by the hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier), and that is off sales of alcohol. As I read it, off sales of alcohol will be allowed to run for the same time as on sales of alcohol. I have a central London constituency, so I have many premises with late licences. I am concerned that if these late licences are to run until 1 o’clock in the morning, bars will still be selling alcohol on the streets to big groups of people until 12.30. Like the hon. Members for Hackney South and Shoreditch and for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney), I can say that central London has seen issues over the course of the past two to three weeks. I certainly had issues at the weekend in my constituency where the police were heavily involved. I ask my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to think about whether we could put a time limit on off sales—let us say to 11 pm.

My other point concerns construction work continuing on residential developments until 9 pm. I was delighted that my right hon. Friend said that this would not apply to single dwellings and that local authorities would have discretion even in major developments. Can I ask him to ensure that local authorities have that discretion, because many people in my constituency live in small terraced houses, bang on top of each other, and in mansion blocks? It is not like building a new estate outside a new town, where it does not affect anyone. Obviously, I spent a few weeks at home during the lockdown and I must say that a basement development going on next door until 9 pm would have been intolerable. I welcome what was said, but let us ensure that local authorities have that discretion.

In conclusion, I welcome the Bill, but ask my right hon. Friend to consider the time restriction on licensing for off sales.

Jim Shannon Portrait Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

Before I start, may I thank the hon. Members for South Ribble (Katherine Fletcher) and for Sedgefield (Paul Howell) for their maiden speeches? As I have said before, an abundance of talent has been shown by new Members from all parties, though I particularly enjoyed the two speeches today. I wish both Members well for the future in the House. I hope they will make many more contributions; if they are as good as they were today, we are in for a lot of good times. Their speeches were absolutely excellent.

The explanatory notes make it clear that the Bill includes a range of measures to help businesses adjust to new ways of working as the country recovers from disruption caused by covid-19. May I put on record my thanks to the Government and to Ministers for what they have done not only to hold fast against covid-19, but to ensure that businesses have an opportunity to go forward? The measures support the transition from the immediate crisis response to the recovery and getting the economy moving again. They support businesses in implementing safer ways of working to manage the ongoing risk of covid-19, in particular the need for social distancing.

I am probably not the only Member who has received a summary of information from SIBA, the Society of Independent Brewers. It has asked a couple of questions that I want to put on the record with Hansard, and the Minister might be able to respond to them at the end of the debate. Some breweries do not have a premises licence and cannot offer takeaway and delivery directly to the public. The Bill will not help them during the covid-19 crisis. One in four breweries—about 500 out of 2,000 breweries in the UK—do not currently have any way to sell directly to the public, and the sales of small breweries have reduced by 65% to 82% because of covid-19. They have not received the same level of financial support as pubs and the hospitality sector, such as through the business rates holiday or the £25,000 grant.

Some 65% of small breweries have been mothballed since covid-19 and trade during the summer months will be vital for their survival. Some have been using temporary events notices to offer limited services, but they are by their very nature limited in time and number, and businesses must already be registered with Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs under the alcohol wholesaler registration scheme and approved as a fit and proper person.

The small breweries ask the following questions. They call for an extension to the licensing relaxation to allow small independent breweries who cannot sell directly to the public to be able to do so on a temporary basis. That could be done by extending the authorisation of off sales to small breweries that do not hold a premises licence but are registered under the alcohol wholesaler registration scheme, and allowing small breweries that do not have a premises licence to apply quickly and more easily by treating the application as a minor variation—that might be a simpler way of doing this. Also, the number and time period for temporary events notices might be expanded to assist breweries, allowing for takeaways and deliveries. Will the Minister respond to those points at the end of the debate?

None of us in the Chamber could argue against the need for the Bill. With an estimated 25% of the people on furlough facing redundancy, there is a crystal-clear need for help for business, and not simply in the form of grants, but right through the economic period. Only this morning a business owner with two small convenience stores was on the phone asking for clarity on whether the new regulations will allow him to have more people in his shops, and therefore, it is to be hoped, fewer people having to queue who might then go elsewhere rather than wait. The current situation is unfair because the same problem applies to the big supermarket chains but the waiting time is less, and people can get most of their shopping in one place. All businesses apart from the major supermarkets are clearly facing a rough time ahead.

It is abundantly clear that we must enable businesses—especially small businesses, which are the backbone of the economy—to survive this time. We in Northern Ireland have a larger proportion of small and medium-sized businesses than the rest of the United Kingdom. The high street in Ards—Newtownards—which is my major town, won the Northern Ireland high street of the year 2019 award. We are doing, with others, all we can to secure grant funding and measures with the local council to help the boutique shops, which people travel to from the length of Northern Ireland, to survive. What a difference a few months makes!

The Bill also has measures to help haulage businesses and other commercial interests, and that is absolutely necessary. As I have said, I am supportive of this Bill, but a point was highlighted to me by an interested party, and it is of concern and must be addressed: the closure of the Bill powers. The Minister will have received correspondence from my office on the issue of licensing, and in particular HGV licensing. In simple terms, the Bill rightly gives the Secretary of State the power to issue exemptions from testing as he sees fit, and he can also withdraw that exemption at any time. However, there is a concern in that there is no obligation to set standards or rules, and the Secretary of State’s powers are constrained. In previous times, such power vested in a Minister would be resisted by Parliament, especially without a covering sunset clause to make the power temporary. I want to ask the Minister about this point; the Secretary of State mentioned it at the beginning of the debate, but unfortunately I did not get a chance to ask this question. The 12-month exemption can be granted so that haulage companies and operators can maintain their schedules for maintenance, so that they are not compromised and those schedules do not have to be rearranged twice. I just want to make sure that those companies are able to deliver and have their maintenance schedules in place, and will not be disadvantaged in any way.

There is also the issue of new vehicles and trailers. I welcome the information about a temporary reduction in duration of certain driving licences in Northern Ireland. That is a response to some of the things that I have written to the Minister about, so I am glad to see it in place. That tells me that we all have a role to play in the House to assure the Minister, or to change his mind—advise him—so that he comes forward with some ideas, which he clearly has. I thank him for that.

We all understand that unprecedented times call for unprecedented measures. That is why I was pleased with the furlough scheme, and many people have taken advantage of it. To be honest, had the furlough scheme not been there, many businesses would not still be here. The scheme has done some excellent work to ensure that businesses can hold on, until they get the chance to reopen over the next period of time, which will happen.

We must also ensure that we secure the way forward, not having the Minister with absolute and unending power as the new norm. That is not how democracy works. I add this caution: I hold firmly to that belief in democracy, even if I do not always agree with its outcome, such as the imposition of abortion legislation in Northern Ireland—not an issue in the Bill, but an example of a recent decision that we think should have been for the devolved Assembly to determine. We are in grave danger of forgetting that we can never allow power to be abused, whatever form it takes. I ask the Minister to insert a sunset clause in order to bring the powers to an end, or to have further accountability in the process of decision making under the Bill.

I conclude with this comment: we need this Bill and I support it, but we also need accountability and limitation of power. I ask the Minister to come back to us on that matter. I thank the Government for all the help for businesses so far, but we need it for the future as well and to take us through to the last part of this year. I hope that with the reduction in the R rate across the whole of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, especially in Northern Ireland where it is reducing greatly, the future will be better—as Captain Moore always says, “Tomorrow will be a good day.”

Selaine Saxby Portrait Selaine Saxby (North Devon) (Con)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

Reducing and removing red tape is vital to enable businesses to bounce back rapidly as they reopen. In north Devon, we are blessed with vast areas of open space, so many of our pubs, cafés and restaurants will be able to open more effectively this summer if customers are able to spill on to pavements, car parks and beaches. I warmly welcome the Bill and the opportunities it presents to many of the local businesses that I love to visit, such as Johns of Instow, Lilico’s in Barnstaple, SQ in Braunton, The Rising Sun in Lynton and The Grove in Kings Nympton.

I recognise that consultation with stakeholders has been undertaken. However, with an elderly population in North Devon, I remain somewhat concerned. Clear access along pavements must be available to the disabled and partially sighted, who frequently find street furniture a hazard. I trust that that will be facilitated. I hope that the proposed amendments to the planning process will include measures to enable our town centres to revitalise themselves completely, giving speedy changes of use, and opportunities for new businesses or much needed housing to be rapidly developed in the unfortunately ever-growing number of vacant shops on our high streets.

All that will not be possible if our councils do not have the resource to deliver it. Multiple layers of councils in counties such as Devon do not always have that resource, despite their best attempts to deliver rapidly. Indeed, the interaction between different council tiers make such changes more challenging. Councils have made an unprecedented response to the pandemic, and I take this opportunity to thank the teams at North Devon District Council, the town councils and Devon County Council for their tireless commitment, despite the increased workload.

I fear, however, as we have already seen in North Devon, that some well-intentioned initiatives are hard to bring to fruition and take far too long to implement. Small district councils have small teams, some still working from home, with poor broadband that is already overloaded. Reducing red tape can only work if council teams are able to implement plans rapidly and have the necessary resources to deliver what our businesses and high streets so desperately need. That is not in any way to criticise the work of the officers and staff at my local councils, but more to recognise the structural difficulties that are endemic to multiple layers of local government. I would like to take this opportunity to urge everyone, in the coming weeks, to come and visit some of our fantastic pubs, cafés and restaurants in North Devon; to enjoy our great hotels, holiday parks and B&Bs; and to indulge in the new outdoor drinking and dining facilities that I hope will rapidly appear with the passing of this Bill.

Those of us who live in North Devon all year round know that people need to be robust to dine with us outside. It can be wet and windy, but that is part of the charm of a British seaside holiday. We have weathered many storms back home, and we will weather this economic one. The shops of Barnstaple, Ilfracombe, South Molton and Braunton will be more than happy to sell everyone additional waterproof and windproof layers as we seek innovative outfits in which to dine out in weather like we had this weekend—or people could take a leaf out of my book and wear a wetsuit more often.

Caroline Nokes Portrait Caroline Nokes (Romsey and Southampton North) (Con)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

I add my tribute to the two brilliant maiden speeches that we have heard this afternoon, particularly—Members will expect this from the Chair of the Women and Equalities Committee—the avowed commitment to girl power from my hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble (Katherine Fletcher). She spoke of Queen Cartimandua, whoever she may be. I will now lapse into the awful vowel sounds that she talked about and use the word “actually” rather a lot. It is okay, though; we became firm friends on our first meeting and she forgives me for being from south of the M4, although she does not yet know where that is.

This debate is a brilliant opportunity to highlight some of the challenges that our local businesses have faced during the pandemic. I welcome the measures that we have seen for pubs, in particular, including the ability to have off-sales and extend how they work. I will highlight two examples of what we have seen in my constituency so far; there are many other hostelries. The Hatchet Inn in Sherfield English got regulars to sponsor sheds in the car park, which are converted into dining areas. At the end of the pandemic, the sheds will be sent off to their new homes to become woodsheds. That provoked a challenge, which I would like the Minister to think about. Although the outdoor dining areas were brilliantly located in the car park, they were, of course within the curtilage of a listed building.

I am sure that many of us, up and down the country, have public houses that are also listed buildings—or perhaps my constituency is particularly blessed. The reality is that 18th-century pubs and coaching inns tend to be very small inside, and to have low ceilings and small doorways. The alternative—in rural areas, in particular, we can get away with this quite easily—is to spread outdoors into the car park or the beer garden.

That brings me to another point: the Rockingham Arms, in the village of West Wellow, has already installed a marquee at the front of the building, hard up against the road. I absolutely welcome it, and the Rockingham is one of my favourite pubs in the entire constituency, so I have no doubt that I will find myself in the tent on the car park. It does, however, bring outdoor dining much closer to local residents, so I particularly welcome local councils’ ability to exert their influence and work hand in glove with publicans and licensing authorities to ensure that solutions are appropriate for each place and circumstance. The Hatchet initially thought that it might have to submit a full-on listed building application, but it is working closely with Test Valley Borough Council to ensure that that does not have to happen. Those are exactly the sorts of challenges that will be thrown up on a case-by-case basis.

I wish to speak a little bit about pavements. We have heard the valid concerns about the elderly and those with disabilities, particularly from the RNIB and Guide Dogs, who are concerned that those with visual impairments will find outdoor seating a challenge, but we have to find a way to manage that. In the centre of Romsey, we are very lucky. Within the past 12 months or so, the county council has spent in excess of £2 million providing us with a new outdoor piazza in the centre of the town. I am sure that that will prove to be a real boon to premises such as Josie’s, Café Fresh and Café No. 5 by enabling them to have outside seating areas. If only we could make sure that the sun would shine. I give credit to the former leader of the county council—I must declare a personal interest—who was absolutely determined that the seating area would be on the side of the marketplace that stays in the sun until late in the afternoon. It is no good if such areas are in the shade.

This is, as I have said, a good and important Bill, but when we are talking about planning and business, it would be remiss of me not to get on one of my favourite hobby horses. I am possibly the only MP from the Solent region who will speak in the debate. I welcome the measures that are being taken to enable house builders to get on and build, which is important, and I concur with those who have said that that must be done sensitively in residential areas—of course it must—but in south Hampshire we have a particular problem with nitrates. It has not been able to grant planning permissions for many months because of the nitrate build-up in the Solent, which leads to algae. That means that we have a massive logjam in the planning system and many councils are in real danger of not meeting their housing targets, so while the Housing Minister is sitting on the Treasury Bench it would be remiss of me not to ask him, please, to crack on with the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and Natural England and find a solution to that significant problem.

Let me move on to another great hobby horse of mine. An enormous amount of work has been done to open up the economy in a safe and measured way—we have seen all sorts of sectors coming back—but I cannot help but feel that this has been a recovery designed by men, for men. We have seen female-led businesses left at the back of the queue. It is obvious that men with hair need barbers and hairdressers; they perhaps find less need for pedicures and leg waxes. It is noticeable that the beauty industry’s employees are 90% female and a majority of its businesses are women-led. We are preventing our female entrepreneurs from getting back to work. It seems to me to make little sense that a haircut is okay but a pedicure is not. Perhaps the Minister knows how far feet are from anybody’s mouth—although I have a habit of putting mine in mine.

I also want to talk a little about sport. Football, fishing and golf were very quick to return. I absolutely get that women like all those things, but football audiences are 67% male. What someone cannot yet do is open up a yoga studio. There is a massive difference between factory-style gyms with banks of treadmills and individual yoga and pilates studios, where there are very few aerosol emissions and which can be cleaned thoroughly between individual customers. Even in a group yoga session, there can be massive space between individual participants. Again, yoga instructors are 80% female and the client base is predominantly female too.

I appreciate that there is no longer a BEIS Minister on the Treasury Bench. I wish very much that the Secretary of State had been here to hear my comments, because it is crucial that we reflect the point that this apparently male-led recovery has taken little account of the physical, emotional or mental wellbeing of women. I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to ensure that he considers, in winding up the debate, that we need a recovery that brings women along with us, or else we will fail.

David Johnston Portrait David Johnston (Wantage) (Con)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

May I add to the long list of deserved congratulations to my hon. Friends the Members for Sedgefield (Paul Howell) and for South Ribble (Katherine Fletcher)? My hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble is actually a good friend, not just an honourable one. She may be completely misguided about football—in a minute, I will ask her to intervene and tell us all who won the premier league recently—but she is a good egg none the less. They both showed why their constituents made a good choice.

I wanted to speak in this debate because I think what the Government are proposing is exactly the sort of thing that they should be doing at this time. I welcome the ability to vary construction hours and to extend outline planning permission, and the changes to the Consumer Credit Act to facilitate bounce-back loans, for which I have heard universal praise in my constituency. In contrast with the CBILS loans, where it was felt that the banks were slow and bureaucratic, the bounce-back loans have been warmly welcomed. However, I want to speak particularly about allowing bars, pubs and restaurants to seat and serve people outside, and to focus especially on pubs.

From the Barrington Arms in Shrivenham to the Town Arms in Wallingford, I have 85 pubs in my constituency, which puts it in the top eight by number of pubs. We have heard a lot about how many of them have been closed and had to furlough staff, and how few of them have more than six months’ cash. The Government’s support package for pubs has been phenomenal—the business grant scheme, the furlough scheme and the business rates holiday have all been hugely welcome—but the sector has been in trouble, or at least facing challenges, for some time. Between 2010 and 2019, the number of pubs in the UK fell by 29%, so there have been some real challenges for many years before we got to coronavirus.

In rural constituencies—mine is predominantly rural—those challenges are a particular problem, because the pub is the beating heart of village life. After a certain time, it is quite literally the only light that is on for some considerable distance. Pubs in my constituency, and I am sure those in many others, have been at the heart of the community’s response to coronavirus. The George & Dragon pub in Upton said to elderly and vulnerable people, “If there are any essentials that you can’t get, give us a ring and we will go and find them and bring them to you entirely free of charge.” With the help of a couple of benefactors, the Fox in Denchworth has been giving free fish and chips to every villager every week during this period—that is 171 villagers—and has now set a challenge in which people can earn gift vouchers to spend there if they lose 10% of their body weight in two months. Many of us could join that challenge in the hope of having a healthier lifestyle.

Despite all the challenges they have faced, those pubs have been there for their communities, and now those communities want to be there to support their pubs. Reducing the distance from 2 metres to 1 metre will certainly help, but measures to allow them more easily to seat and serve people outside will make it that little bit easier for us to support them and give them the best chance of survival.

Andrew Griffith Portrait Andrew Griffith (Arundel and South Downs) (Con)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

I add my congratulations and pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Paul Howell) and to our own Queen Cartimandua, my hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble (Katherine Fletcher). They both made fantastic contributions.

As someone who joined the House recently after 27 years in business, I welcome the measures in the Bill; they are positive and practical steps at a time of national need. I look at them with one eye on how they will help our wider economic growth, which is the next challenge coming at us. For most of these businesses, there is a very thin line between costs, which are mostly fixed, and revenues, which even at the best of times depend on myriad factors. All the Government help in the world—and this Government have been generous and done what it has taken—is no substitute for real customers and real revenues, so the measures in the Bill are literally a lifeline for many of the hospitality businesses that I represent in Arundel and South Downs. The Federation of Small Businesses said that the measures on food and drink outdoors

“will help small businesses in the hospitality sector to resume trading with confidence”,

and they will.

In most businesses, the single most valuable commodity is time, so having short and clear timeframes for the grant of a licence is as much of a benefit as capping the administration costs. I echo my right hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes): there is nothing in the Bill for businesses such spas and nail bars. I would like to see some of the same creative thinking that has put together the package in the Bill applied to those sorts of businesses, as well as to exhibition businesses, which have been quite hard hit in my constituency and do not have a path to reopen.

Members from all parties will recognise the familiar sight of queues outside pharmacies during this crisis. It would be welcome if, ahead of the winter, Ministers would take the opportunity to repeal the National Health Service (Pharmaceutical and Local Pharmaceutical Services) Regulations 2013 and thereby remove one of the last restrictive practices on our high streets. As our population ages, pharmacists have a vital role in our towns and villages, but there is currently a regulatory requirement to demonstrate need, which acts as a barrier, meaning that there is not a single pharmacy store on Arundel High Street. That forces the elderly and infirm to walk almost a mile out of town for the simplest prescriptions. Such a change would be simple and popular.

Like others, I welcome the reforms of the planning process. Here, too, as we look to boost the economy, there may be sensible opportunities, and I urge my ministerial colleagues to go further in the future. The shift from working from home offers a step change in productivity, sustainability and the employment of previously excluded groups, such as mothers, joining the workplace. The extension of permitted development rights to create home and garden offices, as well as the automatic change of use of retail and office premises to residential, will lock in those benefits and help create the homes our nation needs.

Finally, I note the one permanent change in the Bill to the way the Planning Inspectorate works. With the greatest respect to the hard-working individuals involved, too often the Planning Inspectorate is the sticking plaster on a broken process. We literally ask it to reconcile the impossible and then wonder why it produces answers that please nobody. The answer—I accept that this is probably a longer debate for another day—is an end to one-size-fits-all planning policies that mean measures designed to expedite rapid construction in towns and cities that have the infrastructure to cope end up blighting rural areas, and yet still the homes do not get built.

The Centre for Cities says that, with imagination, we can easily accommodate all the new dwellings that we need within the existing curtilage of our cities. I agree, and as we focus on sustainability, food supply chains and achieving net zero, which we have baked into law, we have the opportunity, once and for all, to make it clear that precious woodland, countryside, agricultural land and rural flood plains must never be developed for housing, putting an end to the long-term planning blight suffered by my constituents around Adversane, West Grinstead and the 17 parishes around Henfield. I am pleased to support the Government on this excellent Bill, but where possible I urge them to go further and faster in the interests of business and the economy.

Kevin Hollinrake Portrait Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

It is a pleasure to speak after my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Andrew Griffith), and an even greater pleasure to speak after my hon. Friends the Members for South Ribble (Katherine Fletcher) and for Sedgefield (Paul Howell), who made wonderful maiden speeches. It is great to hear those regional voices. They are from the north and for the north, and they will add to the compelling case to rebalance this country by further investment in the north. It is great to hear them make that case.

I will focus most of my comments on clause 12, but I welcome all measures in the Bill, particularly the aid to the hospitality sector. I have some fine hostelries in my constituency, including, I have to say, the world’s best restaurant, as identified by TripAdvisor—the Black Swan at Oldstead. It is a wonderful place, about four miles from my house, and is run by celebrity chef Tommy Banks, a local person from a local family. It has a wonderful back story. There are many, many good restaurants through my patch, and they will get lots of support through the Bill.

Clause 12 talks about bounce back loans, which have been a huge success of the Government’s and an excellent scheme that many businesses have taken advantage of; I think about a million businesses have secured a bounce back loan. The scheme gets money out the door as quickly as possible to businesses in need. It is fair to say that because of the length and depth of this crisis, not every business will get through this recession. This is the third recession that I have been involved in with my business, and it is no doubt the most difficult.

It is absolutely right that we have suspended the provisions of the Consumer Credit Act to get that money out the door quickly, so that lenders did not have the responsibility of ensuring that businesses were creditworthy for the amounts of money they were taking. The worry is what happens down the line. I am the co-chair of the all-party group on fair business banking, which has spent much of the last decade trying to fight for justice for lots of businesses that were badly treated in 2008 and post 2008. We desperately want to make sure that that does not happen again.

It was great to hear the Secretary of State confirm in his opening remarks that although the Consumer Credit Act provisions have been suspended in terms of credit worthiness, they have not been suspended in terms of collection, which should mean that lenders show forbearance if things go wrong. Inevitably, some businesses will need help to get through this, and, sadly, some businesses will simply fail, but we have to ensure that those businesses are treated fairly through the process. For our larger banks, which are regulated firms, there is now the senior managers regime, which has a requirement to treat customers fairly through the process and a requirement to stick to the Lending Standards Board standards of lending practice for business customers. That is good, because there are checks and balances that we can apply to the bigger banks.

I sound a note of caution, though. Quite a few lenders are distributing loans through this scheme that are not regulated firms, so they do not come under that regime. Additionally, I believe that some of them are not even accountable to the Financial Ombudsman Service, so if there is a dispute there is not a means of alternative dispute resolution. We have to ensure that the message goes out loud and clear to lenders that have distributed money through these schemes that they must treat customers fairly through that process if things go wrong and ensure that any restructuring gives that business every chance of staying in business and getting through this crisis.

The loan scheme has been a huge success. One of the big successes in the SME lending market over the last few years has been the emergence of FinTech sector alternative lenders, which is breaking the stranglehold of the big four banks. Some 80% of SME lending is controlled by the big four banks, and we want to see much more choice for SMEs in their borrowing decisions. The British Business Bank has authorised about 80 lenders for the CBIL scheme and about 20 lenders for the bounce back loan scheme. The difficulty is that it is not just about getting authorisation; it is also about getting access to funds. The big banks, being deposit takers, get access to something called the term funding scheme. They can borrow money from the Bank of England at 0.1%, so if they are lending money at 2.5%, 3% or 4% through the CBIL scheme, that still makes commercial sense, and they have access to moneys.

Non-bank lenders—FinTech companies such as Funding Circle, Tide and iwoca—and lots of lenders in the asset finance space do not get access to the term funding scheme. They are relying on borrowing from their normal sources—wholesale markets—and they cannot borrow as cheaply. The Government loan guarantee also specifically excludes situations where money is being borrowed from third parties. That puts these lenders in a very difficult situation. Tide had secured £500 million to distribute to UK businesses through an EU wholesale funder, but it could not provide that money because of the lack of guarantee for that lending. The Treasury is aware of that, and we need to deal with it, to ensure that the choice of finance provision is as wide as possible for our SMEs. The other way to deal with this is for the banks that can access the term funding scheme to simply on-lend to non-bank lenders, but that is not working currently. This is a work in progress, and we need to deal with it.

As a number of Members have said, bounce back loans are relatively easy to get, whereas CBILs are much more difficult to get. It is possible to move from one to the other—a company can get a bounce back loan quickly and then upgrade to a CBIL of a higher amount, to pay off the original loan. That is right and proper, but lots of businesses are not managing to get CBILs because the criteria are stricter. One reason behind that is that there are restrictions on state aid, one of which is that undertakings in difficulty cannot be supported through those schemes at the moment. The EU has said that it will drop that requirement, which is good—it is an EU requirement, and we are still bound by that currently—but we need to implement that quickly, so that more businesses can get access to the CBIL scheme and borrow as they need more money. That aside, this is an excellent Bill. I will be supporting it if we go through the Division Lobbies, and I very much welcome it.

Steve Reed Portrait Steve Reed (Croydon North) (Lab/Co-op)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

I would like to start by saying that I welcome this Bill on behalf of the Labour party. It is a pleasure, after my disagreements with the Secretary of State over recent weeks, to find myself broadly in agreement with Government Front Benchers this evening. I thank the Minister for engaging with me so constructively about this over recent days. Businesses clearly need more support to get back to work quickly and safely. This Bill is a start. It is intended to enable the next phase of easing the lockdown to go ahead.

Before I elaborate, I thank the Members in all parts of the House who have made contributions to the debate, including my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier), who raised concerns about the impact of further relaxing licensing on antisocial behaviour which I am sure the Minister will wish to respond to. I add my congratulations to the many we have already heard around the House on the two maiden speeches from the new hon. Members for South Ribble (Katherine Fletcher) and for Sedgefield (Paul Howell). They were very different speeches in style but both extremely admirable debuts in this Chamber. I look forward to many more I suspect entertaining contributions from the hon. Member for South Ribble.

The country is facing a major recession, perhaps the worst in three centuries. It will take a major national effort to help families and employers to get through this while also making sure that the risks of a second damaging peak in covid-19 infection are minimised. These circumstances would be challenging for any Government. Without a vaccine—and we do not have one yet—nothing is risk-free. My right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband) outlined from the Dispatch Box how the Opposition have supported the Government in many key decisions throughout this pandemic, and that extends to this Bill and other very significant measures such as the furlough scheme.

However, we must recognise too, so that we can learn from them, that the Government have made mistakes that have made the situation more difficult than it needed to be. Their initial promises on council funding have still not been matched by action, leaving many local authorities that will be key to supporting economic recovery in their own localities uncertain about funding just a few weeks ahead, let alone in the months and years ahead as the recession deepens. The Government’s instinct to over- centralise and their failure to listen enough to communities and professionals on the frontline has led to serious and avoidable failures in obtaining protective equipment, ramping up testing, protecting care homes, and accurately identifying everyone who needed support to self-isolate through the shielding programme. I would add, in the light of what we have seen in Leicester today and over recent days, their failure to share the data on the infection rates in localities with the relevant authorities in those localities, who will need it in order to marshal the support that is needed to enforce local lockdowns if they are required.

After the Government wasted two months on a centralised track and trace programme based on an app that never worked, they belatedly, although rightly, recognised the importance of engaging local government and public health professionals, but not soon enough to provide reassurance that the lockdown could be eased as safely as possible. As a result of that, we are reopening, but with higher levels of risk than were necessary. These failures have made the challenges to people’s health, people’s jobs, our high streets and our businesses worse than they needed to be, and there are important lessons to learn if we want to avoid a second lockdown.

The hospitality sector faces particular challenges. The temporary changes to licensing rules will help pubs, cafés, bars and restaurants to reopen quickly and serve customers outside. Many of these businesses operate on extremely tight margins, and without this lifeline many would not survive, so the changes are welcome. However, the British Beer and Pub Association points out that 10,000 pubs are not eligible for the Government’s grant scheme. It says that unless the Government make specific support available now, thousands of pubs will close for good, taking hundreds of thousands of jobs with them. We cannot allow that to happen to such an important part of the British way of life for so many people, so I hope that the Government will move quickly to provide the support that is needed.

My right hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State for Business made some very important points about the need for the Government to review the flexibility of the furlough scheme to support the specific needs of the hospitality sector. Sectors of the economy will open at different rates. Some are more susceptible to covid-19-related restrictions than others, and the hospitality sector is one of the most at risk. There needs to be greater flexibility, or many businesses that are vital to the life and identity of their locality, and the jobs that come with them, will be lost forever.

Local authorities have a key role to play in supporting their local hospitality sector, but they need greater clarity from the Government on their new role. The Government must be clear on how the new licensing requirements will be monitored and enforced, given the severe lack of resources available in local authorities to carry out those functions. Council budgets are under unprecedented pressure after 10 years of austerity and the Government’s broken promises on fully compensating them for the costs they have incurred as a result of covid-19. It is important that the Government now offer cast-iron guarantees that none of the measures in this Bill will place further costs on councils that could lead to further cuts elsewhere.

We welcome the extension of construction site working hours. The sector has a backlog of work to catch up on, and this flexibility will allow that to happen. It is important that communities do not feel their interests are being ignored in this, so Labour would like to see councils given the discretion they need to restrict hours of operation where there is a compelling and overriding local reason to do so.

The introduction of more flexible planning appeals is also welcome in speeding up the process—although perhaps not as flexible as the Secretary of State for Housing has been involved in recently—but we want reassurance that no legitimate voice is digitally excluded from being heard. Local government is worried about the cost implications of these new rules, so I urge the Minister to publish a report detailing the extra costs that councils will face in processing increased volumes of planning applications through the new system.

The measures to speed up lending through the bounce-back loan scheme are welcome, but I hope the Government will recognise that many businesses are still finding it difficult to access loans through CBILS, as the backlog builds up and the rules lock out too many. We need a fresh look at how the scheme can be amended to support more businesses faster. I agree with the points made by the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) about people who are directors of small limited companies—often freelancers—who have been denied support and, as I know from my own constituency of Croydon North, are really struggling as a result.

In conclusion, the measures in the Bill are welcome and we will help to ensure its passage, but I want to be clear that this Bill only helps at the margins of what will be needed. We are facing a deep recession—possibly the worst for three centuries—and millions of people up and down the country fear for their jobs and for their livelihoods. We will need more than this Bill to help this country weather the coming storm, but for this evening, we welcome the Bill and we will support its passage through the House.

Christopher Pincher Portrait The Minister for Housing (Christopher Pincher)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

First, I am sure on behalf of the whole House, I want write into the record my appreciation of the maiden speeches of my hon. Friends the Members for South Ribble (Katherine Fletcher) and for Sedgefield (Paul Howell). My hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble demonstrated some oratorical elasticity in the sense that she was able to draw together Tacitus, Cartimandua and Peter Kay. Historians among us recognise and honour that feat, although I suspect the Whips Office paid greater attention to the fact that she said she might occasionally prefer to be a rebel.

My hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield paid full tribute to Phil Wilson, a strong and fine member of the Opposition Whips Office, and he also paid some tribute to the chap who preceded him; I forget his name. My hon. Friend spoke in prose and gave us some poetry, but whether he speaks in poetry or prose, he will always be welcome in this Chamber and, perhaps one day, even in Trimdon Labour club.

I also wish to congratulate my hon. Friends the Members for Meriden (Saqib Bhatti), for Kensington (Felicity Buchan) and for North Devon (Selaine Saxby) for their support for the measures we are introducing—I shall say some more words about those shortly. I also congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes) and the entrepreneurial spirit of all at the Rockingham Arms, and look forward to her letter to me on nitrates. I also congratulate my hon. Friends the Members for Wantage (David Johnston), for Arundel and South Downs (Andrew Griffith) and for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake), whose support for the bounce-back loan I am grateful for—I shall pass his message on that to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor. I thank all Members from across the House for this lively, constructive and, I think, supportive debate, and I am grateful to the hon. Member for Croydon North (Steve Reed) for his support for these measures. He is right to say that occasionally we fling some spice and some ginger across the Chamber in our debates, but when it really matters, when the chips are down, we all want the best for our country, which is why we are coming together to support this Bill tonight.

The Bill is good news for our businesses, for jobs and for everyone who is looking forward to enjoying a safe summer as we bounce back from an incredibly difficulty period. We need to tread carefully, but, thanks to the sacrifices and resolve of the British people, and the unprecedented support this Government have provided, we are turning a corner and on the road to recovery. This Bill is pivotal to that economic and social recovery, and I am pleased that the measures it contains to support hard-hit sectors and help businesses adjust to new, safer ways of working have, as I say, been largely welcomed. As my right hon. Friend the Business Secretary said earlier, we listened to and worked with a wide variety of stakeholders and experts, and we are delivering on what they told us through this Bill. So I welcome this opportunity to address important issues raised in this debate, to ensure that the Bill gets Britain back to work safely and that the power, prosperity and opportunities we all want to see are returned to our economic sector.

We know that the hospitality industry is raring to go. Our restaurants, pubs and bars want to make the most of summer trading and welcome back their customers, and it is vital we support them to do that safely. As my right hon. Friend said, this is the third largest employer in our economy, with the pandemic and social distancing measures having serious consequences for its ability to operate. That is why the Bill will temporarily make it easier for businesses, including restaurants, pubs and bars, to obtain a licence, to set up outdoor seating and to sell either food or alcohol, or both, with a fast track to get permission for furniture such as tables and chairs on pavements, thereby enabling them to maximise capacity, within social distancing guidelines. I understand that there may be concerns about potential obstruction of highways, so I wish to reassure the House that we are taking steps to mitigate that. Recommended minimum footway widths and distances required for those with impaired vision and mobility, for example, will be clearly set out using the Department for Transport’s inclusive mobility guidelines, thus striking a balance between the effective use of space and maintaining traffic and thoroughfare. In addition, we will provide councils with enforcement powers and the ability to revoke licences where conditions are breached.

I should emphasise that the changes to outdoor eating and drinking and off sales will be carefully implemented to minimise public nuisance and reduce any crime or disorder. The police already have powers to issue closure notices to a premises in such cases under section 76 of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014, but we are also building in safeguards to the Bill, such as an expedited review process for alcohol licences, which allows responsible authorities such as the police to quickly alter the licensing conditions granted to premises if necessary. They will be able to revoke permissions granted. I will work with my colleagues in the Home Office and the Local Government Association to ensure that those measures work.

Taken together, the temporary new measures will be a lifeline for our hospitality industry, as are those we propose for planning to restart the construction industry and deliver the homes this country still very much needs.

Jim Shannon Portrait Jim Shannon
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

In my contribution, I referred to the temporary events notices for breweries. Has the Minister had a chance to look at the provisions that they need to ensure that they can continue to prosper and do well after the covid crisis is over?

Christopher Pincher Portrait Christopher Pincher
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

The hon. Gentleman mentions breweries. He knows that the Bill largely covers England and England and Wales. It does not cover other areas of our devolved community. However, I can tell him that by ensuring that breweries’ customers open up and can sell alcohol to their customers, we are helping breweries around the country and in Northern Ireland, whether they are big or small.

As hon. Members have heard, activity is picking up in the construction industry, another sector that is an engine of our economy and that is keen to get Britain building again. I pay particular tribute to construction workers up and down our country who worked through the pandemic and the businesses that got their sites back up and running in these difficult circumstances. I am pleased to support their efforts through the safe working charter, which my Department developed with the Home Builders Federation.

However, we know that there is more to do. Home starts and completions are well down on last year, with planning permissions for at least 60,000 homes hanging in the balance. That is why we are speeding up the planning system through the temporary measures in the Bill as part of a wider reform to ensure that it is fit for the 21st century. That means greater flexibility for builders to seek extensions to site working hours to facilitate social distancing, which will support the sector’s safe economic recovery. We want work on construction sites to resume swiftly and safely, but I recognise the potential effect of the change on residents when we are all spending more time at home. Several Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington, raised that point.

I encourage builders to work constructively with local communities and councils to minimise disruption. I want to be clear that councils will retain local discretion over the decision-making process. They also have legal duties regarding statutory nuisance, which continue. They know their areas best and that is why they will continue to have discretion in their local decision-making processes. They are well placed to judge the effect on local businesses and residents, and where there will be an unacceptable impact, they retain the discretion to refuse extended hours.

We are also enabling the extension of planning permissions that have expired since the lockdown began or are about to expire, saving literally hundreds of projects. This is at the request of local authorities and the construction sector. I recognise that there is a risk of schemes being delayed further if existing permissions are extended too long, which is why this will be only a temporary measure. Our extension date of 1 April 2021 strikes the right balance between giving certainty to the sector and ensuring that there are no further undue delays to new developments.

Another significant measure, which will help us double the pace of appeals while maintaining fair decision making, is the proposal to enable the Planning Inspectorate to advance appeals using more than one type of procedure. When we tested this hybrid approach last year, we more than halved the appeal time. This change, backed by all parties in the planning system, will be introduced on a permanent basis. In making these changes, it is important that we bring communities with us, and I am satisfied that, by agreeing through the Bill to temporarily remove the requirement for copies of the London plan to be made available for inspection at premises and on request, and instead enabling inspection free of charge by electronic means, the interests of transparency and accountability will be served.

Richard Fuller Portrait Richard Fuller
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for clarifying a point that I raised earlier during the Secretary of State’s speech. I would just like to ask him for clarification on a slightly more detailed point about housing developments outside London, particularly those in my constituency. It is about the process in the Bill for the public themselves having the opportunity to review any application. What changes, if any, might occur to their rights to make representations on applications?

Christopher Pincher Portrait Christopher Pincher
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

I do not believe that this Bill does anything to disadvantage anybody in their right to fair access to information. Some of the changes that we have already made allow people to take part in planning committees virtually. Not everybody wants to go down to their town hall at 10 o’clock on a wet February evening if they can, quite literally, dial into those planning committees and see what is going on. They have access in a way that they would not ordinarily have.

I make this final point with reference to my hon. Friend’s point and the changes that we are making to the Planning Inspectorate’s processes. This particular proposition was made by Dame Bridget Rosewell as part of her recommendations. It was one of the 22 recommendations that she made, and it will allow planning inspectors to use a variety of tools consecutively to speed up their adjudication on decisions, which is good for everybody involved in the process. The average time has already been cut from 47 weeks to 23. We believe that this mechanism will speed up adjudication on planning decisions even more, and that is to the betterment of all involved.

This Bill could not be more important for reopening our economy, for championing firms large and small and for helping people live their lives again, with safety still paramount. Let us ensure this Bill’s swift passage, as I think all hon. Members have said in their contributions, and get Britain back in business. I commend this Bill to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time; to stand committed to a Committee of the whole House (Order, this day).

Business and Planning Bill

Committee stage & 3rd reading & 3rd reading: House of Commons & Committee: 1st sitting & Committee: 1st sitting: House of Commons & Report stage & Report stage: House of Commons
Monday 29th June 2020

(3 years, 11 months ago)

Commons Chamber
Read Full debate Business and Planning Act 2020 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Committee of the whole House Amendments as at 29 June 2020 (PDF) - (29 Jun 2020)
Considered in Committee (Order, this day)
[Dame Eleanor Laing in the Chair]
Eleanor Laing Portrait The Chairman of Ways and Means (Dame Eleanor Laing)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

I should explain that, in these exceptional circumstances, although the Chair of the Committee would normally sit in the Clerk’s Chair during Committee stage, in order to comply with social distancing requirements I will remain in the Speaker’s Chair, although I will be carrying out the role not of Deputy Speaker but of Chairman of the Committee. The occupant of the Chair during the Committee should be addressed as the Chair of the Committee, rather than as Deputy Speaker.

Clause 1

Pavement licences

Mike Amesbury Portrait Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

I beg to move amendment 2, page 2, line 2, at end insert

“, and—

(c) to which a temporary traffic regulation order under section 14 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 is operative and will remain so for the time period of the pavement licence, and which has been made pursuant to the Road Traffic (Temporary Restrictions) Procedure Regulations 1992 as amended by the Traffic Orders Procedure (Coronavirus) (Amendment) (England) Regulations 2020.”

The purpose of this amendment is to include pavements where temporary measures are in place already to deal with the effects of coronavirus, by assisting social distancing and enabling active travel, such as cycling and walking.

Eleanor Laing Portrait The Chairman
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Clause stand part.

Clauses 2 to 8 stand part.

Amendment 3, in clause 9, page 7, line 37, at end insert—

“(1A) Subsection (1B) applies for the purposes of—

(a) the reference in section 1(5)(a) to a highway to which Part 7A of the Highways Act 1980 applies, and

(b) the references to traffic orders in section 3(6)(a)(i) and (b) (which, by virtue of section 3(7), have the same meaning as in that Part of that Act).

(1B) The definition of “traffic order” in section 115A(2) of the Highways Act 1980 is to be treated as if it included an order under section 14 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 made pursuant to subsection (1)(b) or (c) of that section under the procedure provided for by regulation 18 of the Road Traffic (Temporary Restrictions) Procedure Regulations 1992 (S.I. 1992/1215) (procedure for temporary orders made for purposes connected to coronavirus).”

This amendment secures that the provisions about pavement licences apply where a highway is subject to a temporary traffic order under section 14 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 for reasons relating to coronavirus.

Clauses 9 and 10 stand part.

Amendment 1, in clause 11, page 19, line 13, at end insert—

“(6A) The Secretary of State may by regulations apply sections 172F to 172L of the Licensing Act 2003 to vehicles and moveable structures in order to vary the requirement under section 189(4) of that Act that a vehicle or moveable structure not permanently situated in the same place be treated for the purposes of that Act as if it were premises situated at only that place.”

This amendment is intended to provide flexibility for mobile licensed premises which are already licensed in one place to benefit from the temporary provisions of this Act in other locations.

Clauses 11 to 26 stand part.

New clause 1—Support for the tourism and hospitality sector

“(1) The Secretary of State must—

(a) carry out a review of the effect of Part 1 of this Act on the tourism and hospitality sector in England and Wales;

(b) set out the conclusions of the review in a report;

(c) publish the report; and

(d) arrange for copies of the report to be laid before both Houses of Parliament before 15 September 2020.

(2) The report under subsection (1) must also make an assessment of the effects of this Act on the tourism and hospitality sector in England and Wales compared with possible further and complementary measures, including, but not limited to, extending through to 2021 the period of operation in that sector of—

(a) the furlough scheme,

(b) Bounce Back loans, or

(c) other grants or financial support from public funds.”

The purpose of this new clause is for a review to examine the effect of this Bill’s proposals for the tourism and hospitality sector through to 2021, compared to extending the furlough scheme and the grants currently available.

New clause 2—Monthly report on hospitality sector measures

“(1) The Secretary of State must publish a review of the effect of this Act’s provisions on the hospitality, leisure, travel and tourism sector.

(2) A report under subsection (1) must be published within one month of the day in which this Act is passed and at least once in every month thereafter up to and including January 2021.

(3) Every report under this section must include relevant contextual information including (but not limited to) the effect of the changes to coronavirus job retention scheme on the hospitality, leisure, travel and tourism sector.

(4) The Secretary of State must arrange for a copy of each report made under this section to be laid before each House of Parliament.”

The purpose of this new clause is to require the Secretary of State to publish a monthly report for the next six months on the impact of the Bill in the context of changes to the coronavirus job retention scheme on sectors including hospitality.

New clause 4—Explanation for extending periods under Part 2 of this Act

“(1) Before any exercise of the powers listed in subsection (2) to make regulations under this Part of this Act the Secretary of State must make a statement on the reasons in each case for extending the provisions of this Act beyond 1 April 2021.

(2) The powers listed in this subsection are—

(a) section 16(7), on conditions relating to construction working hours;

(b) sections 17(8) and 17(9), on extending the duration of certain planning permissions;

(c) section 18(7), on extensions in connection with outline planning permission.

(3) The Secretary of State must arrange for a copy of the statement required under this section to be laid before each House of Parliament.”

The purpose of this new clause is to require the Secretary of State to provide a full explanation to the House before seeking to extend beyond 1 April 2021 any measures under this Part 2 of this Bill in relation to planning permission or construction working hours.

New clause 5—Costs on local authorities

“(1) The Secretary of State must make an assessment of the additional costs to local authorities of the effects of Part 2 of this Act.

(2) The Secretary of State must consult local authorities before making the assessment under subsection (1).

(3) The Secretary of State must arrange for a copy of the assessment required under this section to be laid before each House of Parliament.”

The intention of this new clause is to require the Secretary of State to publish a report detailing the extra costs accrued by councils as a result of processing increased volumes of planning applications through the new deemed consent route and additional environmental approvals.

New clause 6—Rolling three month parliamentary reviews

(1) This Act expires at the end of a review period unless the condition in subsection (2) is met.

(2) The condition is that the House of Commons has, following a debate, agreed a Motion moved during the review period by a Minister of the Crown in the form in subsection (3).

(3) The form of the Motion is—

“That the provisions of the Business and Planning Act 2020 should not yet expire.”

(4) The first review period begins on the day 90 days after the day on which this Act is passed.

(5) Subsequent review periods begin on the day 90 days after the day on which the previous review period ended.

(6) A review period ends at the end of the seventh sitting day after the day on which it begins.

(7) In this section, a “sitting day” means a day on which the House of Commons is sitting (and a day is only a day on which the House of Commons is sitting if the House begins to sit on that day).”

The purpose of this new clause is to provide a rolling review period for this legislation so that it can be revisited 3 months after it is passed and then every subsequent three months if necessary.

Mike Amesbury Portrait Mike Amesbury
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

The Government are asking Parliament to expedite the parliamentary progress of this Bill. In everyday circumstances, it would not be fast-tracked, but would be subject to a lower gear of progress. We are not in ordinary times or everyday circumstances, and the Opposition recognise, and have indeed constructively argued, that many of the measures outlined in the Bill need to be in place before the summer recess in order to be effective.

If legislation is not passed in time, hospitality businesses and their customers will not be able to benefit from the flexibility and covid safety arrangement measures relating to outdoor seating and alcohol service over the coming months. Likewise, road hauliers and others are dependent on heavy duty vehicle and passenger-carrying vehicle testing and licencing, and construction projects may be paused or delayed without planning permissions being extended. Furthermore, the measures will facilitate bounce back loans by disapplying unfair relationship provisions in the Consumer Credit Act 1974.

Our position on the Bill is one of constructive engagement. We want to provide support for hard-pressed businesses while giving additional freedoms and flexibility to respond to covid-19 spatial requirements. Although the additional freedoms will be welcomed by many, I ask the Minister for reassurance that checks and balances are in place in order to maintain social order. We want to ensure access for those with visual impairment or limited mobility, and the right to peace and quiet in residential areas must be maintained. My hon. Friend the Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier) will come on to that later.

It is also important that these measures are temporary and time-sensitive, with constructive engagement at the heart of any proposals to extend the operating hours of a construction site. Good planning is an enabler, rather than a constraint. Consultation helps to deliver good community, business and place outcomes.

Amendments 2 and 3 are common-sense amendments that aim to extend to more businesses the provisions in the Bill and ensure a streamlined procedure for businesses serving food and drink to access pavement licences. We welcome the provisions that will allow cafés, restaurants and pubs to reopen quickly and serve more customers, while maintaining a safe environment. The amendments would simply extend those measures to include spaces where temporary pavements have been created or extended for social distancing measures, so that businesses will be able to take advantage of that. I note the calls for caution. This needs to be done sensibly, and the impact on staff, local residents, local authorities and disabled pedestrians must be kept in mind.

New clause 2 addresses a vital omission in the Bill. The food and accommodation sector has had the largest decline in economic output of all sectors with available data in this crisis. An extraordinary drop of 92% between February and April led to almost 6% of workers being furloughed. Despite the help the Bill offers to businesses, it does not offer “business as normal.” It is vital that we understand the impact the measures in this Bill will have on these industries, especially considering the support the Government are currently providing through the furlough scheme. We need not undo the good work done by the scheme so far. The new clause would require the Government to publish a report every six months on the impact of the Bill in the context of the coronavirus job retention scheme. Such a report is vital to the understanding of the ongoing impact on hospitality, tourism, leisure and the travel sector. Only by knowing the scale of the problem after the measures in the Bill are implemented will the Government be able to match it with the proper level of tailored support that this sector will clearly need.

New clause 3 addresses the lack of regular data provided for applications for coronavirus support schemes. The Government do not currently release data on the number of businesses that fail to access loan schemes. Current data relates only to the total number of applications and the number of loans granted. Again, we must know how well the schemes are working in order to help businesses through this crisis, so I hope the Government will consider this new clause.

New clause 4 relates to part 2 of the Bill, which in turn relates to my brief, and the Minister’s brief, of planning and construction. I broadly welcome, as does the Royal Town Planning Institute, the planning measures in the Bill that will ensure that building work can safely restart, especially in light of the “build, build, build” message that will be detailed tomorrow in the Prime Minister’s much trailed speech. However, considering the impacts of longer working hours and extended planning permissions on neighbourhoods is important. Under the new clause, the Secretary of State would return to the House if he wished to extend the measures relating to construction working hours or extensions to current planning permissions beyond 1 April 2021. That is not to say that we would necessarily oppose any extensions, but it is vital that these provisions are not extended without explanation, and the new clause addresses that.

Finally, new clause 5 would require the Secretary of State to publish a report detailing the extra costs of processing these measures for local authorities. It is not clear at the moment what the measures contained in the Bill will cost local authorities in practice. Throughout this crisis they have been working around the clock to protect their communities from the covid-19 outbreak and its immediate impact. The Bill highlights that local authorities will also be crucial in the recovery phase. Their work has, as my colleagues my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband) and my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon North (Steve Reed) have said, come at a huge financial cost. Austerity measures over the past 10 years have had a devastating impact on local authority budgets, and despite the rhetoric of “whatever it takes,” the Government have not provided local authorities with anywhere near the level of funding they need in the wake of the immediate crisis. The provisions in this Bill will certainly result in yet more work and higher costs for local authorities, including for local planning departments, which have already had to cut spending by half in the last decade. Given that, it is essential that we understand fully what the impact of these changes will be on local authority finances and that local authorities are fully consulted. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier) has made clear, the measures in the Bill will also not have a uniform impact across the country, and that needs to be taken into account.

We have enjoyed constructive communication on this Bill with the Government, and these amendments are tabled in a similarly constructive way. I look forward to the Government providing us with the detail and assurances on the broad range of issues I have outlined.

Ben Lake Portrait Ben Lake (Ceredigion) (PC)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

Diolch, Dame Eleanor, and thank you for calling me so early in the debate. I think this must be a first for a Plaid Cymru Member; it is certainly a first for me. It is a great pleasure to follow the shadow Minister, and that is not something that I say very often because I do not follow shadow Ministers, so once again I am grateful to the Chair.

This is a short Bill, and the measures it contains are necessary to help otherwise viable businesses to survive the unprecedented impact of covid-19. The clauses relating to the hospitality sector are especially important. Other hon. Members made it clear on Second Reading just how important the sector is, and the Minister, in summing up the debate, pointed to the fact that the sector employs as much as a third of the UK workforce. Others have also argued effectively that when these businesses are able to reopen safely, they will urgently require as much flexibility as possible to adapt to the new ways of operating, not only to comply with social distancing requirements but to cater to changes in consumer demand and habits.
With this in mind, I shall address amendment 1 to clause 11, which is tabled in my name. I should like to make it clear that this is a probing amendment and that I have no desire to push it to a vote, but I would like the Minister to address the points that I shall try to make. In short, the amendment is intended to provide the flexibility for mobile licensed premises that are already licensed in one place to benefit from the temporary provisions of this legislation in other locations. One of the innovative ways that pubs and restaurants in Wales have sought to adapt to the covid-19 restrictions has been to develop, or try to develop, a delivery service, but it has become apparent that the provisions of the Licensing Act 2003 make it difficult for some licensed premises to run such a service.
Under the provisions of the Act, a person cannot sell alcohol from a vehicle or movable structure at a series of different locations—say, for the sake of argument, house-to-house—unless there is a premises licence in respect of the vehicle or movable structure at each location where a sale of alcohol is made in, on or from it. Pubs, therefore—and bars, for that matter—face complicated restrictions if they wish to reorient their business models to comply with covid-19 restrictions. We believe that, by amending sections 189 and 190 of the 2003 Act, the Government could temporarily remove the requirement for licensed premises to have a licence for each location at which a sale of alcohol is made, thereby helping the businesses to adapt to these unprecedented times. As I mentioned, this is a probing amendment but I would welcome the Minister’s comments on the proposals.
I would like to move on briefly to address the issue of small, independent breweries. I would welcome similar support being made for these organisations. We know that a quarter of all small breweries currently have no way to sell directly to the public, and in this respect I agree with the points made by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) on Second Reading. I appreciate the point the Minister made in response to the hon. Member for Strangford’s intervention that as the hospitality sector—and the pub sector in particular—reopens, some of those breweries will find that they have customers again, but this is worth keeping under consideration, because if the pub trade has to go al fresco, it will be quite dependent on the weather, and some of those small breweries might find that their customers do not require quite as much towards the end of the summer or in the early autumn, and they might therefore want to sell directly again. It is a point well made that small breweries have seen their sales reduced by between 65% and 82% due to covid-19, and they have not received the same level of financial support as other businesses in the hospitality sector.
Meg Hillier Portrait Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

As the MP for a constituency that has a lot of small breweries, I have some sympathy with this. I would not want to see more off sales in my constituency, but does the hon. Member not think the root of the problem is that these small breweries did not get support through the existing Government mechanisms, which went quite a long way but did not cover this sector?

Ben Lake Portrait Ben Lake
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

The hon. Lady makes a good point. A lot of these issues would have been circumnavigated if small breweries had been entitled to some of the support measures that were made available to other businesses in the hospitality sector.

Jim Shannon Portrait Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

Not only do the breweries have an issue with how to sell their products; they also had a lot of their product in storage, which then went off and had to be disposed of in whatever way that is done. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the breweries had a double whammy in not being able to make sales and having their stock destroyed?

Ben Lake Portrait Ben Lake
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

The hon. Gentleman makes a very good point. It is particularly the smaller independent breweries, where storage is perhaps even more of an issue, that will have had to dispose of a lot of their stock at considerable cost. Then there is the relative uncertainty as to when they might reopen and, indeed, how much beer to brew again. That is another problem that small breweries in my constituency have tried to tackle. I still think that might be a discussion to have. It is at least worth keeping the matter under review. I would welcome the Government being willing to do that.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned temporary events notices and licences. Another proposal would be to consider extending the authorisation of off sales to small breweries that do not hold a premises licence, but that are registered under the alcohol wholesaler registration scheme. That would be temporary and quite exceptional, but in these exceptional times there might be a case for it.

New clause 1 was tabled by the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron), and he may well speak to that at greater length in a moment, but I put on record my support for it. The Government need to recognise the need for sectoral flexibility as they review how to withdraw some of the support schemes and take stock of whether these measures, exceptional as they are, are working. Given the nature of the crisis we face, our focus must continue to be on protecting otherwise viable businesses and supporting employment, so I welcome new clause 1.

Finally, I turn to the provisions in the first part of the Bill relating to the consumption of food and drink outdoors. A few Members have referred to those provisions as ushering in an al fresco age, which I am sure we are all excited to see, weather permitting. That part of the Bill extends to Wales as well as England, but the wording of clause 1 has caused some confusion as to whether it will apply directly to Wales. In concluding my remarks, I ask the Minister to clarify in his summing up whether the provisions will apply to Wales directly. If not, is he content that the Welsh Senedd is empowered to introduce similar provisions to support bars and restaurants in Wales, so that we may also see an al fresco culture in Wales over the summer?

Meg Hillier Portrait Meg Hillier
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

I rise to discuss new clause 6, which stands in my name. The Bill has been very rushed. It was announced on Thursday in the business of the House. We had to lay amendments by Friday, and I thank you, Dame Eleanor, for allowing a manuscript amendment today in order to get the new clause put forward.

As the Government rush into this legislation—I think there are questions about why that is—it is important that we make sure there are points of review and reflection about how well it is working. To put it more charitably, I am trying to save the Government from themselves. I think there is a lot of support across the House for the new clause, but in the very short time between Thursday and now, it has been hard to marshal all that and enable people to come and express their views.

The Minister may be able to answer this, but why has the Bill been quite so rushed, given that we have been in lockdown since 23 March and we knew that was coming for some time before then and given that we knew these sectors would be among the hardest hit? One would have thought that somebody in the Government would have been working up a Bill and stress-testing it before now, so that it was not such a surprise to Members of this House and sectors out there.

Local government has been caught rather by surprise. Of course it has been involved. I am not saying to the Minister that the Government have not spoken to local government. It would be extraordinary if he had come to the House from his Department and not done that. But there has not been enough detailed discussion about the impacts. We have heard, and I will not go into the detail again, about some of the impacts in constituencies such as mine and other urban constituencies with a high density of licensed premises, where antisocial behaviour has already been happening as a result.

We are already seeing problems, so there is a warning sign for the Government. The reality is that once off sales are allowed, as the hon. Member for Kensington (Felicity Buchan said, at the same hours as on licensed premises—almost with a sweep of a pen, with a very short period for councils to object—we will see an awful lot more sales off the premises at all hours of the day and night. We also have the big issue about the resources involved from the police and local councils to police it.

It is easy to say, as the Minister did, that the police have certain powers and there are powers for local authorities, but the issue is the resourcing. We cannot just do all of that in one go. A lot of licences are being applied for. There are more than 1,300 licensed premises across my borough as a whole. How many licensing officers are needed to do that work? The police have other things to do with their time—certainly that is the case in my constituency, where they are dealing with serious crime issues, as well as antisocial behaviour and managing and policing social distancing and covid-19 regulations. There is a lot on everyone’s plate. We want to support businesses, but a three-month review after this has been in place would give the Government the chance to come back and either reassure us that it is all fine everywhere, or, if there are problems, look at ways of addressing that. The Minister has heard today from the Labour Front Benchers that there is strong support to get the economy going, and backing to make sure that businesses can survive the next period, as we still live in the pandemic. That is really important, certainly in a constituency such as mine with so many licensed premises, but we have to get that balance so that residents do not lose out.

This is a very mild amendment. Earlier, the Secretary of State rejected it because I had discussed a rolling amendment—I just say to the Minister that I had very little time to draft it and get advice about how to make it fit. I did not have time to discuss it in detail with the Government, otherwise I would have, and I know that other Members around the House agree with it.

I will not push the amendment to a vote today, but I am hoping that in the other place, they will have more time to think about, listen and reflect upon it, and that, in the meantime, the Government will also have time to reflect on it. Perhaps the Minister can give me some indication of whether this is something that the Government are willing to reflect on—to build in, simply, a three-month review point, so that three months after the Bill becomes an Act, the issue would come to the House again. A Minister would come to explain what is happening and we would have a debate about how this is working in our constituencies up and down the country, in the four nations of the UK, and we can make sure that we are getting it right. If there are problems then, the Government would have my backing to bring in certain powers to ensure that the antisocial behaviour that I fear this may herald is tackled, and I am sure that the Government would have the backing of other Members.

It would be helpful to hear from the Government about their thinking on this very mild amendment. We pushed for a review of the covid-19 legislation, which was pretty draconian. That was accepted by the Government and I propose this review in a similar spirit. I do not think that this will provide uncertainty for businesses. A review, when there has been such cross-party support in general for a proposal that supports businesses, is unlikely to completely reverse it, but it may allow for amelioration of some of the worst impacts if they materialise, as I fear they may in my constituency, or it may allow for different approaches to how the measures are applied in different nations of the UK, different regions or different cities.

They key thing is that if we have the review, it would give the Government and the House an option to look at this again. I think that something as draconian as this—the biggest change in licensing rules for decades—warrants a review. Some of these licences will be granted for a year if they pass through on the nod. A lot of them will go through very fast because of a lack of resources in local authorities. I urge the Minister to take my suggestion for this amendment constructively. I will not push it to a vote today because I recognise that, although the Bill is rushed, the amendment is also rushed. I hope, however, that the other place will consider it, that the Government will approach it thoughtfully and that when the Bill returns to this place, we can consider having a three-month review.

Tim Farron Portrait Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

I shall speak to new clause 1, which I will not push to a Division because, for reasons mentioned by others—not least the hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier)—I accept the premise of the Bill. It is about boosting the economy and creating flexibility so that people can begin to make a living again within the confines of the important safety restrictions that there are. However, I am very much looking to the Minister and the Government to be very clear that they will accept the terms and the general approach of my amendment, which seeks Government support for the hospitality and tourism industry beyond the current date set, which is the end of October, when the Government’s financial support schemes currently run out.

We welcome this Bill, rushed though it is, and understanding the necessity of that. We also welcome the support that the Government have given to the sector and the economy more widely. Undoubtedly the furlough scheme, the grant schemes and, more recently, after a lot of lobbying by myself and plenty of others, the discretionary schemes delivered through local authorities have helped to save thousands of companies from bankruptcy and protected millions of jobs. I am grateful to the Government for that.

But tourism and hospitality is a special case. It is a special case because, for many parts of the country, and especially the Lake district, the Yorkshire dales and the rest of south Cumbria in my constituency, it operates on a seasonal basis—on a feast and famine basis. The reality is that covid-19 kicked in at the end of the winter, so there was famine and then the feast was cancelled. October—the month when the Government support for this industry and others will end—is the beginning of the next famine. We have to be very clear about this: if we say to the hospitality and tourism industry that, having missed out on its feast, it has to survive on its own two feet after October, we will simply be signing the death warrant of an entire industry right across this country. As I say, the industry operates on feast and famine. The other way of looking at this is that our hospitality and tourism industry across the UK will be expected to live on the basis of three consecutive winters, and there is no way it can absorb that—there is no way that many of these businesses will be able to survive it.
We are all working towards 4 July, and we are excited about it, with trepidation, but I want to remind the Minister and anybody else who needs reminding that, on 4 July, we will not see the widespread opening up of all the tourism and hospitality sector. In a survey of its members just a few days ago, Cumbria Tourism revealed that 69% of hospitality and tourism businesses in Cumbria will not be able to open fully on 4 July or any time soon after that, and 10% will not be able to open at all. The Government must not fall into a false sense of security that opening up to a degree on 4 July rescues the industry. Instead of famine, feast, famine it will be famine, small picnic, famine. We must not allow ourselves to assume that all is well within the industry just because of 4 July, welcome though that may be.
I remind the Minister that my constituency has had the single biggest increase in unemployment in the country since March—314%—and that 37% of my entire workforce is on furlough, which is the single biggest percentage outside London. The vast bulk of those people work in the tourism and hospitality sector. We hope that, having waited through the summer without a holiday, some of the people who would have travelled abroad might decide to holiday at home; I hope they do, and I support them in doing so. But we cannot assume that a rise in staycations will do anything to compensate for the losses that the industry has had over the summer months, which are of course not the Government’s fault, but we look to the Government to extend the support.
Alongside others, I have presented a petition calling for Government support beyond October through to spring 2021. It has the support of MPs across the House, including, I am pleased to say, my neighbours the hon. Members for Penrith and The Border (Dr Hudson) and for Barrow and Furness (Simon Fell). It also has the support of the heads and chief executives of the Lake District and Yorkshire Dales national parks, and many other destination organisations around the country such as Visit Cornwall, as well as my own, Cumbria Tourism.
This is a cross-party effort. New clause 1 is in my name, but it is supported by many Members. I hope that the Government will take notice and provide support for an industry that is the fourth biggest employer in the United Kingdom and the biggest employer in Cumbria. While I recognise that extending support for that industry from October through to spring will be expensive, I want the Minister to realise that not providing that support will also be hideously expensive, as tens of thousands of people become unemployed and we see the collapse of businesses that would otherwise be healthy and ready to start the fightback from the beginning of the new season in spring. I will not seek to divide the Committee on this matter, but I strongly urge the Minister to acknowledge what I am saying and to commit the Government to supporting a package of support for hospitality and tourism right the way through to spring 2021.
Christopher Pincher Portrait The Minister for Housing (Christopher Pincher)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

I thank everyone in the Chamber for the constructive discussion that we have had in Committee and on Second Reading. I want particularly to thank Opposition Front Benchers for the positive discussions we have had over the last several days to bring this Bill through all its stages today.

I also thank all the members of the BEIS team who have provided such great support for the Bill, those in the Department for Transport, those in my office and particularly—in my own Department, the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government—Simon Gallagher and his planning team for all their efforts while there have been other demands, with the covid-19 emergency, on their time.

As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy set out, the overall aim of the Bill is to provide a boost to key sectors of our economy—the hospitality, construction, transport and SME sectors. It will support businesses across the economy, particularly in the hardest-hit sectors, to transition from the immediate crisis and the response to lockdown towards economic recovery. It will also support businesses to implement new safer ways of working to manage the ongoing risk of covid-19, and particularly the need, as we all know, for continued social distancing.

Hon. Members have made important points in their contributions on the amendments and new clauses tabled in Committee, and I should like to discuss them in turn. I turn first to amendment 3 to clause 9 of this Bill, which speaks to the same point as amendment 2. I thank Opposition Members for this amendment, as it raises the important matter that we would want to include in our definition of “relevant highway” those highways that benefit from a temporary traffic restriction order. This is particularly so given that more of these orders are now being made to encourage active travel, including walking, as people get back to work and more shops reopen. Our definition did not include highways where such temporary traffic restriction orders are in place, and it should have done; that was our intention. If we do not make this change, the scope of the pavement licence provisions will be limited, reducing the number of businesses that will be able to benefit and undermining the powers granted to local authorities that allow them to manage their public spaces in response to covid-19.

For those reasons, and in the spirit of the constructive comments made by the hon. Member for Weaver Vale (Mike Amesbury), I will accept this minor technical amendment, amendment 3, to the definition of relevant highway in clause 9. I am grateful to him for bringing it to our attention, and I invite him to move it formally later. [Interruption.] It may only be the one, but bag them while you can.

I turn to amendment 1 to clause 11. Clause 11, as drafted, provides a bespoke temporary change to the Licensing Act 2003 to provide an automatic extension to the terms of on-sales alcohol premises to allow the sale for consumption off the premises. This is the amendment to which the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Ben Lake) spoke very eloquently. It is important that every person wishing to sell alcohol has a licence to do so, and for licensing authorities to be able to record and regulate the sale of alcohol through their area of control. The amendment would allow mobile traders to sell alcohol in places not previously allowed, and that could lead to a significant number of alcohol sales taking place from new locations not previously allowed by licensing authorities, potentially leading to crowding and disorder in those new locations. I would encourage mobile traders to apply for a variation order to their licence under existing legislation. For that reason, I am not able to accept his amendment, although I understand the thrust of it. I also recognise that it is perhaps an important issue in rural areas such as the one that he represents, so I would be happy to talk to him further about how we can help the rural economy through this difficult time moving towards winter. I am sure that my colleagues in the Home Office will be prepared similarly so to do.

I now turn to new clauses 1 and 2. The extraordinary support that we have put in place has been about getting us through this crisis, and the Bill is now supporting us out of it. It is the case that some firms will be affected by coronavirus for longer than others, and the Government will seek to support these firms appropriately. So far, the coronavirus job retention scheme has helped 1.1 million employers across the United Kingdom to furlough 9.2 million jobs, protecting many, many people’s livelihoods. Starting with the first release on 11 June, Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs is publishing monthly figures for the coronavirus job retention scheme claims, broken down by employer size, sector and geography. These figures are publicly available on the website. They show the total number of jobs furloughed and the value of claims made within the accommodation, food services, arts, entertainment and recreation sectors. The Office for National Statistics also provides a very great deal of data.

I therefore believe that there is data available that the House can see and that Opposition Members can use, and therefore there is no need for the new clause. The hon. Member for Weaver Vale is, I would suggest, a seasoned player in the Standing Orders of this House, and he knows how to use urgent questions, SO24 applications and Opposition day debates. There will be plenty of opportunities for him to raise issues of concern with the Executive at the Dispatch Box without the need for the new clause.

The hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) spoke very eloquently about the importance of supporting the hospitality and leisure sector, particularly in rural economies as wintertime approaches. I remind him that the tools that we have put in place already, such as the job retention scheme, are only temporary. There may be other, more effective and more sensible long-term tools to support the economic sectors to which he referred. The Chancellor made it absolutely clear in his remarks at the Dispatch Box during the Budget and subsequently that he will do whatever it takes to support our economy and its relevant sectors as we move through this crisis. I am therefore afraid that we cannot support new clauses 1 and 2, and I encourage those who proposed them to withdraw them.

I thank the hon. Member for Weaver Vale for tabling new clause 4, which would require the Secretary of State, prior to making any regulations to extend the time limits associated with the powers in respect of construction working hours, or extending the duration of certain planning permissions or extensions in connection with outline planning permissions, to make a statement to the House on the reasons for the extension beyond 1 April 2021. We recognise that there are concerns about this, but let me assure the hon. Gentleman that the powers in question were drawn in a proportionate way to address only what is necessary to facilitate the continued activity in the sector through this crisis. These delegated powers are considered essential to allow the flexibility necessary to respond to the emerging effects of coronavirus, its potential continuing effect on the sector, and the uncertainty around its future trajectory. Our intention is to exercise the powers only if the effects of coronavirus, including social distancing measures or other restrictions, continue for a longer period. I can make that clear to him from the Dispatch Box.

Matt Western Portrait Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

Just to pick up on new clause 4 and on the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier), while this from the Government is viewed as continuing into the future, the importance of the new clause is taking stock of the situation and realising how well that has worked. From comments across the Chamber, I am sure that the Minister understands there is concern about or fear of mayhem, because this is being rushed through. Local authorities such as Warwick District Council and Warwickshire County Council, have few resources, are under huge financial pressure and have little capacity to be able to enforce such changes. I welcome what the Government are trying to do, but I have real concerns about the ability to enforce.

Christopher Pincher Portrait Christopher Pincher
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that point. I will address it, if I may, when I come to new clause 6, which the hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier) mentioned. To speak partly to his point, and in conclusion on this, the powers are subject to the affirmative procedure for draft regulations, which will enable Parliament to scrutinise thoroughly any relevant use of the powers, because the approval of both Houses will be needed. I therefore do not think that there is a need for new clause 4, and I would invite the Opposition to withdraw it.

With respect to new clause 5, again I thank the hon. Member for Weaver Vale for its tabling, because it provides an opportunity to give reassurance that local authorities will not be overburdened by the proposals in the Bill. This new clause would require the Secretary of State, following consultation with local planning authorities, to publish a report to provide an assessment of the costs to be incurred by local authorities as part of our proposed planning measures in the context of the covid-19 epidemic.

The applications relate to both the provision allowing for applications to extend construction working hours under clause 16 and the additional environmental approval process under clauses 17 and 18. Both the new forms of application will be free of charge to the applicant, which is to encourage developers to take advantage of the provisions in order to start or resume development as quickly as possible.

For three reasons, we do not consider the cost burden of either route to be particularly onerous on local planning authorities. First, each route deals with a single issue, and the onus is on the applicant to provide sufficient information. If insufficient information is provided by the developer, in the case of an additional environmental approval application or of an application for an extension to construction site working hours, the application will not count as having been made at all.

Secondly, as I said, the measures are temporary. This will therefore only be a short-term administrative burden over the course of this financial year. Thirdly, we do not expect individual authorities to face a deluge of applications under each route. For example, our analysis shows that by 1 August 546 planning permissions for major residential developments across the country would have lapsed since 23 March, an average of 1.5 permissions per authority. Cumulatively, it is important to the economy to see those progress, but for individual local planning authorities we do not believe that the effect will be particularly onerous. Again, I invite the Opposition to withdraw the clause.

I will speak briefly to new clause 6, as many Members are watching. I appreciate that some Members are concerned about the need to ensure that any changes made under the fast-track legislation are restricted to what is proportionate and necessary. Ensuring that measures are time-limited can be an effective way to do that, but a rolling review provision across the whole of Act is not the best approach in this case.

The first reason is that two provisions in the Bill are permanent; they would be jeopardised by a rolling review of the entire Bill. The second is that part of the reason for these measures is to give the business community, local authorities and Government agencies certainty about what they need to do with certain planning activities. A cliff edge 90-day end to the processes that they are undertaking would remove any chance of the certainty that they are looking for.

The hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch has many ways in which she can advance her concerns. She can use Standing Orders, in which she is a seasoned expert, to look at SO 24 debates; she can encourage her Front Benchers to undertake Opposition debates, and she can use the Public Accounts Committee to undertake inquiries. There are many ways in which she can progress her concerns other than through new clause 6.

Meg Hillier Portrait Meg Hillier
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

My drafting may not have been perfect; the Bill has been very rushed, so it was difficult to get it right. Can the Minister give me any comfort that, in his mind or the Government’s, there is scope to allow a three-month review point on the licensing element so that there is simply a review? Given the Government’s majority, they would have to agree to any change anyway, but a review point seems a sensible, proportionate measure so that we can all reflect on how this is working and pick up any issues. If he could give me an indication of whether that is something the Government might consider as the Bill goes through the other place, that would be very helpful.

Christopher Pincher Portrait Christopher Pincher
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

I appreciate the hon. Lady’s concern and I understand why she raises those points. However, I simply reiterate that introducing a rolling review would kill certain aspects of the Bill and reduce the certainty and clarity that businesses and planners are looking for. It may also jeopardise the conclusion of the Bill before the summer recess, and we need to get it on the statute book so that businesses around our country can benefit from its provisions over the summer months.

Let me reiterate the importance of this Bill for our economy in these extraordinary times. As we emerge from this pandemic, we need to do all we can to support our economic recovery and help businesses adjust to a new and safe way of working. I therefore encourage the House to support amendment 3 tabled by the hon. Member for Weaver Vale (Mike Amesbury), and I encourage the proponents of all other amendments to withdraw them.

Mike Amesbury Portrait Mike Amesbury
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

This has been a constructive debate, and I thank Members across the Chamber for their positive contributions and suggestions, which I hope will be taken up in the other place. I thank the Government, and I thank the Minister in particular for his positive engagement. We are happy to withdraw amendment 2 in my name and those of my right hon. and hon. Friends, and I look forward to moving amendment 3. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 2 to 8 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 9


Amendment made: 3, page 7, line 37, at end insert—

“(1A) Subsection (1B) applies for the purposes of—

(a) the reference in section 1(5)(a) to a highway to which Part 7A of the Highways Act 1980 applies, and

(b) the references to traffic orders in section 3(6)(a)(i) and (b) (which, by virtue of section 3(7), have the same meaning as in that Part of that Act).

(1B) The definition of “traffic order” in section 115A(2) of the Highways Act 1980 is to be treated as if it included an order under section 14 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 made pursuant to subsection (1)(b) or (c) of that section under the procedure provided for by regulation 18 of the Road Traffic (Temporary Restrictions) Procedure Regulations 1992 (S.I. 1992/1215) (procedure for temporary orders made for purposes connected to coronavirus).”—(Mike Amesbury.)

This amendment secures that the provisions about pavement licences apply where a highway is subject to a temporary traffic order under section 14 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 for reasons relating to coronavirus.

Clause 9, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 10 to 26 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill, as amended, reported.

Bill, as amended in the Committee, considered.

Bill read the Third time and passed.

Rosie Winterton Portrait Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

I will now suspend the House for three minutes to allow the safe exit of hon. Members participating in this item of business and the safe arrival of hon. Members for the next.

Sitting suspended.

Business and Planning Bill

1st reading & 1st reading (Hansard) & 1st reading (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 30th June 2020

(3 years, 11 months ago)

Lords Chamber
Read Full debate Business and Planning Act 2020 Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: Committee of the whole House Amendments as at 29 June 2020 (PDF) - (29 Jun 2020)
First Reading
The Bill was brought from the Commons, read a first time and ordered to be printed.
House adjourned at 9.17 pm.

Business and Planning Bill

2nd reading & 2nd reading (Hansard) & 2nd reading (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 6th July 2020

(3 years, 10 months ago)

Lords Chamber
Read Full debate Business and Planning Act 2020 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Committee of the whole House Amendments as at 29 June 2020 (PDF) - (29 Jun 2020)
Second Reading
Moved by
Earl Howe Portrait Lord Greenhalgh
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Lord Greenhalgh Portrait The Minister of State, Home Office and Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Lord Greenhalgh) (Con)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Howe, I beg to move that the Bill be read a second time.

It is a great privilege to open Second Reading on the Bill in your Lordships’ House. This is my first Second Reading speech since I took my seat in this House in April, and I am honoured to speak on this Bill, which is so critical for our economic recovery.

Noble Lords may have seen the Prime Minister’s speech of 30 June, when the Government announced that we would launch a planning policy paper this month setting out our plan for comprehensive reform of the planning system. I make clear that the Bill is not part of those ambitions for planning reform and should not be taken as a signal for what that will entail. This Bill is about implementing urgent and mostly temporary measures to provide much-needed support to businesses across our economy. We have within this House some of the country’s finest experts on planning and local government, so I look forward to constructive and positive discussions on planning reform once the paper has been launched.

For now, I beg noble Lords to focus on the merits of this urgent Bill, which will provide a much-needed boost to key sectors of our economy at this extraordinary time. The measures in the Bill have been developed in collaboration with industry and key stakeholders. The Bill directly responds to asks from businesses to help them to overcome the challenges that they face. It is right and important that we now support businesses in overcoming the disruption that has resulted from the pandemic and to implement new, safer ways of working. The Bill will support businesses in four key areas of the economy: hospitality, SMEs, transport, and construction. I will take each in turn.

First, the Bill will provide critical support for the hospitality sector. Food and beverage service activity has fallen by nearly 90% in the last quarter. From last Saturday, pubs, restaurants and cafes were able to reopen while following Covid-secure guidelines. The Government want to support those businesses to make the most of summer trade and to operate in a safe way. The Bill will therefore make it easier for businesses that sell or serve food or drink to obtain a licence on a temporary basis to set up outdoor seating and stalls. It will do this by introducing a temporary fast-track process for obtaining a licence from the local council to place tables and chairs on the pavement outside their premises. This new process will cut the time to receive approval for a licence and will cap the application fee at £100.

We recognise that public safety and access for disabled people using pavements is of unquestionably great importance. That is why the Government have published a national condition. When that condition applies, licence holders will be required to take into account recommended minimum requirements for footway widths and distances required for access by disabled people. In addition, local authorities will be able to refuse or revoke licences where they assess that it is necessary.

The Bill also makes it easier for licensed premises to sell alcohol to customers for consumption off the premises. It temporarily and automatically extends the terms of on-sales alcohol licences to allow the sale of alcohol for consumption off the premises as well. It also suspends any relevant conditions on existing off-sales licences, including conditions that require off-sales of alcohol in sealed containers and restrictions on sales for delivery.

We recognise the need to strike a balance between supporting businesses and ensuring safety and amenity for our communities. If in a particular location these alcohol licensing arrangements were to cause problems then any responsible authority, including the police or an environmental health officer, could apply for a new off-sales expedited review. This expedited review process will allow responsible authorities to quickly alter the alcohol licensing conditions, suspend it for up to three months or remove the permission for sales of alcohol for consumption off the premises. On receipt of an application, the licensing authority must consider whether it is necessary to take interim steps to the permission granted by the Bill within 48 hours of receiving that application, and must hold a hearing within 28 days of receipt. These temporary measures to support the hospitality sector will be in force only until the end of September 2021. This will enable businesses to make the most of outdoor seating opportunities in the summer months this year and next.

Secondly, to support small businesses, the Bill introduces measures to enable lenders to continue to issue bounce-back loans quickly and at scale. The Bounce Back Loan Scheme is designed to provide loans at speed to small businesses adversely affected by the Covid-19 pandemic. So far £29 billion has been lent to small businesses under the scheme, providing a vital lifeline to many.

The effect of the Bill is to retrospectively disapply the “unfair relationships” provisions in the Consumer Credit Act 1974 for lending made under the scheme. This is necessary to remove some of the checks and processes that lenders would otherwise need to run, and which would prevent them from providing loans to small businesses at the scale and speed necessary in this crisis.

Thirdly, to support our transport sector, this Bill makes changes to driver licensing and enables changes to roadworthiness testing for commercial vehicles. It will reduce the backlog of checks and tests that grew over the lockdown. It will help us to get goods, and indeed people, moving across the country.

The Bill introduces a temporary—and, in Great Britain, retrospective—power to issue one-year lorry or bus driving licences, rather than the standard five-year licences. This flexibility will allow a licence to be extended for a year if an applicant is unable to obtain the medical report required for a full five-year licence. This helps to alleviate pressures on doctors and the NHS.

The Bill also reforms the powers to temporarily exempt goods vehicles, buses and coaches from roadworthiness-testing requirements. This will be a permanent change but our intention is to use the reformed power only temporarily in response to the Covid-19 outbreak. This will allow for the high demand for heavy vehicle testing, which was reintroduced after lockdown only on 4 July, to be managed so that the most important vehicles are tested first.

Fourthly, the Bill will support our construction sector to get building again. It will introduce a fast-track route through the planning system to apply for a temporary extension of construction hours so that firms can plan for the safe reopening of sites. Temporarily allowing longer working hours—for example, during the evening and at weekends—will help to facilitate safe working by spreading out the working day. Importantly, local councils will have discretion to refuse requests where they consider that longer hours would have an unacceptable impact. I make it clear that this measure will not apply to construction works to an existing house, which affords a measure of protection to neighbours from disturbance. This measure will expire on 1 April 2021.

In addition, the Bill responds to calls from both the development industry and local authorities to extend planning permissions and listed building consents that lapsed during lockdown or will lapse before the end of this year. As a result of the pandemic, almost 1,200 unimplemented planning permissions for major residential development have lapsed or are at an increased risk of lapsing by the end of this year. These account for 60,000 new homes. The Bill enables the extension of these planning permissions and listed building consents to 1 April 2021, subject to any necessary environmental approvals.

There are two further planning measures included in this Bill. The first supports the Planning Inspectorate to conduct hearings and inquiries while adhering to social distancing. It enables the inspectorate to combine written representation, hearing and inquiry procedures when dealing with town and country planning appeals. This change was recommended by the independent Rosewell review, following which a pilot reduced average decision-making time from 47 weeks to 23 weeks. This measure will apply permanently to support the improved efficiency of the Planning Inspectorate.

The second responds to a request from the Mayor of London. It temporarily removes the requirement for the Mayor’s spatial development strategy to be available for public inspection and for hard copies to be available on request. In a time of social distancing, that is not practical. This requirement is replaced with a duty to make the current version of the strategy available for inspection free of charge by appropriate electronic means. Nevertheless, the Government appreciate that not everybody will have electronic access. As a result, the Bill also requires the Mayor to take into account any guidance the Government publish on appropriate mitigation measures. This measure will expire on 31 December this year. Taken together, all these planning measures will support the recovery of our construction sector and help to get Britain building again.

Finally, the Bill contains a provision to enable the time-limited powers to be extended by secondary legislation, subject to Parliament’s approval. This provides necessary flexibility, given the uncertainties around the duration of the Covid-19 pandemic and the nature of future social distancing requirements.

The package of measures in this Bill has been widely welcomed by businesses and local government at this critical and extraordinary time. The Local Government Association is supportive of the Bill, which it says will help ensure that a consistent approach can be taken so businesses can reopen as soon as possible. The Federation of Small Businesses also welcomes the Bill, which it says will help small businesses in the hospitality sector to resume trading with confidence.

These measures are necessary to alleviate some of the current challenges that businesses face and help the economy bounce back as we emerge from this pandemic. I look forward to our debate today and I commend the Bill to the House.

Lord Stevenson of Balmacara Portrait Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab) [V]
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his comprehensive introduction to the Bill. A large number of Members of your Lordships’ House wish to speak in this debate, and we look forward to their contributions.

When a crisis hits, effective Governments do two things: first, they deal with the immediate challenge and, secondly, they anticipate the fallout and begin working out how to tackle the consequences in the months and years ahead. It is anticipated that the UK has spent over £200 billion on a first-stage economic rescue operation but there is, as yet, no plan for economic recovery. Millions of jobs are now at risk and even a VAT cut, which is widely anticipated and would be welcome, will not of itself return our economy to pre-crisis levels of activity. The reannouncement of major infrastructure projects remains just that; most are nowhere near shovel-ready and will take many years to come on stream.

The £29 billion in Covid-19 loans to 640,000 businesses has been a significant boost to liquidity but as loans, these are not earned income. They will leave even fundamentally sound companies with huge debts, which will restrict their ability to reinvest for the future while opening them up to predatory takeovers. The current trickle of bankruptcies may turn into a flood.

I say all this because I want to make the point that while the Government have acted to protect us from the supply shock caused by the pandemic, the resolve that delivered the furlough schemes, which currently maintain 9 million people who might otherwise be out of work, needs to be shown again as we start the recovery to stimulate demand and save jobs. It will be a long haul. The Government urgently need to come forward with a comprehensive, flexible and imaginative plan for the support and recapitalisation of viable British businesses, and the prevention of mass unemployment. But this Bill, welcome though it is, is not that plan.

I thank the Deputy Leader of the House, the noble Earl, Lord Howe, for the constructive conversations that he and my colleagues have had on the Bill. It is a short Bill and there is a large degree of agreement on it. The headline provisions, as has been said, are to enable the hospitality industry to reopen quickly and serve a greater number of customers in a safe environment. My noble friends Lord Kennedy and Lady Wilcox will be leading for us on these sections.

We welcome the temporary loosening of licensing and planning regulations to enable bars, restaurants and cafés to serve customers outside their premises. Having said that, we will question why the opportunity has not also been taken to include street-food vendors and small breweries in this legislation. In these essentially local issues, it is important that local authorities continue to have discretion in these matters because they are best placed to make the judgments about local impacts. However, we have received requests to amend Clause 11 so as to prevent increases in anti-social behaviour in town centres late at night and in the early mornings. It is also right that we raise the concerns of USDAW about the safety of staff. The government guidance is clear about the mitigation and reduction of risk that is needed if one metre-plus social distancing is in place. It is also very important that the Health and Safety Executive has the resources and powers to enforce the safety of those extended workplaces. Can the Minister confirm that that will be the case?

The introduction of more flexible planning appeals is also welcome in speeding up the processes, but we want reassurances that no legitimate voice will be excluded from being heard. Local government is worried about the cost implications of these new rules, so we urge the Government to publish a report detailing the extra costs that councils will face in processing increased volumes of planning applications at the new, reduced fee levels.

We also welcome the measures in enabling construction sites to get back to work more easily, through extended working hours. It is important, however, that communities do not feel that their interests are being ignored in this. We would like to see councils being given the discretion they need to restrict hours of operation, where there is a compelling and overriding local reason to do so. But as well as discretion, local authorities need certainty about resourcing. As was said in the other place, £10 billion-worth of costs have been loaded on to local authorities during this crisis but only £3.2 billion has so far been provided by the Government. When he comes to respond to this debate can the noble Earl, Lord Howe, explain how and when the Government are going to honour their commitment to stand behind councils and give them the funding they need, now and in the future? It is important that the Government also offer cast-iron guarantees that none of the measures in the Bill will place additional costs on councils that have to be financed by further cuts in their services elsewhere. I challenge the Minister to put this on the record.

We also welcome the changes to transport and vehicle licensing, an issue which will be handled by my noble friend Lord Tunnicliffe. I will be in the lead on the proposal to remove the “unfair relationship” provision from the Consumer Credit Act 1974. There have been many calls over the years for reform of the CCA 1974, as the safeguards are cumbersome and often inconsistent with bona fide attempts to provide flexible solutions to customers who experience temporary financial problems. That pressure has clearly been increased by the pandemic and it is right to take action now on this issue, even though it is to be hoped that the wider issues are also under review.

Bounce-back loans have been very successful in getting money out to small firms which can use them. This compares with the CBILS, where only half of the applications have been approved. We still do not know why, or how many have been rejected and how many are still in the queue. One thing that we will be asking for is that in the interests of transparency, the Government should publish data on the number of rejections and applications, and list the banks concerned. After all, if can do it, why cannot the Government?

I press the Government to think again about the way in which they are restarting the economy. In particular, I call for a more nuanced approach to the ending of the current support schemes. Many sections of our economy, employing hundreds of thousands of people, have opened this weekend with important social distancing restrictions in place. The hospitality industry has restarted, which is good, but at much reduced levels of revenue; these are not sustainable and may translate into a risk to hundreds and thousands of jobs. Live performances, including concerts and the theatre sector, are still forbidden and many of our most important arts organisations are on the point of closure. The announcement today of additional funding for our arts and cultural bodies is very welcome, but we urgently need the long-promised road map to the reopening of live music and theatre venues. While the buildings may be saved, what will be performed? Many directors of small limited companies—often freelancers in the creative industries—have been denied support and are really struggling as a result. The Government are taking a one-size-fits-all approach to the furlough, when it is increasingly clear that we need a differential approach. Some sectors, such as tourism and the creative industries, are more affected by the public health measures than others, so surely the economic support measures have to match that.

The Government have been talking up a new deal in recent days, and we will presumably know more after the Budget later this week. From recent debates in this House and from polling data, it is clear that the idea of a green recovery is shared widely across the nation. People want jobs to be secured and new quality jobs to be created, but they do not want the economy to return to where it was. They want tangible action on retrofitting insulation in our housing stock, manufacturing low-carbon engines, adapting our towns and cities to walking and cycling, creating green spaces, and reforesting and rewilding.

To conclude, we welcome the Bill, but its measures are modest. The Government have shown that they are willing to take action to relieve the worst impacts of the pandemic, but we face the deepest and sharpest recession, possibly for hundreds of years, and government power has to continue to be used. The decisions taken by the Government in the coming weeks will determine how many jobs are saved and how many businesses survive. The commitment to do “whatever it takes” cannot be a hollow promise. In short, we need this Bill, but we also need an extension to the furlough scheme for specific sectors, an urgent job-creation programme with a green recovery at its heart, and real action on infrastructure, not just words. I urge the Government not to step back when our economy, businesses and workers desperately need their support.

Lord Shipley Portrait Lord Shipley (LD) [V]
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

My Lords, I remind the House that I am a vice-president of the Local Government Association. I welcome the aims of the Bill, because it can help reduce lasting damage to the economy. The Bill is said by the Local Government Association to be a

“positive step in the journey towards economic recovery”

and I concur with its view. The broad aims of the Bill secured all-party support in the House of Commons, although it has been sent to us to examine in detail, which we must now do.

The pandemic has been unequal in its financial impact on households. Some households are in serious financial difficulty; other households with more secure incomes may have been spending less than normal. We need those with cash to spend more of it now to help generate jobs for others. This Bill is one way of encouraging that higher spending, with the obvious further benefit of generating extra tax income for local and national government.

In terms of licensing, no two places are quite the same, so a flexible approach—place by place—will be essential. For that reason, I hope the opportunity will be taken to review very soon the powers of local authorities in licensing and the powers held in Whitehall. This was needed anyway, but the pandemic has revealed anomalies. For example, decisions on the level of fees charged to licensed premises through the late-night levy were made in Whitehall. Pubs were closed for many weeks, but they still had to pay the levy because councils could not change the law. Surely councils should have the power to reduce or waive the levy fees without asking central government.

I said earlier that the Bill commands broad all-party support, and it contains many sensible proposals. That does not mean, however, that we should not scrutinise the detailed provisions of the Bill, and I hope the Minister will accept the need to look for improvements in Committee and later stages. There are a number of issues that I would wish to see probed in Committee next week and no doubt colleagues on our Benches will have others. I think we need to assess whether the costs borne by local authorities are at least neutral. There are issues around the hours of work permitted on construction sites. There are questions around the sale of alcohol in open containers to be consumed on the pavement. There are concerns about the right of pedestrians to walk safely on the pavement, which is a particular concern for those who are visually impaired. There is a need for quarterly reviews of the practical operation of this legislation, with scope for amendment. Perhaps we should consider whether enough will be done to ensure that necessary pre-consultation can take place before a 14-day period is triggered.

Finally, I wonder whether the Minister will confirm that the housing delivery test requirements of local authorities should not apply in view of the lock- down. Will the Government temporarily suspend the presumption in favour of the five-year housing land supply and the housing delivery test? I look forward to hearing the Minister’s reply and to the contributions during this Second Reading.

Lord Best Portrait Lord Best (CB) [V]
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

My Lords, my comments relate to planning. I declare my interests as a vice-president of the Town and Country Planning Association and of the Local Government Association. I fully support the planning elements in the Bill, which are sensible and should minimise potential delays in the planning process caused by the pandemic.

However, as the Minister mentioned, the Prime Minister has spoken of more radical changes to planning to speed up the drive to “build, build, build”. I commend the PM’s emphasis on building back better, with more beautiful, greener homes, but there has also been talk of extending the controversial permitted development rights of housebuilders and developers so that they can bypass planning requirements and, indeed, avoid providing any affordable housing in their developments.

It is true that underresourced planning departments are sometimes slow, outwitted by well-resourced developers or overwhelmed by public hostility to a development. However, the answer is not to diminish the powers of the elected local planning authorities in the hope that the developers and housebuilders who have let us down in the past will do better if left to do as they please. Effective local planning requires adequate funding, which can be properly paid for by the developers which stand to gain so much from planning decisions.

Specifically on increasing the speed of development, we fortunately have some clear insights from the review that the Government commissioned from Sir Oliver Letwin. This explains why it takes so long for developers to actually build their developments: they only build more when they have sold what they have already built. Sir Oliver spells out that if we want much faster progress on big sites, we need to organise simultaneous development of a variety of types and tenures on these sites: homes that are affordable and for market renting, homes for older people and students, as well as plots for custom building by small builders.

Sir Oliver explains that councils could achieve this by buying sites through their own development corporations, capturing uplift in land values, and parcelling out the plots within a master plan—stronger, not weaker, planning; taking back control of development from the oligopoly of the volume housebuilders. Does the Minister agree that this positive, proactive approach should represent the direction of travel for our planning system?

Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate Portrait Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con) [V]
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

My Lords, we should all welcome the general thrust of the Bill, especially the declared purpose of assisting businesses, especially the small and medium-sized ones, in the current crisis. For the most part, concerns from individuals and organisations about inconvenience caused by changes near to them or affecting their interests—for instance, open-air activities or the extension of hours on building sites—can be assuaged to some extent by the temporary nature of the relevant provisions and the accepted obligation already given by the Government to come back to Parliament if any extensions or retentions of these provisions are contemplated or, in their view, necessary.

However, my remarks today, like those of the previous speaker, will concentrate on the parts of the Bill that deal with planning issues. I do this in the full knowledge that the Government are currently undertaking a comprehensive review of planning law and regulations—as predicated in remarks made earlier this year by the Housing Secretary, my right honourable friend in the other place, Robert Jenrick, and my noble friend earlier—which is to be set out in due course.

As a lowly PPS in the Department of the Environment, I worked on the delivery of development corporations with my boss at the time, Sir David Trippier, to areas or zones of economic deprivation in the 1980s, and I regarded the special planning powers vested in their boards as key to revival. Such targeted zones, especially in inner cities, will in my view be necessary again in a post-Covid world. I hope my noble friend the Minister will look sympathetically with his colleagues at this possibility.

However, the reference to changing the planning appeals system in this Bill, which seems to emanate from some of the proposals for a White Paper, should be examined closely. I believe these ideas were contributed by the independent review panel, to which my noble friend referred earlier. These changes, unlike most of the Bill’s contents, are to be permanent, ahead of other more comprehensive changes, so we need to be most careful in examining these things as the Bill proceeds. I assume these changes will remain as part of the fuller proposals.

The balance between developers and planners and the communities the planners serve is sensitive. Many local planning decisions are already defeated under the current appeals system because of the sheer cost of the process. This is deterring many local authorities, with limited resources and strict rules on public expenditure, from standing up to speculative developers, often in cases where the development sought might be damaging to the local environment and unwanted by local communities. Some developers with large resources are unaccountable in the same way and therefore in a privileged position.

At first sight, any simplification of the appeals process could be thought to address the inability of local authorities to resist unacceptable applications. It is vital that balancing the protection of communities and the environment with the need to build more suitable houses and other buildings is maintained and, where necessary, altered so that the default does not unduly favour the developer.

On that point, I hope my noble friend will appreciate the problems with Section 106 provisions, which sometimes require a developer to offer some community contribution out of his profits. This has often proven a blunt sword. I trust that, in any new proposals to come before us, such provisions will be enhanced and clarified. I know of many cases where developers have avoided their responsibilities under Section 106 and any community infrastructure levy. It is vital that planning proposals, whether in this Bill or later legislation, maintain the important balance between community cohesion and acceptance, and the need to build.

Lord Blunkett Portrait Lord Blunkett (Lab) [V]
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

My Lords, as my noble friend Lord Stevenson said, many aspects of this Bill are simple and straightforward and are to be welcomed. However, others are precursors to the wider planning Bill which was referred to by the noble Lords, Lord Kirkhope and Lord Best.

Given that I have only four minutes, I will concentrate on those aspects which concern me and which we should be clear should not be carried forward as a long-term proposition, because one person’s regulation is another person’s protection. The idea that, if we just sweep away many of the blockages in regulation, the enterprise and creativity of local businesses will somehow flourish without damaging the interests of the wider community, is simply untrue. It is untrue because those regulations and requirements have been brought in over many years for a purpose: to retain the balance between economic activity and enterprise, on the one hand, and the safe- guarding of people’s interests on the other. We should bear that in mind.

Other aspects of this Bill slightly bemuse me. While I am totally in favour of kick-starting elements of the economy that have been so badly damaged by the lock- down, I cannot see for the life of me that licensed premises selling alcohol off-premises—as though they will all now be off-licences—will actually do very much, other than fuel the already worrying concerns about activity late at night, particularly in the major cities, which has already been referred to but which I want to reinforce. Eating and drinking outside in an orderly fashion—linked, I stress, to the premises and not detached from them—is very sensible and, in the remaining summer months and next year, could contribute to not only economic activity but a different atmosphere in cities, towns and villages.

However, it must be done in a way that does not, as has been referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, damage the interests of those who will be vulnerable to unplanned and unrestricted obstacles on pavements. I have been asked, quite understandably, by the Royal National Institute of Blind People and others to draw attention to this and to say that there must be sensible safeguards if we are not to have almost Kafkaesque episodes like something out of “Monty Python”. I have a dog; other people do not. My current dog would not take a tender morsel off the table as it passes; one of my previous dogs undoubtedly would have done. I am just trying to lighten the load a bit this afternoon.

I am most concerned about the extension of hours for construction. It is welcome that the Minister, in introducing this Second Reading, indicated that this would not apply to neighbours. Believe me, the light pollution, noise pollution and damage cannot be justified by prolonged hours, as extension into the night will probably lead to less safety rather than more. Turning day into night is not the way to kick-start our economy. By all means, let us ensure that we have the enterprise we need to get us back on stream again, but let us also take the words of Winston Churchill from 1909: the worst should never undercut the very worst.

Baroness Doocey Portrait Baroness Doocey (LD) [V]
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

My Lords, I will focus on those aspects of the Bill relating to tourism. Tourism generates revenues of £155 billion per annum for the UK economy, including £28 billion in export earnings. The industry employs 3 million people, making it the UK’s third-largest employer. Every region has at least 100,000 tourism-related jobs. The sector has been disproportionately affected by the Covid pandemic; inbound tourist numbers are forecast to decline by 59% and expenditure by 63% this year, resulting in a loss to the UK economy of nearly £20 billion and a loss to the domestic tourism industry of a further £25 billion.

Councils have been working hard on measures to help hospitality businesses reopen, for example using town centres differently so that businesses can operate outside. However, a lot more can be done. While the Bill contains welcome new flexibility for businesses to put tables and chairs on pavements, there are at least three further measures we could take to help firms which have lost months of trading income.

First, the package travel regulations should be amended to make transport a mandatory component of package travel, thus allowing small businesses to make a combined offer of, say, accommodation in a guest house and a meal at a local pub without incurring all the responsibilities of a package holiday operator. Research suggests that this could boost domestic tourism by £2.2 billion with no loss in consumer protection.

Secondly, we should remove restrictions preventing caravan parks operating during winter. These parks have already lost between 35% and 50% of their income, and two-fifths of sites presently operate less than eight months of the year. There is an opportunity here to boost domestic tourism with year-round openings for all.

Thirdly, we should remove planning restrictions that prevent self-catering cottages being rented out as long-term lets during winter. These restrictions have a perverse impact, leaving holiday accommodation empty for many months of the year, with a knock-on effect for local pubs and restaurants, which see decreased trade. Over 80% of tourism businesses either were closed temporarily or have ceased trading altogether as a result of coronavirus. Some 92% say that their revenue has at least halved; 75% of their employees were furloughed, compared to just 24% in the jobs market as a whole. This is little short of a catastrophe for the industry.

The Government have the tools to help these businesses survive against the odds and to save jobs as the furlough scheme ebbs away. There can and should be a renaissance in domestic tourism here in the UK as well as a fresh look at how to offer the best to people visiting from around the world. Let us not shut out trade for the sake of arbitrary planning rules. Instead, we can hand much more power to local councils to make their own decisions over how to help the industry in their parts of the country.

I would welcome an initial response from the Minister to these suggestions since I intend to table amendments in Committee on all three subjects.

Earl of Clancarty Portrait The Earl of Clancarty (CB) [V]
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

My Lords, although this Bill has the grand title of Business and Planning Bill it is something of a pot-pourri and the emphasis seems to be on consumer spending in the high street in bars and restaurants and the urgent encouragement of a single industry—construction—rather than on an industrial strategy in the round, as the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, pointed out. However, much current thinking has it that those towns which were the worst hit by austerity are also going to be the worst hit economically by Covid, so the encouragement of new industries, such as green industries, particularly in the worst affected regions, is urgently required.

Thinking locally, what discussions are the Government having with the Local Government Association about taking these measures forward and how will councils be supported financially to do so?

Of the measures to help the hospitality industry, I particularly approve of bringing cafes more on to the street, continental style, and I hope this will be a more permanent fixture across the country. It is one of those seemingly small but significant measures that can help knit communities together, although it has been prompted, of course, by the requirement for social distancing.

I support the LGA’s call for a range of different and alternative spaces, including roads and parking spaces, to be licensed when it is safe to do so.

We have heard a great deal about the need to get the hospitality sector back on its feet both in the media and in Parliament, including through this Bill, but not a great deal about the arts, which has similar problems with social distancing measures, at least not until today. The rescue package has been welcomed by arts leaders, but there must be a concern about how far £880 million in grant money will go and what will be lost in the arts, particularly as this money has come so late. I wish the Chancellor did not use the term “world beating”. However, much as the arts is grateful for it, this Covid emergency package for the arts is not world beating unless your world is confined to the shores of this country.

“Planning” is a curious word because it can mean different things to different people. Does the Minister agree that the planning in the title of the Bill should be for society, for our communities, above everything else and that there will not be a conflict between this Bill and preserving our community centres and cultural venues—the buildings themselves—that would surely go against the spirit of the arts rescue package. This concern was raised by Greg Clark at Second Reading in the Commons. He warned that

“we should guard against granting planning permissions that take them”—

meaning theatres and concert halls—

“immediately out of those very valued uses.”—[Official Report, Commons, 29/6/2020; col. 53.]

As with the hospitality sector, concomitant measures are not yet being drawn up for the arts. I use the word concomitant because of the close association between the two sectors, particularly with regard to tourism. After hospitality, the Government now need to work on getting our arts venues, theatres, concert halls and clubs open as soon as possible. The longer this is left the more trouble the arts will be in, even with the rescue package. As with all other sectors, the business aspect is suffering with a loss of revenue from tickets. Also, if the self-employment support scheme and furloughing do not continue while our performing arts venues, in particular, remain shut, then the talents of many freelancers and permanent staff will be lost, the creative economy will collapse and the arts and our culture generally will be considerably poorer as well as our standing internationally. That cannot be emphasised enough.

Lord Blencathra Portrait Lord Blencathra (Con) [V]
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend the Minister on his excellent opening speech, especially the announcement on wheelchairs and pavement access. He will make a worthwhile contribution to this House.

The Bill generally is welcome although I have a few concerns about some issues. First, as chair of the Delegated Powers Committee, I can say that it will consider the Bill on Wednesday morning and aims to report later that day, allowing a very tight window for Peers to table amendments on Wednesday on any of its recommendations if they so wish. It is a pleasure to see for a change a Bill with Henry VIII clauses all limited to changing merely the dates and which are all affirmative. However, the committee will be interested in the amount of guidance that may be given without parliamentary oversight and the apparently new concept of conditions which will have the force of law but no parliamentary approval.

I appreciate that the Government need to move quickly—there is no point in legislating for an open-air cafe society when the one week of English summer is over— but, on a personal note, I was concerned that the non-obstruction provisions in Clause 3(6) did not mention keeping sufficient space on pavements for wheelchairs and children’s pushchairs to pass; nor is it specifically mentioned under the condition in Clause 5. My noble friend the Minister, the Deputy Leader, may say that this is common sense and that local authorities are bound to make that a condition. Not so—not because they are hostile to wheelchair users but because we are never thought about. Every time I have been in Paris in past years I often cannot get through on the pavement because of the tables and chairs, not to mention the thousands of electric scooters cluttering the pavements, which we will soon have too. The carnage in Paris will be repeated in London. People are apologetic, jump up and move the tables but it never crosses their mind that there would be an obstruction problem for certain pavement users when the tables were set out. The same would have happened here— not out of malice or disrespect but because of sheer thoughtlessness.

I was going to move an amendment in Committee to put this in the Bill, but I congratulate my noble friend and the Government on introducing this national condition. I hope that my note to his department last week threatening to move the amendment had a role to play.

I am also concerned about the possibility of 24/7 construction. For six years I suffered the noise of massive construction works carried out near Marsham Street. The last two years were not so bad as they fitted out the inside, but the first two years were pure hell as massive power hammers demolished the old buildings, with 100 decibels of noise from 8 am until 6 pm. Of course, we must get construction working flat out to catch up but there must be limits to protect local residents. It would be odd if Heathrow has to close for almost seven hours at night and has noise limits but construction sites could carry on regardless.

I am further concerned that 24/7 construction work near special wildlife sites such as SSSIs could be damaging to the species affected. I declare my interests as in the register. Local authorities must check what conditions on construction near these sites were imposed to protect the wildlife there when the application was granted, and not diminish those protections now.

In conclusion, I suggest that where there are no residents for 300 metres, construction can go on 24/7. However, where there are residents living closer than 300 metres, noisy outdoor construction should be limited to a maximum of 7 am in the morning until 10 pm at night. That is an extra five hours a day work time in residential areas. All internal and quiet work could continue 24/7. With these provisos, I support the Bill.

Baroness Wilcox of Newport Portrait Baroness Wilcox of Newport (Lab) [V]
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

My Lords, I draw the House’s attention to my declared interests as a councillor, as noted in the register.

We are broadly supportive of the Bill, which will enable businesses, particularly in the hospitality sector, to reopen quickly after coronavirus restrictions. We have consistently been calling on the Government to work with local authorities and take innovative action to help businesses both expand and adapt operations to boost trade. However, the provisions to relax licensing requirements so that cafes, bars and restaurants can serve customers outside must also be accompanied by clarity on the role local authorities have to play in making decisions at a local level.

There must also be further assurances over how relaxed licensing requirements will be policed, particularly where restaurants, bars and cafes are in residential areas or where these premises open out on to the street. Councils have already been working hard on measures that can be put in place to help hospitality businesses to reopen, including relaxing requirements, and considering how town centres can be used differently to enable businesses to operate safely outside. The Bill will help to ensure a consistent approach that can be taken across the country.

However, councils need to have the power both to refuse applications where these cannot be managed safely, and to act if any issues arise following the reopening of premises. The full responsibility and cost for making this policy work successfully does not sit with local authorities alone. With the initial burden falling on them, it is crucial that councils are supported financially to meet the costs of processing an expected large number of applications in a short period of time.

The provisions in the Bill will result in an extra workload for local authorities, whose budgets have already been stretched dangerously thin by 10 years of deep cuts, and now Covid-19 has dealt them a further blow. The Government should also publish a report detailing the extra costs accrued by councils as a result of processing increased volumes of planning applications through the new deemed consent route and additional environmental approvals. Consultation with local councils is therefore essential before making further changes.

It is right that the proposed licensing measures in the Bill are only temporary. In the long term there needs to be a comprehensive review of our outdated licensing legislation to ensure that it is fit for the future.

There is also great concern for the safety and well-being of people who work in this industry, and the Bill should require pubs to take certain steps to ensure the safety of workers. We should look at placing conditions on premises which want to apply for licences. They must first publish a risk assessment, including details of the risk from hours of operations, the use of cash transactions, provision of door security—including safe toilets—protection of BAME workers, who have statistically been shown to be at greater risk, and detail the provisions for sick pay and how they intend to implement trade union recognition for staff.

There are also concerns from the industry itself that the Bill introduces only minor changes and that the Government are ignoring the most important issues that they currently face, such as the difficulties that pubs have with rent after months of not trading, and the importance of encouraging consumer confidence to return to use the facilities of the hospitality industry. In essence, a reasonable first attempt, but could and must do better.

Baroness Kramer Portrait Baroness Kramer (LD) [V]
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

My Lords, I will address a range of issues, all of them quite quickly. First, Section 78 of the Coronavirus Act 2020 failed to include Transport for London and at least some development agencies in its definition of local authorities. It has left these bodies with a legal minefield as they act through virtual decision meetings, and it is seriously complicating economic recovery. It should all be in scope of the Bill, so will the Minister use the Bill to correct what I assume was very much an oversight?

Secondly, so many firms I have talked to are afraid that, as they bring back their workforce and customers following government guidelines, they will still be sued if an employee or customer catches Covid. They have no faith in insurance policies after the fiasco with business interruption insurance, and they do not understand why the Government have not offered indemnity to employers who follow the guidelines. Will the Minister please respond to this issue?

Thirdly, civil society groups like Protect and WhistleblowersUK are being inundated with phone calls from employees who have witnessed furlough fraud or the bending of safety rules, and all of this will increase as more businesses open. HMRC has set a terrible precedent in closing its fraud phone hotline and telling people to do online reporting—which of course they do not because they do not trust it, and because the forms demand so much disclosure. Will the Minister guarantee today that the HSE will keep manning its safety reporting hotline so that we can be absolutely on top of any abuse?

Lastly, the Minister referred to bounce-back loans, and I join him in being delighted that over £30 billion has been loaned to companies under the scheme. However, he will know that very many of those who have applied have been turned down, not because they are unsuitable but because the banks who have dominated these loans have no wish to add to their balance sheets. The banks have chosen not to on-lend cheap money from the term-lending facility they have with the Bank of England to enable more diverse and other players to engage extensively in the bounce-back scheme.

The British Business Bank has been rapidly trying to accredit diverse organisations to participate in lending under the bounce-back scheme, but it is slow going. Will the Minister make sure that for the future we have a structure in place that means that, when a programme and scheme like this is being put forward, it does not put the banks, frankly, in the catbird seat and enable them to do what they have been doing, which is cherry picking the customers who get these loans and leaving a very large number, particularly of small companies, in significant difficulty?

Lord Carlile of Berriew Portrait Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB) [V]
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

My Lords, I too support the Bill as an urgent and temporary measure designed to alleviate the effects of Covid-19 and stimulate the planning system. However, can the Minister confirm clearly that these are truly intended to be temporary measures and that standards of good design, particularly for the permanent future, will be maintained and, if at all possible, enhanced? I agree with every word of my noble friend Lord Best about the dangers of relaxing the high standards of planning design that we rightly aspire to. Modern techniques allow the most attractive, low-cost homes to be built at genuinely low cost. There is no need to cut corners.

I have one concern about the Bill, as a resident of the London Borough of Hackney. Our hard-working police force, based at Stoke Newington police station, has faced unacceptable challenge from disorder in the streets and unlawful large-scale drinking. I hope that the Minister will confirm that the changes contained in the Bill simply cannot be the basis of heightening disorder—whether it is by young people or older people, it does not matter. The police should not be required to attend at these scenes; the scenes should not occur.

My third point is about the way in which planning and party politics intersect. When I first became a Member of Parliament, for the beautiful Welsh constituency of Montgomeryshire, Lord Hooson QC, who had been a Member for Montgomeryshire before me and who had led me in a number of planning appeals when I was a young barrister, spoke to me very firmly about planning. He said that there were dangers in planning applications for politicians and political parties. He reminded me that one should never allow one’s political interests to interfere with sound principle. So my final point is to ask the Minister to confirm that it is embarrassing and sometimes unethical for developers to be seen as being too close to political parties, Members of Parliament, Ministers and councillors. Planning is an objective matter—there are rules—and paying large sums of money to have dinner near someone who is thought to have influence should never be acceptable. The lessons of history—some very high-profile cases—tell us that.

Lord Naseby Portrait Lord Naseby (Con) [V]
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

My Lords, first, I recognise my noble friend on the Front Bench and say that it is hugely welcome that we have a senior Member on the Front Bench introducing the Bill who has a wide experience of local authorities and the areas we are talking about. The Bill is hugely welcome, and I for one say well done to the whole team that put it together in such a short time.

However, we have to recognise that it is only a start, because an avalanche of unemployment is coming down the track, and we need a spirit almost like that of the Blitz 80 years ago, which, ironically, started on 7 September 1940 and lasted until 11 May 1941. I suspect that September 2020 will last through to May 2021. It will be our challenge and it will require a herculean effort.

Much is made in debates of the V-shaped recovery. In this debate, I would rather risk doing too much now and pulling back later when the economy has fully recovered than the alternative of falling short, with too little stimulus, and allowing the economy to suffer and fall into a dangerous liquidity trap. The case for bold action, to increase the watchful public’s expectation of a steady recovery, remains as strong as ever. The Bill, short as it is, is just a start, but this is about not just the speed of response but the depth too. I hope that my noble friends on the Front Bench will resist the temptation to micromanage the whole thing; that applies to amendments as well.

My focus is the construction industry; I used to be chairman of a housing committee and a director of a major construction company. The Bill principally deals with existing situations, such as permissions expiring, but I make a plea to ensure that there is close involvement with the relevant local authorities. Our objective is to speed up housebuilding now. We need a strategy to tackle the challenge of an average home costing eight times average earnings, compared to only four times in the 1990s, plus the challenge of social housing, on which all Governments have failed in the last 20 years. There is no doubt that we need about 100,000 of those homes. There is a way, which lies dormant. I refer to the New Towns Act. Why not speed up designation of new towns, or new garden towns, all over the country? We have a concept that has been proven over time—Welwyn Garden City, Milton Keynes, the development in Northampton, where I happened to be the Member of Parliament—driven by the new towns corporations, and there is no need for any new legislation. It works because all the legislation is there; relationships with local authorities are built up. It is successful and it is sitting there. Why do we not use it?

Lord Hain Portrait Lord Hain (Lab) [V]
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

My Lords, although the Bill provides a welcome range of measures to help businesses post Covid-19, it also represents a missed opportunity. For example, there is no acknowledgment of the call by the trade union Unite for the Government to involve the country’s 100,000 trade union health and safety representatives to help with test, track and trace, and with finding safer ways of working, to deal with the ongoing risks from Covid-19. The crisis is also an opportunity to make workplaces more productive, by encouraging closer co-operation at work and challenging both sides of industry to boost productivity by working in partnership. For example, in May, the Food and Drink Federation and the GMB, Unite, USDAW and the Bakers, Food and Allied Workers Union highlighted how partnership between food and drink manufacturers, trade unions and employees has enhanced both the safety of workers and the effective running of workplaces.

The Government should encourage employers and unions to explore new ways of working together and embracing radical change. The Covid-19 crisis has shown that very many established ways of working are outdated. Many are inflexible; they hinder, rather than help, firms’ efforts to match their product or service to customers’ requirements; they undermine, rather than underpin, employers’ efforts to keep up with the competition; and they often alienate, rather than motivate, employees by treating them unfairly or locking them in to unrewarding routine tasks. By working together, unions and employers can deliver dramatic improvements in performance, boosting productivity and profitability, lifting living standards and enhancing job prospects. Instead of routine, robust co-operation between employers and unions, of the kind practised in Germany, Britain has low employee motivation, lagging productivity, lost competitiveness, jobs in jeopardy, shocking skills gaps, grossly unequal rewards and grotesque discrimination at work.

Instead of world-class standards of product quality and customer service, British businesses too often settle for second best. With a few notable exceptions, we have seen our market share drop and jobs disappear. The Prime Minister was right to cite Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal as an example to follow, but he omitted to mention that the New Deal also radically reformed industrial relations in the United States, bringing in the National Labor Relations Board to even up the balance of power between bosses and workers and encourage union recognition. That did not create fair pay overnight, but it took a big step in the right direction. The Business Secretary and Treasury Ministers have held a productive series of sector-by-sector meetings with trade union and business leaders. The next step should be government backing to bring both sides of industry together in sectoral bargaining, to put a floor under pay and conditions of employment, raise and protect standards, and stop responsible employers being undercut by irresponsible rivals and workers being exploited unfairly.

Winston Churchill once said, “Never let a crisis go to waste, but turn it into an opportunity”—a chance to do things that might never have seemed possible before.

Baroness Randerson Portrait Baroness Randerson (LD) [V]
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

My Lords, I understand the temptation to take a hatchet to the—sometimes annoying—bureaucracy associated with the planning system, but one man’s bureaucracy is another’s fundamental democratic right. Many noble Lords will have experience of serving as a councillor, as I have, and will know that planning applications are a sensitive issue. When you add alcohol licensing to that, you have a combustible combination. The short cuts proposed here, allowing pubs and restaurants to install pavement furniture, go beyond streamlining, but some sensible amendments could make them workable. At the moment, the provisions are self-defeating. If you give people only seven days to object, they will probably object, so give them time to talk to neighbours and find out more.

There are concerns about the shortness of consultation and the method to be used. The need only to display a notice, and no legal requirement to post the application online, is plainly ridiculous in the age of Zoom. The lamp-post notice is created on a computer, so posting it online is easy. People with sight loss cannot see lamp-post notices. As the Bill is drafted, it is discriminatory, because they are the people, together with wheelchair users, whose safety is most at risk when a café springs up on the pavement, forcing them into the road. I urge the Government to rethink the methods and timing of consultation. If the local authority does not deal with the application within 10 working days, it is automatically to be granted for a year. Why should local residents have to put up with an unsuitable use of the pavement for a whole year, simply because the council did not react fast enough? Surely three months would be long enough before it is reconsidered.

Any pavement development must leave sufficient space so that people, including wheelchair users, can pass safely. Recently, councils have been reconfiguring roads to encourage more cyclists, so they may be prepared to do that for pavement cafés too. However, some new cycle lanes have obliterated existing bus lanes, and this must be prevented. In future, we will need efficient bus services more than ever. Whether for cyclists or drinkers, any road reconfiguration needs to remember the buses.

The Bill also contains amendments to the licensing and testing of goods vehicles, and grants some temporary exemptions. It amends the requirements for medical reports for older drivers of those vehicles. These are issues of road safety, and any loosening of requirements must be looked at closely, especially in relation to buses, where passenger safety is at risk. If the Bill had come to this House in April, I would have understood. Now, we are giving the Government additional powers after the event. They have already reinstated the need for MOTs. They have never asked for powers to reduce the equally onerous requirements for those needing to renew their licences at the age of 70. Once again, the Government’s approach is to belatedly ask for a haphazard mismatch of additional powers, with no evidence of a strategic approach.

Lord Young of Cookham Portrait Lord Young of Cookham (Con) [V]
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

My Lords, others have raised the concerns of inner-city residents about the implications of Clause 11, which will encourage drinking in the streets into the early hours, and I hope my noble friend will consider whether the safeguards mentioned in the opening speech are in fact an adequate response.

Nearly all the measures in the Bill are temporary but I want to speak about one measure which is permanent —namely, Clause 20—as did my noble friend Lord Kirkhope. I speak as a former Minister for Planning who put the Planning and Compensation Act into law in 1991. This was meant to update the 1947 Act and provide a long- lasting framework for a modern planning system. I have lost count of the number of planning Acts since then with the same objective, and my successors seem to have fared no better, so we all hope that the proposed planning Bill trailed by my noble friend will finally take the trick.

Clause 20 implements one of the recommendations of the independent review of planning appeal inquiries, the Rosewell report. Of the 22 recommendations made last year, 16 had been implemented by March this year. It would be helpful to hear, perhaps in Committee, of the progress with the remaining six. The appeals system is one of the main blockages in the planning system and I welcome measures to speed it up and provide more homes. The main cause of appeals is the absence of adopted local plans decades after the system was introduced, and perhaps my noble friend can explain what action is being taken to get these up and running so fewer appeals are needed to fill the vacuum.

I have some specific questions for my noble friend on Clause 20. One category of decision is appeals in relation to an application to modify or discharge affordable housing requirements under Section 106BC of the 1990 Act. Affordable housing and planning appeals are a sensitive subject at the moment, so can my noble friend confirm that this proposed reform will not make it easier for developers to duck their responsibility for providing affordable homes through the “viability test”, as has been happening, mentioned by my noble friend Lord Kirkhope? Indeed, we should be making it tougher. In passing, I endorse what the noble Lord, Lord Best, said about planning and implementing Sir Oliver Letwin’s recommendations.

The Minister said that the clause would allow the Planning Inspectorate to use more than one type of procedure as part of the same appeal—part local inquiry, part written recommendations. I understand that this hybrid system, which on the face of it sounds more complicated, was tested last year, and my noble friend outlined some of the results, but can he say whether there have been any cost implications for any of the parties involved, particularly local authorities, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson?

Finally, is the Secretary of State going to give guidance to the inspectorate about how the flexibility in the clause is to be used, or will the position remain as it is; namely, entirely down to the discretion of the inspectorate? Can he say when the measures in the Bill will come into effect? In the meantime, is progress being made with more virtual enquiries to avoid a pandemic backlog?

Perhaps in Committee we can have more detail of what is proposed, as suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, but in the meantime, on the basis that the intention of the clause is to speed up the provision of more homes and to “build, build, build”, I welcome it.

Lord Bilimoria Portrait Lord Bilimoria (CB) [V]
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

My Lords, the construction and hospitality industries have been severely affected by the coronavirus pandemic. Over 40% of construction sector workers were furloughed as of the middle of May, and ONS statistics published in June show that food and beverage service activities dropped by nearly 90% in the last quarter. So, for the hospitality sector, the Business and Planning Bill will support recovery by allowing pubs, restaurants and cafés to serve outside, as well as the off-premise sale of alcohol, to make the most of this summer while upholding social distancing. The Bill also makes the application process quicker for construction sites to extend their operating hours to accelerate building works, speeds up planning approvals and appeals, and digitises parts of the planning application. The Bill will support small businesses to access the finance they need during the pandemic by enabling the process for the bounce-back loan scheme to be as simple as possible, ensuring that these loans reach businesses quickly, easily and at scale.

The efforts of the British Business Bank, Her Majesty’s Treasury and approved lenders provided a critical lifeline to many businesses, saving thousands of jobs and livelihoods. There remain critical challenges ahead and banks have a vital role to play in the recovery, yet we are by no means out of the woods. There are big concerns about a finance cliff edge in October as the job retention scheme and tax deferments end. The May PMIs continued to indicate a sharp fall in activity. The growth indicator of the CBI, of which I am president, suggests that activity fell at the fastest pace in the three months to May since the indicator began in 2003. The ONS survey on the business impact of Covid-19 reported that cash is still a huge issue, with 42% of businesses having cash reserves to last less than six months. Some £42.9 billion delivered to over 1 million businesses by the loan schemes shows how vital this finance has been and still is to business. Nearly £30 billion has been paid to almost 1 million businesses through the coronavirus business bounce-back loan scheme alone. These 100% loans are guaranteed up to £50,000, with over 80% of them being approved. Does the Minister agree that the Coronavirus Business Interruption Loan Scheme—CBILS—has not been as successful, with less than 50% approvals? However, these loans are still very necessary.

With every pound invested in construction generating £2.92 in value to the UK, according to CBI research, this activity will support economic stability and future growth in the regions across the UK through increased spending and improved productivity for other industries. The construction industry has welcomed the efforts to allow more flexible working hours. Businesses have welcomed the Government’s temporary extensions to planning permission periods and consents.

From speaking to businesses of all sizes across the country, the CBI has a clear vision for the recovery of the UK’s economy, and in a recent letter to the Chancellor, the CBI called for the next wave of government action to support and protect the economy and save jobs. Firms need to know this side of the summer—that is why I am glad that the Government are speeding through this Bill—what government support will be available. The need is immediate and critical. The CBI has put forward ideas to target at-scale action to kick-start growth, support viable businesses and save jobs. These include: to develop schemes to support jobs with a focus on young people and the long-term unemployed; to extend grant support for SMEs via local authorities to save businesses vital to local communities and key supply chains; to extend business rates relief to mid-sized businesses in all sectors to reduce fixed costs for the next three months; to extend the windows for new applications for the CBILS by at least a further three months; to consider further policy measures to stimulate demand in the economy. The restaurant industry, for example, is asking for VAT to be reduced temporarily to 5%. Will the Government consider sectoral VAT reductions?

To conclude, the Secretary of State for Business, Alok Sharma, said in the other place that many businesses have lost revenue as a result of measures intended to halt the spread of Covid-19. He described the purpose of the Bill as being

“to provide an adrenaline boost to key sectors of our economy”,—[Official Report, Commons, 29/6/20; col. 51.]

enabling them to reopen and increase sales as some of the Covid-19 safety measures are relaxed.

Lord Adonis Portrait Lord Adonis (Lab)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

My Lords, this is my first opportunity in the House to welcome the noble Lord, Lord Greenhalgh, and I do so very warmly. He comes to us with a wealth of experience from local government, which is in short supply, and he is therefore very well placed to serve.

I support strongly most of what is in the Bill, subject only to the concerns that have rightly been raised about anti-social behaviour, where it looks as if the Government might need to give more reserved powers to local authorities. The problem is not what is in the Bill. I would like, in the short time I have, to raise three issues with the Minister about early action needed in this crisis in respect of matters not in the Bill.

The first is schools. Amazingly, we are opening pubs nationwide before we open schools. The headline in today’s Evening Standard says it all:

“We are leaving a generation of children behind”.

The key requirement now is to ensure that all schools are open for all pupils in September and, where head teachers and governing bodies wish it, they should also have the power to be open for a week or two before the start of term, particularly for years 11 and 13, where pupils face public examinations and may have missed much, if not all, of this term. Legislation giving head teachers and governors the explicit power to open early before September and to require pupil attendance would, I believe, be highly appropriate in the crisis.

Secondly, there is public transport. It is still the case, as I know from using the Jubilee line every morning, that virtually no one is on public transport at the moment. I can assure the House that at 7.30 am this morning at Baker Street, coming into Westminster, I was the only person on the platform and there was only one other person in my carriage. To make public transport safe and to make it appear to be safe, particularly in London and in cities with major commuter flows, we need to go beyond the current mask provisions to introduce staggered working and trading times for the start and end of the working day and give Transport for London and other public authorities the power to enforce them so that people can be reassured that social distancing can be maintained. The problem at the moment is not that there are too many people on public transport but that most people who need to use it will not go near it because they have a perception that it is unsafe. Until we can break that, we will not be able to get back into a virtuous circle.

Thirdly, we need to give a big boost to walking and cycling to work. There are a lot of non-legislative ways that this can be promoted. I set out a dozen measures in an article about this in the Evening Standard last Thursday. I shall highlight two changes where legislation could be helpful: first, to give local authorities the ability to revoke on-street parking on major roads to convert the space into cycle routes and, secondly, to provide that reasonable walking, cycling and running time to work can, for an initial trial period, be counted as part of the working day to encourage people to use these means of getting to work. To do that in the private sector would require legislation, but the Government and, in particular, the NHS could lead by example as employers without legislation by simply saying that they would allow reasonable time for walking, cycling and running to work to be counted as part of the working day, which could be a huge incentive for people to use these means of getting to work. When the Minister replies to the thousands of speakers in this debate, will he say whether he will consider this?

Lord Randall of Uxbridge Portrait Lord Randall of Uxbridge (Con) [V]
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

My Lords, I am pleased to be able to support the measures in the Bill. There are so many businesses that are potentially on the edge of a financial precipice and I am sure that, across the House, we want to see them get back to economic viability as soon as possible. I hope that the Bill and the measures contained in it will jump-start those enterprises and sectors. I am pleased that Her Majesty’s Government are being innovative and flexible in their plans for the recovery.

There are a few areas I would like to explore in a little more detail. The Bill has helpful measures for flexibility in planning appeal procedures to enable more use of virtual sessions and to reduce the need for members of the public to travel to appeal examinations. However, I have some concerns. While appreciating the speed with which the Bill needs to be passed in order to maximise the assistance, particularly for those who are financially struggling, there is a lack of consultation on this new legislation. The Minister, who I welcome to his maiden Second Reading debate, said regarding planning that there will be separate legislation, but he will be aware of my continuing concerns that there may be changes to the planning system which relate to environmental matters and are of significant public interest. Can the Government commit to any consultation on any forthcoming changes they may be thinking of making? That would confirm the Government’s ongoing commitment to no lessening of environmental protections for habitats and species.

I am also concerned about the provisions in Clause 16 on the ability to modify construction working hours conditions. Of course these measures are helpful in terms of economic recovery, but there appear to be no restrictions on an authority’s ability to agree to applications made. With the possible changes applying to construction up to 1 April 2021, I have worries about the relaxation of current planning permission conditions restrictions on construction working hours due to nature conservation interests—for example, in relation to disturbance to birds during the harsh times of winter, during their migrations or at the start of next year’s breeding season. Currently, the Bill simply states, in new Section 74B(4) inserted by Clause 16(2), that modifications can be,

“to allow construction activities to be carried out for a longer period on a particular day (which may be the whole of that day)”


“to allow construction activities to be carried out for the whole or part of a day on which they would not otherwise be allowed to be carried out.”

There is nothing about a need to check why those restrictions were made in the first place and whether it is appropriate to allow modifications. What steps are the Government taking to ensure that wider environmental issues are not affected by the decision to extend planning permissions? As already mentioned by several speakers, there are worries about the effect of the extension of working hours on residents. I hope that my noble friend can give some reassurance on these issues.

Finally, like many others, I have some concerns around Clause 11. As we have heard, this clause deregulates off-sales under the Licensing Act 2003. The change will automatically allow any premises with an on-sales alcohol licence—bars, pubs, clubs, restaurants et cetera—to sell alcohol for consumption off the premises in open containers for the same hours as for on-sales. I worry that this will encourage drinking in the street into the early hours. I fear that that would increase anti-social behaviour in town and city centres in the late evening and early morning. The images from the weekend, when in some places social distancing was increasingly reduced as the alcohol intake increased, give me real concern. Sadly, drunken and anti-social behaviour is not unusual in some city centres.

The Government say that the police and councils have powers to issue closure notices and that the Bill proposes an expediated review process. However, there are no powers to address the cumulative effect of having many premises in close proximity, and experience shows that these powers do not work effectively. Therefore, will the Minister consider an amendment to Section 11 to limit the deregulation of off-sales to 11 pm? With those comments, I otherwise support the Bill in its response to the current crisis.

Lord Paddick Portrait Lord Paddick (LD) [V]
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

My Lords, I want to develop the views of the noble Lord, Lord Randall, on alcohol licensing. There is much to commend in the Bill, but we must try to eradicate the unintended consequences. The principle is right: to mitigate the effects of social distancing by allowing licensed premises to trade on adjacent pavements, to deliver alcohol and to sell alcohol to be taken away to be consumed in another building such as an office or a dwelling. The unintended consequence of the provisions that allow unlicensed premises to act like off-licences is that they would enable those who have already had enough to drink to buy alcohol to take away with them to consume on the street. with the potential for disorder and disruption to local residents.

People travel from miles around to socialise in city centres. I am sure many people will have seen the scenes in and around Old Compton Street in Soho on Saturday night. Although such areas have some premises licensed until 3 am, the London Boroughs of Westminster and Camden are unique in London in having no 24-hour off-licences. In normal times, the rest of Greater London has hundreds, but central London has none. Presumably this is for the sake of local residents. Local authorities want revellers to go home at the end of the night rather than hang around drinking on the streets after the on-licensed premises have closed. If revellers in such locations are allowed to buy alcohol to take away when these late-night premises are about to close, there is a real danger that the disorder that we have seen recently, in which many police officers have been injured, which was caused by illegal street and block parties, could increase. If revellers are allowed to take alcohol with them when they leave when the party closes inside these late-licence premises, they are likely to continue the party outside on the street.

This legislation requires amendment to differentiate between deliveries and takeaway alcohol that are taken to another building for consumption, and street drinking outside the areas covered by pavement licences. At the very least, allowing off-sales of alcohol in open containers should be excluded. People walking down the street with pint glasses full of alcohol is a recipe for disorder and potentially for violence. The image of someone who had a broken beer glass pushed into his face is one I will never forget. Sales should preferably be not only in sealed containers but ideally in a sealed plastic bag, as currently happens with sales of duty-free alcohol in airports. This is done to prevent air rage caused by passengers who drink their duty-free alcohol on the plane rather than waiting, as intended, until they arrive at their destination. The same principle applies here. Everything possible should be done to ensure that alcohol is not consumed until the destination is reached.

At the very least, the Government should consider limiting the extension of off-sales from on-licensed premises to normal licensing hours—say 11 pm. The scenes in Soho over the weekend will have concerned many. Consider what might happen if those present are allowed to buy alcohol at 2:45 am to take away, just before the premises close. I suggest that they are far more likely to stay drinking on the street than to take their alcohol home with them. We must not allow this to happen.

Lord Sheikh Portrait Lord Sheikh (Con) [V]
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

My Lords, the pandemic has severely affected the economy of the country and, of course, caused immense disruption to the lives of people and businesses. I commend the Government for implementing the job retention scheme, providing help for the self-employed and small businesses, and, furthermore, arranging government-backed loans. However, the pandemic affected 75% of the hospitality sector and there has been a 90% reduction in its turnover. In the construction industry, smaller companies have particularly suffered; some 25% of these organisations have paused or ceased trading. I therefore welcome the Bill, which will enable us to trigger the revitalisation of our businesses and help support the well-being of the people. I welcome the provisions that relate to cafés, pubs, restaurants, licensed premises, government-backed loan schemes, vehicle testing, driving licences, construction works and planning permission.

We have more than 130,000 pubs, restaurants and cafes, which employ over 2 million people. They are the lifeblood of our high street; they not only create employment and generate income but enable people to go out and mingle with friends and relatives. I commend these organisations on their ingenuity and for revising their arrangements to comply with social distancing rules. However, I have a slight concern about the safety of the staff; I hope that this is ensured. I worry that allowing premises to have tables and chairs outside may cause nuisance on the pavements and in the neighbourhood. I am also worried about access and passage for blind and disabled people. Allowing licensed premises to make off-sales of alcohol could lead to anti-social behaviour. I ask my noble friend the Minister to comment on the issues that I have raised. Has there been any consultation with disabled and blind groups? Do local authorities have appropriate powers to deal with anti-social behaviour as a result of the changes?

I am pleased to note that there are provisions in the Bill to kick-start the construction industry, which contributes about 9% of our GDP. I understand that there are more than 1,000 unimplemented major residential planning permissions. As we propose to extend planning permissions and listed building consents, it is hoped that the construction industry may be able to build more than 60,000 new homes. As regards staggering the hours for construction work, my concern is that this could create nuisance for the neighbours. Is there a grievance mechanism to deal with complaints where there are disturbances?

I note the easing of requirements for accessing the Government’s bounce-back loan schemes. In this regard, I feel that lenders should have an understanding and compromising attitude to any difficulties with regard to repayments; the customer must be regarded fairly. I ask my noble friend to comment on this point as well.

Local authorities will be involved in putting into practice the provisions set out in the Bill. Do they have the capacity and the right attitude to deal with what is being proposed? They are already under a great deal of pressure. What additional help will be provided to them by central government? Finally, I reiterate that I fully support the Bill.

Lord St John of Bletso Portrait Lord St John of Bletso (CB) [V]
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

My Lords, I join in welcoming the Bill. My brief remarks concern Part 1. We are acutely cognisant that the hospitality sector has suffered one of the largest declines in economic output; many restaurants and bars have already gone into liquidation. As the economy starts to reopen, I wholeheartedly support all innovative measures to support the recovery and save jobs while maintaining social distancing measures.

Pavement licences designed to make it easier for premises providing food and drink to serve customers outdoors through the temporary relaxation of planning procedures and alcohol licensing are an excellent initiative. But I share the concerns of many noble Lords about anti-social behaviour and take on board the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, that it may be a good idea to consider serving alcohol in plastic containers. It is well known that the fear factor, in many cases spurred on by the media, has resulted in many customers being too frightened to return to enclosed restaurants but more comfortable about eating and drinking outdoors. Al fresco dining is to be welcomed in its efforts to support social distancing and provide a means for those who may be anxious about venturing indoors to enjoy themselves in the relative safety of the open air. In my opinion, pavement licences open up a much-needed additional source of revenue to premises that might not otherwise have been able to open because their internal space is too tight.

For residents and others who may be concerned about the free-for-all, the provisions of the Bill are subject to strict regulatory checks and balances, which, in my opinion, provide a robust means of protection, including local consultation. But certainly, I take the point that strict measures need to be implemented against any anti-social behaviour. There is a very real need to enact the provisions of Part 1 as expeditiously as possible so that the beneficiaries of the Bill can make the most of the summer trade.

In summary, as these measures are temporary in nature, I believe that they provide a balanced and innovative approach to assisting the hospitality industry to get back on its feet while ensuring the protection of local residents. To this end, I wholeheartedly support the Second Reading and wish the Bill a speedy progress through your Lordships’ House.

Baroness Andrews Portrait Baroness Andrews (Lab) [V]
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

My Lords, for the most part, I certainly welcome the Bill. It is very much a just-in-time Bill and will help deal with immediate pressures but in no way does it offer permanent solutions; these are temporary changes for good reasons. One general point I want to reinforce is that this Bill throws into sharp relief the need for creative, long-term strategic planning for better and safer communities.

The business section of the Bill will certainly help the hospitality sector get back on its feet; it is very welcome. However, as has been alluded to, there is the very real risk of the virus picking up again if social distancing breaks down. It is a very fine balance and there is a great deal at stake, which is why these changes—an avalanche of new and extended applications, which will have to be processed at speed, monitored and, literally, policed—must be got right. They involve costs and demand vigilance but, as we all know, local authorities are barely in a position to take on new burdens. Whatever the Minister says about new funding, it goes nowhere near addressing the huge deficits and even near-bankruptcy that local authorities now face. The Minister quoted the LGA very approvingly, but only partially. It went on to say that this cannot be a job for authorities alone and that

“it is crucial that councils are supported financially”.

I look forward to hearing what the Minister, the noble Earl, Lord Howe, will say in response to the remarks of my noble friend Lord Stevenson. I also want to reinforce the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra: when there is such a need for consistency as well as speed, why does the Bill provide for statutory guidance but, unusually, no parliamentary process to support and guarantee this?

Regarding the Bill’s clauses on planning, I welcome the extension of planning permission and listed buildings consent, but again, this is just in time. Small construction firms, which have such a big contribution to make, have been the worst hit; almost a quarter of those which employ fewer than 250 people have temporarily paused or ceased trading. I am sorry that the Government failed to listen sooner to the RTPI, which has been calling for extensions since the beginning of the pandemic, and that they have failed until now to heed the warnings of the losses of over 400 residential permissions with a building commitment of 24,000 homes by the end of June. I welcome the additional flexibility being offered to the Planning Inspectorate to decide on different procedures.

Finally, I will make a more general and contextual point. For many small businesses on the high street, struggling to survive against the odds of online shopping and exorbitant business rates, Covid-19 has been the last straw. Despite great spirit and real ingenuity, as I have seen in my own town of Lewes, many shops and enterprises will fail to make it. The noble Lord, Lord Best, spoke powerfully about the need for social housing. This Bill is about the recovery of the high street and town centres. In his recent “new deal” speech, the Prime Minister talked about converting shops and offices in our high streets into housing. Change of use proposals mean that this is already happening. The evidence has been that it results in shoddy, inadequate and expensive housing, exempt from normal standards —in short, building the slums of the future while the high street is dying on its feet. This is no way to rebuild or recover.

Put simply, if we cannot save the vitality and diversity of the high street, we cannot save our towns, and that sits within a wider failure. The Prime Minister derides the whole profession and purpose of planning—newt gathering, as he puts it—but the real villains are the landholders and speculators. Covid-19 has proved beyond doubt that people need space to live safely. We should be using our planners and our local authorities as creatively as possible to build safely and beautifully for the future. We have learned to value community more; now, let us invest in it.

Baroness Falkner of Margravine Portrait Baroness Falkner of Margravine (Non-Afl) [V]
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

My Lords, I welcome most of the measures in this Bill, which I can see are a necessary step to get the economy moving again. However, I have two concerns. The first has to do with the missing element in these measures, regarding the Government instructing the public to avoid using public transport. We know that private traffic levels have risen sharply since lockdown was eased. However, the use of public transport is very low, as the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, noted—about 16% of normal usage for the London Underground and 33% for buses in London, and less for buses outside London.

This government guidance is clearly a deterrent for people who do not have a car to return to work, yet who are being told not to use public transport, thereby contradicting efforts to get the economy moving again. When will the Government change that guidance to advise people to avoid travelling during peak periods—in order words, to be more flexible in their travel times—rather than not using public transport at all?

My other concern is to do with business bounce-back loans. While I can see and welcome the speed and agility needed to keep SMEs viable during this crisis, I am not sure about the long-term consequences of these measures. The Minister told us in his opening remarks that some £29 billion of overall business lending has been to small business. The lending institutions estimate that about 50% of these businesses are likely to default on the loans. They have been instructed by the Treasury and the British Business Bank that they will have to resort to their normal approach on the collection of the loans. This normal approach does not apply to the granting of the loans, in terms of the due diligence and creditworthiness checks, as would have been normal, and self-certification is the chosen route, along with people’s private assets not being able to be held as collateral. Therefore, we could end up in a situation in which the lending institutions are in what has been described as a toxic relationship with borrowers, which is not a fair creation. They will have to massively scale up their arrears handling, particularly as mortgage holidays will also be unpayable by some borrowers.

What assessment of losses, and the viability of some of these small businesses, underpinned the Government’s modelling of the default rates on these loans, given that the Government, and ultimately the taxpayer, are the lenders of last resort? What conversations are they having with regulators such as the FCA regarding setting up a dispute resolution scheme, as well as the business banking resolution service, to deal with the volumes that may be affected? Have they contemplated setting up a bad bank-type solution to move these loans off the balance sheets of the high street lenders?

I appreciate that perhaps some of these questions are too complex to be dealt with in this Bill, but I pose them because it is increasingly clear that this health emergency will be with us for some time, thus also prolonging the economic downturn. We need to spell out clearly the consequences of the risks for borrowers and lenders, and plan how they will be mitigated in time before many additional businesses are given a false hope that they can carry on a bit longer and all will be well. If hard choices must be made, they should be made with careful regard for what lies ahead.

Lord Cormack Portrait Lord Cormack (Con)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

My Lords, the last time that I spoke in your Lordships’ Chamber was on Monday 16 March. It was a very different experience from speaking here this afternoon. I begin with a plea to all those who have charge of our proceedings: please let us get back to a normal Chamber as soon as possible. It is impossible to hold the Government to account adequately in either a virtual or a hybrid Chamber, and it is crucial that the Government are held to account. I very much hope that, come September, we will be here on a regular and proper basis.

The Bill illustrates the need for this. It has been given broad and general support by every speaker, and I welcome the Minister to his new role. He has an encyclopaedic knowledge of local government and is the man for the job, but it is the man for the job who needs holding to account. I am broadly supportive, but the devil is in the detail, as with everything. My noble friend Lord Blencathra, the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, and many others, including the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, in what he said about Soho on Saturday night, pointed out that it is crucial that a Bill such as this, temporary as it is, is properly examined, but the most important thing is that it is temporary, and that the new planning Bill has plenty of chance for discussion in your Lordships’ House as well as the other place.

In the little time at my disposal, I will take up the point made by the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty. The noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, talked about tourism, and she was right. It is a vital industry. However, we must remember why the tourists come here. They do not come for our weather or—excellent as it is often is now—our food. It is very important that the hospitality industry survives, but tourists come for our arts and heritage for the most part. Survey after survey illustrates that this is the case.

Like the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, I greatly welcome the announcement today about the arts and heritage, but I want to trawl through the detail because it is important that we all do that. However, I regret that no mention is made in the Bill of arts and heritage venues, because they are so crucial not just to the encapsulation of our history but in bringing tourists to our shores. We all know that without our historic houses and castles, our cathedrals and our churches, this country would be a much less attractive place to visit. As a deputy high steward of Lincoln Cathedral, one of the greatest cathedrals in the world and one of the triumphs of Gothic architecture, I know the dire straits that buildings of that magnitude are in. Although it will probably not be possible to incorporate this into the Bill now, I hope that we will all look carefully at today’s announcement to make sure that it really does sustain those organisations which it is meant to sustain.

Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale Portrait Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale (Lab)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

My Lords, I absolutely respect the choices made by others, but one of the reasons that I have travelled to London each week since the beginning of June to attend your Lordships’ Chamber is because I believe very strongly that the Government and Parliament need to lead the country out of peak lockdown with confidence and clarity. That is best done if as many of us as possible are here and present to do so.

I wholeheartedly support almost every measure in the Bill and the purpose behind it. The Government are right to be leading the country out of lockdown and trying to energise our economy again, but I am a little concerned at the pace in the devolved nations, which should be more closely involved. There should be more effort across the four Governments of the United Kingdom to be more co-ordinated in their approach to releasing business activity and moving on from peak lockdown.

In this effort, the Government are in danger of being too inconsistent and lacking in clarity. For example, I cannot understand why we are allowed—and now I think that “encouraged” is the right word—to use aeroplanes and sit next to each other in a confined space while travelling for hours on end, yet people cannot take lifeline ferries to the islands off the west coast of Scotland. I do not understand why people can pack into pubs, not only to stand too close to each other and get drunk but also to use the same toilets and other facilities, but cannot move in a single-file, one-way system at a reasonable level of numbers through our national and local museums and galleries; or use health clubs, which would be a far better use of their time than getting drunk on a Saturday night. I do not understand why people can get their hair cut, as I did on Saturday morning—but if I had wanted to, I could not have gone to a nail bar to have my nails done.

I do not understand the choices that have been made. The Culture Secretary speaking on the “Today” programme this morning showed how difficult that is to explain when he was asked a question about museums and aeroplanes. He did not have an answer. When the Government are not clear and do not show the logic behind the decisions they are announcing, that does not release economic confidence, energy and entrepreneurship; it deflates it, because people remain worried and scared. My plea to the Government when bringing forward this Bill and other measures is this: there needs to be more clarity and consistency in decision-making, so that people feel confident to take the leadership role that they are being shown and thus re-engage with the economy in ways that are absolutely essential.

I am not at all convinced by the idea that we should encourage more off-sales of alcoholic liquor, and I will come back to that during the debates on the specific clauses of the Bill, I am sure. However, while I welcome the Bill and most of the measures in it, I make the plea that not only in Whitehall but also in Holyrood, Cardiff and Belfast, the four Governments of the United Kingdom show more unity and urgency as well as much more clarity and consistency, because that is how the country will respond with the highest degree of positivity.

Baroness Northover Portrait Baroness Northover (LD) [V]
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

My Lords, much of this Bill is welcome, but my focus will be only on pavement licences. Some noble Lords have raised the question of alcohol and we have already seen the challenges in urban areas of people even spilling out on to roads and thus endangering themselves and others. I want to take up the issue of smoking in these new spill-out areas, and I thank ASH for its assistance on this. The noble Earl will be extremely familiar with the vital steps taken over the years to reduce the incidence of smoking and smoke-related harms; indeed, he helped in that process. I am glad that last summer the Government announced plans for England to be smoke-free by 2030. They committed to bring forward proposals on this, but a year has passed with no such proposals. The Bill will allow the Government to show that they intend to deliver on that major public health goal.

We know how transformative it has been to have banned smoking in public places. It now seems very unpleasant and strange when we find ourselves in smoky places. Lives are being saved, especially among those who had to work in those environments. However, the ban on smoking inside public places has displaced smokers to using adjacent outdoor areas, which exposes passers-by and those going in, with staff as always worst affected. Encouragingly, people now do not like being exposed to tobacco smoke. When Greater Manchester surveyed its population, over 70% said that they wanted the areas immediately outside public buildings to be smoke-free. Pavement licences will exacerbate the problem as they are designed to make it easier for bars, restaurants and pubs to serve food and drink to customers on the pavement immediately outside their premises. While previously those wishing to avoid second-hand smoke could stay inside, remaining indoors is both more restricted and riskier because of the coronavirus. Clause 5(1) states that

“A pavement licence may be granted by a local authority subject to such conditions as it considers reasonable.”

Local authorities could therefore prohibit smoking on an ad-hoc basis, but so far councils have not taken that up, even in central London where the pavements are crowded and space is limited. For example, Liberal Democrat colleagues who support Westminster City Council’s plan for reopening Westminster’s hospitality sector have called on the council to make outside dining and drinking spaces no-smoking areas, but to no avail. They have launched a petition, which is what has alerted me to this issue. A number of local restaurants would like this provision, but they need the council to take a lead.

We know that smoke-free hospitality venues did not just happen. They required legislation which was supported by the hospitality trade because it set a level playing field. If smoking is not prohibited, these pavement areas will not be family-friendly spaces. Not only customers and staff but neighbouring premises, particularly in crammed urban areas, will be exposed to second-hand smoke. The Government should make smoke-free status a requirement for all pavement licences. It will be easy to do but, if they cannot take such a simple step forward, we will have to doubt their commitment to deliver a smoke-free England by 2030. I hope very much that the noble Earl will help us to take this forward.

Lord Low of Dalston Portrait Lord Low of Dalston (CB) [V]
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

My Lords, I will speak to Part 1 of the Bill on pavement licensing, which will significantly reduce the application period—from 28 days to seven—for a business to obtain a licence to place tables, chairs and other items of furniture on the footpath. There are no requirements for the consultation to be accessible to people in the area with sight problems; the only requirement is for a written notice on the premises. If a licensing authority does not respond within the short timeframe, the application is automatically deemed to have been successful and the licence to place furniture on the pavement will be valid for a whole year.

This is a difficult and anxious time for everyone, but, as the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, pointed out, there are particular challenges for people who are blind or partially sighted, with social distancing measures limiting independence and increasing isolation. Many people with sight problems rely on some form of guiding to navigate different environments, which often involves some physical contact. Social distancing measures make access to this support extremely difficult.

Public attitudes are also an issue. Research from the charity Guide Dogs has found that only 22% of the general public would feel “completely comfortable” offering to help someone with sight problems while social distancing measures were in place. Additionally, instructions on how to maintain a distance, such as one-way systems and floor markings in queues, are entirely visual and largely impossible for people with sight problems to follow independently.

Against this background, the measures in the Bill could see a radical increase in the amount of street clutter and reduce the already limited space on our crowded pavements. The increase in street furniture envisaged in the Bill could force blind and partially sighted people to walk in the road, change their route, avoid travelling independently or even stay at home altogether.

There is an understandable need to allow people to socialise as safely as possible and boost our economy by encouraging spending. However, the unintended consequences of these measures will further damage the confidence of blind and partially sighted people in getting out and about safely and independently. People who use wheelchairs or mobility scooters will also be adversely affected by obstructions on our pavements. Will the Government revisit these measures, extend the consultation period and require applications to be published in accessible formats so that they are open to meaningful local scrutiny?

The proposal to allow applications to be granted automatically should the local licensing authority not respond in time is particularly concerning. Many local authorities are already struggling and, if they are overwhelmed by requests from businesses, the automatic approval process risks allowing hazardous street furniture to be permitted in inappropriate locations.

Under the public sector equality duty, local authorities are required to have due regard to advancing equality, including removing or minimising disadvantages suffered by people due to their protected characteristics. How meaningful is the opportunity given the local authority to carry out this duty if it is essentially overruled and forced to accept applications? I recognise the desire to speed up approval of pavement licences, but this must not come at the cost of the duty to consider the needs of pedestrians with disabilities.

Lord Whitty Portrait Lord Whitty (Lab) [V]
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

My Lords, I can support many parts of this Bill and reluctantly go along with some other parts, but it is hardly a recipe for economic recovery. I have two main points.

First, I find it bizarre that the first few clauses of the Bill—which is designed to promote rapid and productive economic recovery—are all about ensuring we can all drink more alcohol for longer periods and in more places. Like the noble Lords, Lord Paddick and Lord Randall, and others, I will focus on Clause 11, the late-night drinking aspects and the pavement licensing.

I am not being puritanical about this. I like a pint and have a yearning for café society, but drinkers spilling out on to the pavement in our inner cities, drinking off-sales outside premises that have an on-sales licence—which in central London can be until 2 am, 3 am or even 6 am—will not only cause pedestrians problems but cause serious anti-social behaviour.

The noble Lord, Lord Paddick, outlined the situation in Soho in central London, where Westminster City Council has already given some temporary licences. The Met has had to break up several street parties, engage in arguments with pub staff about the extent of the tables on the pavement and deal with significant cases of drunkenness, disorder and anti-social behaviour. We also have to remember that most public toilets remain closed.

I hope the Government can review Clause 11 in particular and give the local authorities more powers—indeed, more duties—to take measures that will not lead to this kind of effect. I am particularly concerned about the inner cities and the centre of our towns.

My second point relates to the planning provisions. I am afraid that some of them are really designed to fulfil the Prime Minister’s “Build, build, build” mantra without constraint. I accept that we need more housing; indeed, I have long advocated more council housing and affordable housing. I support some of the infra- structure projects, although I feel it is probably the right time to drop HS2, massive road-building programmes and the third runway at Heathrow and use the money for more socially, economically and environmentally desirable expenditures.

On housing, it should not be just a question of numbers of new dwellings. Developers, big builders and the tax system are combining to encourage demolishing buildings where refurbishment, in particular for energy-efficiency purposes, would be a better option. Developers are using new developments to blight neighbourhoods where buildings really need to be in keeping with the surroundings and the natural environment.

The Prime Minister’s reported aversion to the planning system’s alleged tenderness for endangered newts seems to apply to almost all protection of wildlife and biodiversity in planning. It is in contrast to his support for inebriated newts in the first part of the Bill.

This is inevitably a rushed Bill, but in some respects it is also an ill-thought-out Bill that will have negative effects on the quality of life in some of our cities and towns and on the quality of our countryside. Parts of this Bill need a serious rethink and, in the limited time we have, only the Lords proceedings can press the Government to deliver that.

Lord Hayward Portrait Lord Hayward (Con)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

My Lords, I should declare that for 10 years I was the chief executive of the Beer & Pub Association, so I have had some experience in dealing with the Licensing Act 2003, when many of the points raised today were raised then. I will just touch on one or two points made previously and will come back to Soho in a second. Bournemouth, Broad- stairs, the assaults on police in parts of London and Manchester, et cetera, happened before pubs were reopened, so there are other factors at play. We have to address those as well as the issues genuinely raised today.

I share the concern of the noble Lord, Lord McConnell, about clarity, but it is clearly difficult to get it right when you are dealing with so many varieties of hospitality industry. I am pleased with some of the variations from one sector to another made recently in guidance—for example, in the use of toilet facilities and the like. As the noble Lord, Lord McConnell, said, there are clearly still inherent contradictions that have to be addressed, but it is worth noting that the Government are making steps along that route.

The noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, made reference to the arcane or archaic—I am using my words, not hers—Licensing Act. In fact, the Licensing Act was passed in 2003 and local authorities have policies between seven and 41 pages long that give guidance from which pubs, pub companies and restaurant companies need to operate.

However, I have serious sympathy for the problems relating to the blind, the partially sighted, the physically disabled who need wheelchairs, and the like. Again, I declare an interest in that I suffer from an MS-related illness and on Friday I was partially sighted for a period. I said earlier that we should look at what happened before licensed premises were open. The noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, knows Urlwin Street and Grosvenor Terrace only too well; they are roads close to where he grew up. It is not just the licensed industry that causes these problems. You cannot get a wheelchair down either of those streets, because of the street furniture placed there by the local council. So let us not address all the problems to at the hospitality industry. We need to be honest enough to look more widely.

I will comment on one or two aspects when we debate the Bill next week, but I draw Members’ attention to Clause 4, headed “Duration”. We are talking about introducing not rights that will last for a long period but powers for a specific period in these circumstances for the coronavirus crisis.

I have two small issues—or perhaps not so small. One is TENs, which we will return to and is a matter of intense detail and concern for small brewers. The other is the definition of “groups” in relation to hostels and the hospitality industry. People are allowed to go as two groups, but the definition we have in this country does not apply anywhere else in Europe. If four people turn up in a car or come by train together, they have travelled together. Therefore, they ought to be able to stay in a hostel. I will address these issues in greater detail when we debate the Bill, but I hope that I have raised a few small points for the Government to consider.

Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb Portrait Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP) [V]
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

My Lords, I have heard a lot of the debate, and a lot of the issues that I was going to raise have been dealt with already, so I will just mention them in passing. I will also take a moment to contradict noble Lords who have said that we need to get back into the Chamber as soon as possible. Quite honestly, many of us enjoy remote working and do not want to experience disease and death. We are happy with the way things are. I understand that this might change, but we have to learn to adapt. The lack of democracy and holding our Government to account comes not from the fact that we are remote but from the fact that we are being ruled by ministerial diktat at the moment. Again and again, laws are passed that could have been brought before Parliament to be properly scrutinised but were not.

This Bill is being pushed through very fast as emergency legislation, so there really is not much time to scrutinise it. I will come back to these issues at a later stage. I will be focusing on a few specific issues. Road safety is incredibly important. We have to bear that in mind when we talk about the use of pavements. Walking and cycling are extremely important. If we are to have a continental-style cafe culture, with beautifully arranged tables and street dining, we have to ensure that these places are safe and accessible. We do not want to impose disabilities on people. We should make sure that everybody has access to these spaces.

I will also mention environmental issues. The Prime Minister’s comments about newts were absolutely baseless and rather lowered the tone of the whole debate. We have to think about environmental issues when it comes to business and planning.

I have not heard community land trusts being mentioned. I would like the Government to do a little bit of research on this. Community land trusts enable communities to create the sort of housing that they want in their area, with the big advantage that it would be affordable houses that stay affordable in perpetuity. Unlike affordable houses built by councils, which can then be sold at the market rate the first time they change hands, community land trusts hold the houses for ever and allow them to be affordable to local people.

The last issue I will raise is provision of adequate toilet facilities. So many businesses have closed and, even when they are open, many are not allowing people to use their facilities. There could be real problems, especially with people drinking so much. I urge the Government to think about public toilets. Somehow in this century we do not like using them and we do not have many of them anymore. That is really something that we should consider.

Baroness Thornhill Portrait Baroness Thornhill (LD)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

My Lords, I declare my interest as a vice-president of the Local Government Association. I knew that there would be many speakers and much said, so I will confine my comments to just three quite small but specific aspects of the Bill.

First, the term “local authority”, as used in the Bill, gives the role and responsibility for these now infamous pavement licences to district councils. In two-tier areas this is often the responsibility of the county council, which is the highways authority. While some, such as my former authority, have agreements in place where the county has devolved this function to district councils, for many this is new ground. They have to try to introduce a whole new function very quickly. While they clearly have the best local knowledge, they do not have the policies, the application forms or the processes to do this—and, as we have heard, their capacity has been much diminished. Would it therefore be possible for the Bill to allow all local authorities to administer these licences, enabling local agreements for county or district councils to carry out this function, depending on what suits them best, instead of a default solely to district councils?

Secondly, as my noble friend Lord Paddick articulated very well, things go wrong—we have seen that they surely do. There is a summary review power in the Bill. This, plus existing legislation, ought to give the police and councils sufficient powers to act should problems arise—but I am not confident about this, and I will flag up a reason that I believe warrants further exploration.

In my experience of working in partnership to tame a town centre described by a tabloid as “Ibiza on acid”, the real issue is what has come to be known as the cumulative impact problem, where there are several licensed premises within a compact area. The way the legislation is framed—this Bill is framed the same way—makes it difficult to use available powers to the desired effect. The whole process of reviewing the licence or pursuing a closure under anti-social behaviour legislation is predicated on proving that an individual premise is responsible for the anti-social behaviour, which, as we have heard from many noble Lords, often takes place outside in the street much later on. In my experience, the reality is that reviews often do not happen because of the difficulty of proving that the specific nuisance comes from specific premises. Yet the areas where there have been serious issues in recent days have been, in the main, exactly these sorts of areas. As we have heard from several noble Lords, Clause 11 will exacerbate this problem, so I am not reassured by the summary review power.

Finally, there are some legal uncertainties about whether the regulations in the Coronavirus Act that allow local authorities to hold decision-making meetings remotely until May 2021 preclude council meetings, including licensing hearings and planning meetings, being heard physically if they so wish and can do so safely. Some clarity is sought. Similarly, as mentioned by my noble friend Lady Kramer, the mayoral development corporations, Transport for London and others were not included in the definition of a local authority in either the enabling provisions or the subsequent regulations. They therefore cannot hold meetings remotely, which they might wish to do—in fact, urgently need to do as backlogs mount up. These are small but significant issues that I hope can be amended and clarified during the passage of the Bill, which I support.

Lord Berkeley Portrait Lord Berkeley (Lab) [V]
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this debate. In the short time available, I will cover two issues that concern me. The first is to do with roads, driver licensing and related matters, covered by Clauses 12 to 15, and the second is about a minor relaxation of the licensing laws.

Many noble Lords have spoken of their concern about the continuing suspension of the need for licensing or medical checks, where required. We have seen a lot of press reports recently that doctors’ surgeries are not full, because people are keeping away. We do not know why that is, but I would like some evidence from the Minister that the surgeries, or wherever else these tests are done, are not capable of meeting the demands of the industry for updates of medical and other tests of drivers—particularly drivers of passenger service and heavy goods vehicles. These are safety regulations, which I hope will save lives as required, alongside the coronavirus requirements.

As one noble Baroness said, it is odd that we seem to be making roads less safe, by not requiring people to keep up their licences and medical tests, while at the same time encouraging people to drive cars more and not use public transport. The latest figure from the railways is that only 11% of pre-coronavirus passenger numbers are now travelling, so there is a long way to go.

My other issue relates to the licensing of small breweries. It may seem a small point, but one of the joys over the last few years has been having a massive variety of beers to buy in cafes, restaurants or wherever, whether on the pavement or inside. One group of breweries is unable to operate at the moment, because about one in four currently have no way to sell their products directly to the public. Some of the small ones have seen their sales reduced by 60% to 80% because of Covid, but have not received the same level of financial support as pubs and other parts of the hospitality sector. Many have been mothballed. Of course, they want access to the market before the end of the summer.

Some do not have a premises licence, and therefore cannot offer takeaway services or deliver to the public. They all have temporary events notices to offer limited services, but these are limited in time and number. They are all registered with HMRC under the Alcohol Wholesaler Registration Scheme. I would be pleased to hear the Minister’s comments on this. I am proposing one or two amendments to the Bill to allow breweries that cannot sell directly to the public to do so temporarily. I hope that gets some comment from the Minister, when he winds up.

Lord Campbell of Pittenweem Portrait Lord Campbell of Pittenweem (LD) [V]
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

My Lords, at this stage in the debate, much of what I might have said has already been said eloquently, but I will focus on the working-hours provisions for a moment. They provide an illustration of the tensions between the laudable objectives of the Bill and its consequences. Noble Lords are aware that the legislation gives an authority the power to approve, refuse or amend an application for variation of hours, but it cannot do any of these without investigation. Investigation will impose additional administrative burdens on planning authorities, many of which are ill-equipped to fulfil that responsibility. That will particularly be the case in areas of high activity and construction.

Noble Lords will know from experiences elsewhere that working hours are always controversial because of their impact on amenity. When the public realise that the proposed legislation carries with it the possibility of an extension to cover a whole day, perhaps that controversy will be even greater. In the circumstances, proper account must be taken of public objection to any application. Proper opportunity must be made to ensure that that objection can be put before the local authority. As pointed out by the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, proper notice must be given so that the public are aware of precisely what is proposed. All of this is to be achieved within 14 days of the application for extension being received by the local authority. Is there not a risk that a planning authority, inundated with multiple applications, will give little weight to public amenity or, in the worst case, simply ignore it? It may even take refuge in the deemed grant provisions, all at the expense of public amenity.

When one is considering the impact of the issue of hours, is it not right to consider that the same local authority may be, in relation to planning permission extensions or outlying planning permissions extensions, already engaged in responding to the responsibilities that the legislation imposes? It might be 28 days, but that is still a colossal burden in many circumstances. Even the most well-intentioned local authorities may find themselves having to accept damage to amenity that they would not normally support, except that they find themselves compelled to do so because of the terms of this legislation. I believe we should make it clear to the public that, sometimes, in this particular balance, the amenity of the public will have to take second place.

Let me finish with this. I understand the need for the hybrid powers now being offered to the Planning Inspectorate. When I first read about this, I found a commentary which said that such powers would allow it to do its work quickly and efficiently. In an area where the public has an interest, the words “quickly and efficiently” should always raise a red flag. It will be important to ensure that public participation is not in any way prejudiced by the exercise of these hybrid powers.

Earl of Shrewsbury Portrait The Earl of Shrewsbury (Con) [V]
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

My Lords, I welcome this Bill, which paves the way towards economic recovery post Covid-19. I support the points on smoking made by the noble Baroness, Lady Northover; that is very important for the comfort of customers and others surrounding them.

The Bill provides the opportunity to modernise and enhance our high streets’ commercial activities, to lift many planning activities into the modern age, and to promote new job-creating construction schemes. Although the briefing notes state that the measures in the Bill to address these many issues will be temporary, I suggest to your Lordships that some should be looked at as providing a more permanent solution to the woes experienced on high streets currently.

Those woes cannot be blamed simply on the effects of the pandemic. Our high streets have been steadily declining for years, with the advent of out-of-town shopping facilities and the internet. How easy it is to sit at home and order something from eBay or Amazon or such like and have it delivered to your door the following day—and you do not have to go into town or try to find a parking space. How can the high street compete with that?

For a long while, many of us who live in rural communities have been concerned at the demise of the high street in our rural towns. I live near Ashbourne in Derbyshire. The town is described as the gateway to the Peak District, which indeed it is, and therefore the gateway to a most popular tourist destination of outstanding natural beauty. The traffic flow through the town is vast; it comprises not just tourists, visiting the peaks with their bikes and caravans, but, as a main route in and out of a major quarrying and mineral-producing region and a vibrant agricultural region, includes quantities of large lorries and agricultural machinery, and leaves the town gridlocked, especially in the spring and summer months.

Who suffers? The street cafes, the local traders and the public houses—all small businesses. Car parks are expensive and full to overflowing. Industry, whose trucks have to go through the town, suffers considerable financial loss through long delays. A bypass to the town has been talked about for many years, and the Bill might just provide an opportunity to get those plans going again. I really hope this happens.

The Derbyshire Dales District Council has done a great job in the past couple of weeks in Ashbourne in converting the streets and pavements to be social-distancing friendly. The measures which will be enabled by the Bill might just help rural towns such as Ashbourne, where tourism, local hospitality and quality small shops are key, to pick themselves up and move forward to a brighter future.

Finally, the bounce-back loan initiative has been extremely helpful to many small firms—it is a lifeline on which I congratulate my right honourable friend Mr Sunak. However, and to their great detriment, some of the big four banks have been absolutely abysmal in their handling of applications. For example, on 5 May, the small business of which I am a director applied to HSBC to open a feeder account, with a view to applying to the BBLS. Despite phone calls, the bank has yet to respond, and we are now heading towards the middle of July. In mid-June, the company applied to Clydesdale and Yorkshire Bank to open a new business account, and then applied for the loan. Within two weeks, the whole process was successfully concluded—Barclays Bank did not even answer the telephone. Will my noble friend tell me what percentage of BBLS applications have not been processed in time and what percentage have been declined?

I very much welcome the Bill and wish it a speedy passage.

Sitting suspended.
Baroness Kennedy of Cradley Portrait Baroness Kennedy of Cradley (Non-Afl) [V]
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

My Lords, I support the overall aim of the Bill, which seeks to put in place measures to help businesses recover from the hit they have taken during the lockdown, to help protect jobs and return to healthy trading, and to make the most of the summer months. These are measures I support. Today I will restrict my comments to pavement licences and the off-premises sale of alcohol.

With over 47,000 pubs in the UK and a high concentration of them in our cities—there are, for example, in excess of 1,300 pubs in one London borough —many local authorities are expected to process a huge number of applications in a short space of time, publicise them, consult the public, consider their responses and provide ongoing monitoring and enforcement of the pavement licence. Can the Minister give confidence today to local authorities, which are already stretched thin financially, that they will be given the resources they need to deliver this new set of responsibilities?

Many local authorities are already facilitating the greater use of outside space by pubs and restaurants. For example, Brent Council has already agreed to extend the outdoor seating capacity at Wembley Park. The Liverpool Without Walls project, from the city council and the Liverpool business improvement district, is re-imagining the city with outdoor seating, road closures and pop-up parks. These examples are sensible plans to provide additional flexibility for businesses looking to welcome customers to eat and drink as safely as possible. The proposed pavement licences are therefore an economic opportunity for many and, in general, should be welcomed—but it should be acknowledged that they might also be a potential nuisance for local residents. The Government must get the balance right. The new streamlined and quick approach to securing a pavement licence is currently skewed towards businesses. The Government should give equal weight to the public’s view on any proposed licence.

Pubs are invariably in residential areas, which is why some licence conditions allow for on-street drinking but only up to a certain time of night. It is usually 9:30 pm, especially in midweek. We have already seen residents suffering in some areas. Drinking has been banned in London Fields after weeks of public urination and littering—across the green space and in people’s doorways. Seven days, which is in effect five working days, is too short a time for public consultation without additional proactive measures for community engagement. What more do the Government think that they can do to ensure that local residents are aware of new licence applications?

The more that can be done to get the licence conditions right in the first place, the better it will be for residents and council enforcement officers. That is why I am particularly concerned about the default position that a licence is deemed agreed after 10 working days, should there be no response from the local authority. Does the Minister think that this default position is as fair to local residents as it is to the applicant?

The Government must also be clear on how the new licensing requirements will be monitored and enforced. The local authority will undoubtedly have to provide extra street cleaning and deal with more noise complaints, so does the Minister believe that the £100 figure meets the extra cost burden placed on local government? How was that figure calculated? I understand the need to keep cost low for applicants—these measures are, after all, designed to stabilise their businesses—but should the Government not ensure that they cover the full cost to local government for the scheme? In addition, does he believe that litter clearing should be a condition of the licence, as it is with many fast-food restaurants?

Finally, I turn to the proposal for off-the-premises sales of alcohol. What is the reason for turning pubs into late-night off-licences, which will increase street drinking way into the night? Again, is this fair to local residents?

In conclusion, I support these measures, but I want to see the Government rebalance the economic consideration with the impact on local residents as regards pavement licences and off-premises sales of alcohol. I look forward to the Minister’s reply.

Lord Hunt of Wirral Portrait Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con) [V]
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

I first draw attention to my entry in the register.

My Lords, this is a timely and welcome Bill, but I believe that it could go further, as I shall explain. Whether or not we see further high tides of Covid-19 is in the hands of powers higher even than my noble friends the Ministers, but I am sure it is right that we should now focus our energies upon economic recovery and retrenchment. That is the vital principle behind the Bill. It understandably singles out hospitality as having suffered grievously during the pandemic and lockdown, along with construction. But other sectors, too, are in the direst jeopardy: perhaps most notably, live music-making and theatre.

Like many other noble Lords, I had always planned to raise concerns about the creative arts today, and I warmly welcome the Government’s support package. I still fear, however, that an opportunity has been missed by not including live performance in the Bill. Theatre and music-making come in many shapes, forms and sizes. Many of our so-called crown jewels, such as the Royal National Theatre, the Royal Albert Hall and the Southbank Centre, will no doubt receive substantial support from the new government fund. I am all for that, but I hope the beneficence trickles a little further down, too. For those vast edifices of great renown are built ultimately on the foundations of smaller venues such as rooms above pubs and found spaces, and innovative, often tiny, production companies at fringe venues across the land and in the vital ecosystem of off-West End, which even boasts its own prestigious awards. So too are the television and film industries, which have done so much to sustain morale during the darkest days of lockdown. Many thousands of our finest creative talents work freelance. Getting much-needed help to them must also be an urgent, if challenging, priority.

Elsewhere in Europe, the arts are emerging from pandemic hibernation, combining live performance with social distancing. It is not ideal, but it keeps the flame alight. One obvious way for the performing arts to re-emerge with minimal risk during these clement summer months is by working outside. This Bill will allow pubs to expand into the great outdoors. Why are theatre companies not permitted to do the same? The Bill seems silent on the matter.

The man who led us through our last national crisis on this scale was, of course, Sir Winston Churchill—much admired by our current Prime Minister. In 1938, Churchill said:

“The arts are essential to any complete national life. The State owes it to itself to sustain and encourage them.”

It is also said that, when a cut in the arts budget was mooted to help the war effort, he refused and asked,

“What, then, are we fighting for?”

What we are fighting for today, once again, is not just our economy but our way of life—a way of life that must surely restore and retain the energy, inspiration and vivid diversity of the performing arts at its very heart.

Lord Inglewood Portrait Lord Inglewood (Non-Afl) [V]
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

My Lords, it was at the beginning of March, in my capacity as chairman of the Cumbria Local Enterprise Partnership, that I spoke to your Lordships about our actions and responses to the Covid-19 plague as it was then affecting the county. I would like to touch on this again now. On that occasion, I said that the problem was simple: cash was running out and it was more cash that was needed—not next year, not next week, but now. It is as true today as it was three months ago. There is nothing remarkable about this view, but it is true, and it is to the Government’s credit, despite some mixed messaging on the way, that they have grasped that point, and hence we have this Bill. It is equally to all the opposition parties’ credit that they have also done so.

I believe it is a good metaphor for our national predicament to say that we are in a national shipwreck. The boat is badly damaged, but it is still afloat. We now have to get it to port, get it repaired and set sail again. This, of course, requires a different set of measures from those that, at the start of the year, were normal. We now have to crank up the economy and do it quickly, not least—as the Minister said in his opening remarks—in respect of hospitality, business and the visitor economy and associated activities, which are so important in Cumbria. If we can find a way of keeping the weather good, that would equally be a help. However, we are going to have to accept that in the next few months, it is not going to be business as usual, and we have to do our best to help those most affected survive the storm they are experiencing.

I have had an involvement with planning for much of my working life, and I believe we have to have a planning system, not because I believe in a command economy, but because, on a densely populated small island in a very complicated world, the rest of us are entitled to be protected from the excesses of selfishness, greed, thoughtlessness and philistinism. It is not the principle but the way the system has worked that has on occasions been problematic.

One aspect of the economy that this crisis has highlighted is the role of debt. Everything works well when things go well, but when things go wrong and start unravelling, as they sometimes do, it often happens very quickly. Those who lend money like to get it back. We must not, I believe, be too clever by half in our approach to bringing our economy back from this mess. Those businesses that survived the crisis must not be killed by the cure. Business—which, after all, is the source of jobs and prosperity—does all kinds of things, some of them a bit eccentric, many of them in a rather idiosyncratic way. However, commercial resilience and sustainability depend upon adequate levels of working capital and reserves. They need to be cherished.

Having said all that, there can be little doubt that this Bill, with its temporary measures, is something we should generally support at this point in our history. The immediate economic imperative must be to get our economy back working again.

Lord Balfe Portrait Lord Balfe (Con) [V]
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

My Lords, I begin by saying how strongly I support my noble friend Lord Cormack. Until we get back to a proper House, we are not going to be able to do a proper job. I want to speak about Part 1 of the Bill. It takes me back almost 20 years to the Bill introduced by Tessa Jowell and Tony Blair, who were going to build a café economy. Unfortunately, their idea of a café economy was based on having a kir royale in the south of France, whereas the reality was drunkenness in provincial towns in Britain. My wife spent four years as a local councillor trying to undo a lot of the damage of that Bill.

I am not sure whether or not I welcome the Bill, frankly. It assumes that people will go back in great numbers to restaurants. I do not think that is going to be the case; I think the drift back to restaurants will be quite gradual. I live in Cambridge; last Saturday the lockdown ended and I walked into the city, where there was no evidence that social distancing was being respected. The pubs were not absolutely crowded and there was no violence, but there was certainly no over- crowding in them either. They were pleasantly full—with people, as I say, ignoring social distancing. In short, I do not think that people will go back.

I would like to see—and I endorse what my noble friend Lord Blencathra, the noble Lord, Lord Low, and others have said about—rules on pavements. Wheelchairs and buggies must be able to get past without impediment. It should not be the case that people have to carefully move aside. That is point one. I would like that to be a part of all the applications.

I also endorse what the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, said. I think there should be a premium on there normally not being smoking outdoors, rather than the other way around. Otherwise, you will be saying to all the people who do not smoke, “If you choose to sit outside, you will be in a smoking zone.” I do not think they should be; it should be the other way around.

I have a small technical question for the Minister, which he may wish to return to next week or in writing. I live on the edge of a cumulative impact zone. We have a huge number of licensed premises and we also have a number of charity shops. Will the licensed premises —the cafés, restaurants and shops—be able to do a deal with the charity shop next door to extend over their pavement space? I can think of at least three charity shops on the main street near us that are next door to licensed premises. We need to be clear about that.

Secondly, I would like to see a deal with pubs on residential streets. Two of the streets running parallel to the road I live on have a pub on them. There are already problems with people spilling on to the pavements; what is going to be done about that?

Thirdly, I think that the whole legislation is in favour of the restaurants and the licensed premises. Local people need far more say, far more information and far greater opportunities to protest. I want to see what the powers will be, first, of the police to object and, secondly, of people to object. How are hearings going to be held? I fear that we are rushing to judgment, we are rushing into a new system, and we are going to legislate in haste and repent at leisure.

Lord Addington Portrait Lord Addington (LD)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

My Lords, I was drawn to this Bill when somebody pointed out there may be an error—or, rather, an omission—in the way the licensed premises are designed. If I read it correctly—the advantage of being elderly and long-sighted is that you actually can read when you are looking down at something—this is that premises licences are what we are talking about. Club premises licences, which most sports and social clubs have, do not seem to be in the mix. This means that a bar in a sports or social club, which is the main driver of this hub of social activity—or at least the financial driver that ensures what is going on—may well be excluded.

I ask—and we have two Ministers here, which is the advantage of being in the Chamber—if we have got this wrong, that is great, but could they let us know? If this is an error, can it be changed? We have the whole of Committee to go through and it is a small change. Can we make sure it is addressed? I see one Minister nodding and one looking concerned about looking at this to check it. I think we have all just scored a point in favour of having a physical House where you can interact, as opposed to having merely an exchange of monologues.

However, if we have that going, can we have a look at this? Sports clubs and so on are so important and are such an important deliverer, and this is how most of them are financed. It is an important factor. Can we check that and make sure that we get it right? If we do not, we will damage one of those bits of society which is already taking a pounding. Cricket has come back, but will we generate enough money for the juniors next year and for the season that is left? If there is ever a sport that is last back, it will be rugby union—why did I choose to play that sport all my life? Football, rugby league, hockey—anything that requires contact—will be slow to come back. If their bars are not working or not working at capacity, they will have another problem.

There are all sorts of schemes and you can bandy around the monetary figures, but if you have not made sure that they can sustain themselves in the way they did before, you will make a bigger problem for yourself, you will create holes in social provision, and you will miss out on something that is done by society for itself—the state has only to make sure that they can carry on functioning, not much more. I would have thought that the Liberal/Tory traditions could join in with that, and I am quite sure that the Labour Benches have no objection to it either. Can we make sure that that actually happens, have a look at this and make sure that it goes through?

Lastly, I do not know how many hours I have spent in this Chamber over the years talking about disability access. The noble Lord, Lord Balfe, beat me to this. A buggy—it used to be called a pram—and a wheelchair usually require similar accessibility aspects. You will be making it easier for everyone if you make sure that the pavement is accessible for a person with either one of those two things, let alone luggage on wheels, which have now joined them. Make sure that the access is there, and you may well address many of the problems here. It is not the perfect solution, but it could be better by addressing and making sure that, if you have got it wrong, you change it, and if you have got it right, let people know.

Baroness Garden of Frognal Portrait The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

I call the noble Lord, Lord McNicol of West Kilbride. No? I call the noble Lord, Lord Wei.

Lord Wei Portrait Lord Wei (Con) [V]
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

My Lords, I declare my interests on the register. Broadly, I add my voice to those of other noble Lords who have spoken in support of these measures, which are necessary given the need to get the economy rolling in the coming months. There is an opportunity this summer, as more will be staycationing in the UK, to ensure that our local traders take back some of the losses that we have seen over the spring—I will focus more on the retail side of things in my speech. In fact, one of the projects that I am engaging with at the moment is with a town in the Midlands—I will not name it just yet. We are actively exploring some of the more innovative things we can do to help the high street rebound, helping shops, restaurants, pubs, and so forth. These measures are welcome in light of enabling our citizens to come back and consume, drink and, essentially, socialise once more.

At the moment, the measures are quite limited to the responsibility of each individual pub or establishment to set out, for example, tables and chairs outside their area, and generally it is where permission has already been given or there is some kind of precedent. Some of the more innovative things we could do could involve councils doing things such as shutting down entire streets to traffic and opening up sections in the middle of streets, as we have seen in Scandinavia and elsewhere in the world, so that multiple restaurants can serve customers, who then take their food from the restaurants and eat it in the town square. Can the Minister say whether these rules intend to cover and make provision for those kinds of situations—shared eating spaces, if you like, perhaps even cordoned off so that people can meet in their support hubs? What provision is there for that within this thinking, or is this merely just for the case where there is space available outside for that establishment, which it then looks to take control over and open out into?

Another area we are seeing innovation in is drive-throughs—we are seeing an explosion of drive-through cinema. What provision is being made in any of this to enable drive-through facilities to fit in and be fast-tracked?

Finally, I will touch on the beginning of an idea, which is possibly not appropriate for this legislation but may be. It could be that what we do today, even though it is emergency and temporary, can set the scene for longer-term changes. Given that the high street was struggling massively already before Covid, one thought to be potentially explored is whether you could give free empty shop space or space that had previously been restaurant space and so on, but on the basis that the council, the landlord or whoever is facilitating that could share royalties with the pub owner or the retailer, not just for any physical sales that happened there but for any online sales when they receive whatever support they get. They would therefore start to work in partnership with the business concerned to help it, not just to sell physically in the street but online as well. I know that this is very much about this physical streetscape, but moving forward we need to craft laws and measures that support the increasingly blended nature of businesses, whether they are pubs or other businesses, given that we will all have to check who is coming in and make appointments using apps and the internet. Can the Minister say whether any ideas around that are being explored or whether this is purely just to address the immediate, short-term nature of things?

Lord Campbell-Savours Portrait Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab) [V]
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

My Lords, I cautiously welcome much of what is in the Bill, which is a valid attempt to restore the economy in the most adverse of conditions. However, what I have to say today, which is genuinely supportive, should not be taken as support for the Government’s wider approach to handling the pandemic, which has been a disaster, with delayed decisions undoubtedly costing thousands of lives—although that is an argument for another day.

The Bill has been broadly welcomed in the Lake District, an area on which I will concentrate my remarks. A guest house owner in Keswick in the front line put it this way on the bounce-back loan scheme amendments:

“We have taken advantage of this and it was a relatively painless exercise. We also took the £10,000 grant, the SEISS grant, and a short mortgage holiday.”

On the exemption for public service vehicles, the owner stated:

“This helps us by ensuring availability of goods and services.”

They then went on to welcome the pavement licencing and outdoor seating arrangements. Generally, there has been a good welcome for this in the Lake District. Another Keswick businessman, local councillor Tony Lywood, put it this way:

“We are all over it. Many businesses in the town are now near the edge of bankruptcy, and this bill is very timely and welcome.”

However, concern was expressed by one Keswick hotelier, who referred to guidance notes being provided by UKHospitality. Its advice is therefore important. While I need to express a little concern about its absence of comment on the issue of voids and vending, and perhaps a little vagueness on cleaning product usage, conversely, I have to recognise that it does not have the power to instruct or enforce. I know that we cannot define all these matters in the law, but the work of government should go hand in hand with the recommendations of the trade associations, where the Government seek compliance with safety requirements in the public interest. It may well be that the Government should consider enshrining in the law some aspects of UKHospitality’s excellent guidance notes, if only to ensure a greater level of compliance, particularly in areas where slack trade practices could dilute government efforts in dealing with the pandemic.

UKHospitality should be asked for its legislative recommendations; then we can pursue them in Committee. For example, its document states that

“failing to put in place … measures to manage the risk of COVID-19, could constitute a breach of health and safety law.”

Why not remove the element of doubt enshrined in “could”? I am sure there are probably many areas in the hospitality code which, if enshrined in law, could make all the difference.

Finally, I am concerned that a second phase of the virus could completely undermine the sacrifices already made by UK business. The law should reflect such concerns. That is all I need to say at this stage.

Lord Lansley Portrait Lord Lansley (Con)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

My Lords, I draw attention to my interests in the register as chair of the Cambridgeshire Development Forum. I welcome this Bill; I also welcome my noble friend Lord Greenhalgh to his first legislative responsibilities—I hope he enjoys them.

I will talk about the element of Part 3 relating to planning—not the very welcome ability to extend construction working hours; I think local authorities had the ability to do this, but the legislation will equip and encourage them to do so on a much more uniform basis for the benefit of the industry, to keep it moving. I will talk principally about Clauses 17 and 18. If you imagine development as a pipeline of activity, the industry has lost time in it; that time was not intended to be lost under the Government’s guidance, but in practice most businesses and developers were off-site by late March and back on-site only in late June. Clauses 17 and 18 are essentially constructed around the proposition that three months were lost and that, therefore, three months must be added to the pipeline, hence the end of the December has been replaced by 1 April.

Although there is a balance to be struck between keeping development moving and allowing for the delays experienced by the industry, I think three months is insufficient for two reasons. First, when the industry has got back to work, it has not been at 100% capacity. To start off with, it was at 50%; some housebuilders had supply-chain problems; even on Friday, a number with which I checked were operating, at best, at 80% capacity. Additional time will be lost between now and the end of the year. Secondly, the three months lost were April, May and June. The three months added are January, February and March. It is obvious that these are not the best months in which to undertake and commence activity on-site in the building industry. I will come back to this in Committee, but will the Government recognise at this stage that more than three months of additional time must be inserted into the Bill?

Also, why do we have such a wide-ranging requirement for “additional environmental approval”? As things stand, all planning permissions which have expired between 23 March and probably the end of August will require additional environmental approval from local authorities to be extended or revived. That is too much. The industry will feel that it has been promised an extension that turns out to be no more than the ability to apply through a new process with its local authority. More should be done. I will question that in Committee.

Finally, on Clause 20, I share my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham’s desire to reinvigorate the process of enacting the reforms in the Rosewell review and getting the Planning Inspectorate’s time for appeals down. It had come down to about 22 weeks; we need to get it down to that and below. We also have to look hard at what these delays are leading to for local plans. There are many reasons for the delays to local plans—it is not just the Covid-19 crisis—but having so many is not good enough in a plan-led system. It is progressively making development more and more difficult.

Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted Portrait Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD) [V]
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

My Lords, I welcome the Bill and will speak about pavement licences and bounce-back loans. I declare a non-financial interest: my brother owns a pub. Many in the pub trade are counting on the Bill to enable them to trade viably, and it is a pity that it did not come along faster. It will be mid-August, and a lot of summer gone, before pavement licences are issued. There are big differences between locations and what can and cannot work reasonably. There are more spaces than pavements that could adapt to temporary conversion for outside hospitality use, including areas within the boundaries of properties but not under the licence.

Last week, I did a pre-opening pub crawl, speaking to landlords and looking at the range of preparations. Surprisingly few in my area would benefit from a pavement licence. For some, there was no space on the pavement; for others, there was no need due to gardens; elsewhere it would be in the way for queuing and one-way access. What was clearly of more benefit was repurposing space, such as putting a few tables in part of the car park. It would surely make sense to accelerate licence variations on outside areas belonging to the property in the same way as for pavement licences, and I intend to table an amendment on that for Committee. Would the Minster also advise on the scope of wording in Clause 1(4)(b), which seems very wide:

“food or drink for consumption on or off the premises”?

That seems to cover any food selling, such as supermarkets. Is that intended and is it helping the hospitality industry?

Turning to the bounce-back loans and the disapplication of the CCA, I am concerned whether it is right to disapply all court interventions in Section 140B. I understand that banks have been asked not to apply the usual due diligence concerning affordability, but Section 140B covers more than affordability and relates generally to abuse of power. Why should that be disapplied? These loans last for six years and, during that time, it will be possible for the lender to engage in heavy tactics. Even though the loan is guaranteed by the Government, that does not prevent it being a pawn in other financial arrangements. I would be happier if the disapplication related only to refunds for unaffordability.

Neither should there be reach-across between the loan and other financial arrangements with the lender, such as including it in triggering events or the so-called normal approach to repayments that gave us GRG and other scandals. These are not normal loans; they are encouraged by Government and government guarantees to those struggling due to coronavirus and are to help both them and the wider economy bounce back. Stripping the full content of Section 140B and the related FCA rules is not appropriate and is likely to keep the APPG on Fair Business Banking busy for years. Are big lenders requiring the complete disapplication of Section 140B as their price to play ball?

I shall return to this in Committee but, meanwhile, what terms, other than interest, cover the loans? The agreements seem thin—answer 20 questions and get your money—which is all the more worrying when consumer protections have been removed and there does not seem to be anything else in the agreement literature.

Lord Bhatia Portrait Lord Bhatia (Non-Afl) [V]
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

My Lords, in view of Covid-19, the Government need the powers to allow businesses to open with certain restrictions. These are unusual times. The Government are legislating to open up the economy, with powers to shut down businesses if there is a spike in a particular geographic area or sector of the economy. The Bill will allow many sectors of the economy to open up. We have travelled the ups and downs of the effects of Covid-19 since March 2020. The Government and opposition parties must work together at this time and stop blaming each other.

The Government are establishing a fast-track procedure by which cafes, pubs and restaurants in England may apply for temporary permission from local authorities to put tables and chairs outside their premises. The weather this week is bright and warm. Many millions who have been locked up in their homes will be able to come out with their children to enjoy a pleasant day out in cafes and restaurants. Many noble Lords have rightly questioned whether local authorities will consult local residents before they allow cafes and restaurants to put tables outside their premises. I hope the Government will make the appropriate changes in the Bill.

The Government are providing funding in a variety of ways to support small businesses, particularly in the leisure and hospitality sector. Similar support is also being made available to the construction industry so that more houses can be built and more jobs created. All these measures will put money in the hands of many families, who in turn will spend their wealth, creating jobs and prosperity for everyone.

The Secretary of State rightly said that the Bill would provide an adrenaline boost to sectors of the economy affected by the Covid-19 outbreak. With all these measures, the public must take responsibility and continue to observe social distancing, wear masks and wash their hands with soap. We should not create a position whereby we begin to forget these essential precautions and allow the virus to come back. The virus is still lurking around and is invisible. The Government have the powers to shut down a particular area or town if there is a spike. They have done so in Leicester, and rightly so.

Baroness Neville-Rolfe Portrait Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con) [V]
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

My Lords, I very much welcome this Bill relating to the promotion of economic recovery and growth. It follows the imaginative package announced by the Chancellor in March—the furlough scheme, the VAT and rates holiday, various loans and grants and then, later, the addition of the bounce-back loans, which feature in the Bill, when a further boost was essential. I very much look forward to the Chancellor’s further package before we discuss the Bill in Committee next week. With the prospect of mass unemployment, we need some more imaginative thinking—for example, as I have been suggesting, a cut in employers’ national insurance.

Like others, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Greenhalgh on his speech and indeed on all his interventions in the House so far. I very much look forward to engaging with my noble friend on the more wide-ranging planning changes, as those can play an important part in future growth. However, they are not the purpose of this Bill. Indeed, I worry that too many of today’s interventions have called for regulatory measures rather than for the opening up that we need to get the economy to perk up. The measures in the Bill are temporary, so we need positive suggestions to that end, as we have heard from my noble friends Lord Wei and Lord Lansley and, on some aspects, the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, and as we have just heard from the noble Lord, Lord Bhatia.

I turn to the Bill itself. It should be easier to deal with than the corporate insolvency Bill because it contains essentially temporary provisions. However, I want to understand the sunset provisions. For example, Clause 21 contains an end date of 31 December 2020 but also a provision for a Secretary of State to make regulations substituting a later date. Clause 25 allows him or her to

“make transitional, transitory or saving provision in connection with the expiry of any provision of this Act”.

This legislation is not being adequately costed or scrutinise for permanent effect, so I am not convinced that we should leave so much power with the Executive. The Bill should lapse automatically on a certain date or dates, with new primary legislation enacted as need be.

As the House knows, I take a particular interest in the prosperity of retail, where I worked for many years, as well as in smaller businesses, which have been a dynamic and economic success, much envied in Europe. Both sectors are having a torrid time, but they have also played a heroic part in this crisis; I would single out the food stores, the distribution drivers and the postal workers, all of whom have worked through the pandemic despite the obvious risks and pioneered safer ways of working.

As always, I am grateful to the FSB for its good briefing and to the British Retail Consortium. The latter has raised two concerns on which I would appreciate the Minister’s thoughts. The first is the introduction, at least for the period of the crisis, of digital age estimation and verification. There is a separate telephone app for age verification that is well-established in other countries. It requires registration, but it means there is no need for the customer to show paper ID or to remove any mask, with all the risks those entail. It can be used in some shops already, but not for alcohol or in pubs, because the Home Office has, allegedly—although this surprises me—dragged its feet.

With cities opening up and city centre stores at risk of violence, the BRC is also concerned about the slow progress of a response to a call for evidence on violence against shop workers. I wonder whether my noble friend the Deputy Leader could use his charms to encourage progress on those two matters before we reach Committee.

Finally, I have a much wider concern: that in this crisis, we have given too much weight to medical matters relating to Covid and not quite enough to the negative impact of the measures taken. This extends from cancer treatment to the closure of swathes of the economy. On a normal economic analysis of the kind now being done at Imperial College, the balance in favour of Covid treatment and prevention away from future growth and recovery has gone too far. In due course, we will be criticised by our children for taking away their prosperity. Luckily, the Bill takes some small steps in exactly the right direction.

Baroness Goudie Portrait Baroness Goudie (Lab) [V]
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

My Lords, this is another Bill which puts yet more pressure on local authorities. There is, however, no plan for how they will be reimbursed. The Government have said that they will stand behind councils and provide them with the funding they desperately need, but this has simply not happened. Less than a third of their costs have been met. The Bill makes only a modest contribution towards recovery. Even that contribution is not realistically supported. The Bill falls far short of what other countries are doing.

Local authorities have an essential role to play. The implementation of national policy requires local knowledge, flexibility and collaboration to ensure safety. A massive recovery in council house and affordable homebuilding must be a core element of a national economic and social recovery, with the right infrastructure and protecting the environment.

An upsurge in homelessness must be avoided. Indeed, existing homelessness must be reduced and the well-being of those in substandard and inadequate housing addressed as a priority.

Now more than ever, as we emerge from the current health crisis—but not, for some time, from its economic consequences—the theme must be to give local authorities the tools to enable them to spearhead economic, social and environmental recovery in the context of a green planning system not subject to delays.

Baroness Stowell of Beeston Portrait Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Non-Afl)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

My Lords, I support this Bill. It is right that we should ease lockdown, and it is critical that we push the economic accelerator. Jobs and livelihoods are at stake. I am particularly pleased to see the hospitality sector reopen and for people to be able to get together again in pubs and restaurants but, like other noble Lords, I have some concerns about the threat of anti-social behaviour, especially as a result of off-sales in open containers. I hope the noble Earl will provide some assurance in his response, and I have heard some interesting mitigations from other noble Lords.

Rather than dwell on that specific point, I want to use this opportunity to talk more broadly about personal responsibility as we begin once again to enjoy our liberties. The lifting of lockdown also presents an important opportunity to reinforce and, in some cases, reset, other essential elements to help us create a better future for everyone. I am talking about our common understanding of what we should be able to expect of each other when it comes to our conduct and behaviour in a public place, and our willingness to promote and uphold a common set of standards.

These are the hallmarks of a society that works for the benefit of everyone, because they show that we share something in common with each other, whatever our background, age or the position we hold in our work. Upholding them is an expression of mutual respect. Over the last few years, political events and this pandemic have exposed the divisions that exist in our society. In recent weeks, it has felt as though some have tried to deepen them further and create new divides, with unacceptable acts of thuggery, vandalism and violence.

There is a lot that needs sorting out if we are to address the inequalities behind some of these divisions, which is why I am so pleased that we are getting on with restarting the economy. However, we will not achieve all that we need to achieve unless and until we all feel that we belong to, and are part of, a shared endeavour. The Bill temporarily lifts some burdens on business—but with those freedoms comes greater responsibility. We should recognise that landlords, restaurateurs, shopkeepers, bus drivers and anyone else responsible for public spaces are important leaders in our local communities. They, alongside the police, deserve our respect when they help to set standards and seek to uphold them. If we are relying on them, they need to know in return that they can rely on us to back them, and we should all be clear about why this is so important.

Now, more than ever, we need to support each other actively, by sticking to the same standards or rules and challenging those who do not, especially when it comes to basic manifestations such as queuing, face-coverings or things that we know are unacceptable—but are scared, these days, to challenge—such as litter, feet on seats and loud music. These small things matter. They help to prevent worse things happening, and the sense of unity that upholding them creates is critical to our success in building a stronger economy.

I notice that Clause 5 refers to the possibility of the Secretary of State setting conditions and Clause 8 to the issuing of guidance in the context of licensing. While I am not suggesting specific legislation for the sorts of things that I have just been referring to, I would none the less be grateful if the Minister could tell the House whether the Government have any plans in this area.

Lord German Portrait Lord German (LD) [V]
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

My Lords, I wish to address the issue of support for SMEs—one of the four pillars mentioned by the Minister in his opening remarks. There are alterations to the Bounce Back Loan Scheme in this Bill; some may be sensible changes to a much-needed scheme. However, research undertaken in mid-June by just one business organisation found that only 45% of eligible businesses had been able to apply for these loans, owing to overcomplicated application systems and busy phone lines. One recurring complaint was that many leading banks were saying to their customers, incorrectly, that they had filled in the application details wrongly, or that having two signatories on the business account created a problem.

I hope the Minister can reassure the House that the measures in this Bill will ensure that these problems are overcome. However, I ask the Government to consider how Parliament should scrutinise the impact of not just the bounce-back loans but the Coronavirus Business Interruption Loan Scheme. The Government’s goal is to provide a bridge over what will be, in their words, a “sharp and significant crisis”, to keep people employed and businesses afloat. Parliament therefore has a duty to keep a watching eye on the impact of this support, making these schemes as effective as possible.

The Bill before us today is designed to stimulate the demand side of the economy, which could be loosely described as getting people to spend more again. There are, however, significant sectors, apart from the ones highlighted in this Bill, which will require extra help. Manufacturing SMEs can be far down the line of feeling the direct impact of the domestic consumer spending encouraged in the measures outlined. By way of example, those in the supply chain for motor vehicle manufacturing would need to see a big uptick in people buying cars before their output would reach pre-Covid-19 levels.

This is an even bigger challenge for those supplying to the aviation sector. It is estimated that 1,400 jobs to be laid off at the Airbus wing factory in Broughton will lead to six times as many job losses in companies in the supply chain—the suppliers to the suppliers, and the makers of the smallest widgets to the biggest widgets. Small companies are deeply affected by reduced order books and will need support during the time it takes for these order books to recover, and we know that this will not be as quick as in other sectors.

In its monitoring survey published last week, the manufacturers’ association found that just under half of UK manufacturers plan to make employees redundant in the next six months; as might be expected, that is a marked increase from quarter 1. More than six in every 10 companies are planning to make between 6% and 25% of their staff redundant. Even with access to the furloughing scheme until October, many employers feel that they cannot use the scheme to protect jobs that may no longer exist in the future. So there is a danger of a real cliff edge of job losses in this sector, either at the end of the furlough scheme or earlier. These jobs will be lost right across the country and across all manufacturing sectors.

The primary ask from the UK manufacturing sector, with its 2.7 million employees, is for business rate relief, as has been provided for the retail and hospitality sectors. Will the Government publish the granular data for the bounce-back and CBIL loans schemes, so that Parliament and the public can analyse the impact and ensure that everything possible is being done to support manufacturing and the skilled workforce who are employed within it?

Baroness Eaton Portrait Baroness Eaton (Con) [V]
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

My Lords, I declare my interest as a vice-president and former chair of the Local Government Association. The Bill we are considering today is a positive step towards reopening our economy. It will help with the recovery and ensure that a consistent approach is taken across the country. I will focus my remarks on the important role that local government will play in helping reopen local economies.

During this pandemic, councils, as leaders of place, have supported businesses by, among many things, distributing hundreds of thousands in coronavirus business grant payments. They are now working hard to ensure that the hospitality sector, and other sectors, are able to reopen safely. It is essential that we begin to reopen our economy and get the country moving again. To do this, we need proper safeguards. Councils should receive powers so that they can feel confident that licensing applications that cannot be managed safely can be turned down, and that they will be able to act where issues arise following the reopening of premises.

While we need to support local pubs, restaurants and other entertainment venues, we also need to make sure that those living near to these premises are not faced with anti-social behaviour or noise pollution—a subject raised by many noble Lords today. I would welcome reassurance from the Minister on this point.

The full responsibility and cost for making this policy work successfully do not sit with local authorities alone. However, with the initial burden falling on them, it is crucial that councils are supported financially by central government to meet the cost of processing an expected large number of applications in a short period of time.

It is right that the licensing measures proposed in the Bill are temporary and designed to help and support councils during these extraordinary times. In the longer term, there is a need for a comprehensive review of our outdated licensing legislation to ensure that it is fit for the future. I know that the LGA has long been calling for this review and is ready to work with the Government on this vital programme, once the measures in this Bill have expired. I hope that the Minister will be able to make that commitment to the House today.

The Bill before us also makes it clear that an expedited review process may require a licensing hearing to be held to discuss an application. Since March 2020, licensing hearings, in common with other council meetings, have been held virtually. Last week, the Government published new public health regulations on public gatherings. I encourage the Government to continue to support councils with clear guidance around their meetings, so that we can ensure that local democracy is able to function effectively. This will be particularly key as new legislation and regulations are published over the coming months.

I would like to bring my remarks to a close by welcoming the Bill and giving it my full support. My suggestions are refinements and points of clarification that I believe it will be helpful to make. The principle and the general thrust of the Bill are of course very welcome, as it marks an important step in opening up our economy and rebuilding for the future, and I am pleased to support it.

Lord Lucas Portrait Lord Lucas (Con) [V]
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, and many others have pointed out the importance of the relationship between district and county authorities when it comes to the highway. In the district of Eastbourne where I live, it will be the district council that bears the responsibility for our economic recovery in a town which is based on the hospitality industry. As my noble friend Lord Wei said, innovation and experimentation ought to be the order of the day. However, this crucially involves roads. They permeate a town and you cannot talk about the experience of visitors, let alone residents, without really focusing on what is going on with the roadways. As others have pointed out, this Bill involves the interface between the pavement and the roadway. If we have a café that is spilling on to the pavement, with pedestrians spilling over into the roadway, the district authority absolutely must have the power to set the standards of safety that will make sure that that safety can be delivered by procuring changes to what is happening in the roadway. This cannot wait on the county; this has to be something that the district council can do by its own motion, or least get the county to do in an expedited way rather than to the county’s own timescales.

As has again been suggested by others, I too hope that we will look at expanding the Bill. Where neighbouring premises, open spaces or car parks might be thrown into service in the cause of this Bill, they should not be neglected. We should also look at encouraging, particularly in a seasonal town like Eastbourne, pop-up experiences—things that are not intended to last into the winter.

Lastly, in reply to my noble friends Lord Cormack and Lord Balfe, I am enthusiastic about this way of conducting business. I think that we have seen some real improvements in the ways in which our colleagues are now better embedded in the communities they are a part of, both in working and in living, and I have seen that being reflected in the debate today. I understand that we need to see some improvements to the systems we have at the moment, but given a bit of determination and good will, they seem to be entirely without our capabilities. I for one am in no hurry to get back to the business of commuting to Westminster with all the disconnection that that generates.

Baroness Noakes Portrait Baroness Noakes (Con)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

My Lords, this Bill has my complete support. The coronavirus pandemic started as a health crisis, but it is now primarily an economic one. Our GDP has contracted at an unprecedented rate this year, falling by over 20% in April alone. The policy priority has to be a return to economic growth. The furlough scheme, the guaranteed business loans and the other measures have been lifelines, but they were never going to completely offset the huge economic damage that has been inflicted by the lockdown. Indeed, as those schemes start to roll off, we can expect more business failures and higher unemployment that will in turn further impact GDP. The construction and hospitality sectors have been particularly hard hit, and this Bill, while it is no panacea, makes important contributions to their revival.

A number of noble Lords have expressed reservations about the licensing and planning relaxations in this Bill. I ask them to give these temporary measures the benefit of the doubt. We have to get our economy moving again. Once we have recouped this year’s loss of GDP, we can decide from a position of relative economic security what relaxations we can keep and what must be tightened or reversed.

It has been relatively easy to scare people into staying at home, and in broad terms the lockdown has been a great public policy success. The hard task now will be to get people out again, and attitude surveys still show considerable caution. The opening of shops last month and of pubs, restaurants and—praise be!—hairdressers last weekend shows that the public can be tempted out, but not yet in the kinds of numbers that will restore our economy. We need to go even further. We need people to return to normal life, and that means returning to work.

For an economy that has about two-thirds of GDP in household consumption and 80% in the service sector, extensive working from home as a norm will end up being an own goal. I believe your Lordships’ House has a role to play here. Our leaders have been frightened into a risk-averse form of upper Chamber that positively encourages noble Lords to take part from their armchairs at home. Sometimes noble Lords are even outside the UK. I believe we should set an example to the nation that life can and must return to as near normal as possible. The presumption should be that noble Lords are physically present in Parliament and vote in person; I stand with my noble friends Lord Cormack and Lord Balfe on this. Alternative participation mechanisms should be available but only for those who cannot be present for medical reasons.

We can do two things today to help our country return to economic health and prosperity. First, we can support the proposals in this Bill and speed its passage through the House and on to the statute book. Secondly, we can be a living example that working life can be very much like before, albeit modified by informed risk management and sensible risk mitigation. Noble Lords should remember that the Writ of Summons that each of us received requires us, “waiving all excuses”, to be “personally present”. Let us return to that in September, if not before.

Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick Portrait Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Non-Afl) [V]
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

My Lords, Covid-19 has caused more disruption and damage to the world’s economies than any event in living memory. In the UK alone, millions could lose their jobs and hundreds of billions of pounds could be wiped from the economy. This pandemic is far from over. We face the risk of localised spikes and perhaps worse, causing further grief and economic instability. The future remains volatile and uncertain, so it is vital that the Government provide all possible support.

This Business and Planning Bill presents an opportunity to kick-start our economy as it emerges from lockdown. A huge amount is at stake, so it is imperative that we get the details of the legislation right. There is a lot we need to do. People want to socialise again, quite justifiably, but we need to encourage them to do so safely. This means the Bill must provide that flexibility for the licensing laws and the facilitation of fast-track planning permission for the pavement cafés. The Government’s bounce-back loans scheme is useful and has the potential to be of real help to business, but it should be more flexible and allow much easier access to funds.

There are other ways in which Ministers can provide hugely valuable support through this Bill. For instance, they are enabled to help ease the backlog in vehicle testing and driving licences for goods, passenger and public service vehicles. Steps such as providing an easement on construction working hours and on the expiry of planning approvals would also make a real difference.

Some of the provisions in this Bill extend to Northern Ireland, and in fact the Northern Ireland Assembly gives legislative consent to this Bill today.

There are certain areas, mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, that are vital to the economy and should be included. High streets have been decimated during lockdown. On one day alone last week, 6,000 jobs were lost in the retail sector. Sadly, there are many more closures to come; indeed, there is a real fear that we could return to the high levels of unemployment last seen in the 1980s. Therefore, will the Minister give us his view about including in the Bill, albeit as a temporary measure, the expansion of business improvement districts, extending the towns fund, which currently relates to 101 towns, and rethinking permitted development rights as well as commercial rates? Perhaps he will write to me if he cannot answer those points when he winds up.

I understand that the Chancellor will deliver a speech on the economy on Wednesday. I ask the Minister to press his colleagues in the Treasury for the inclusion of fixed fiscal flexibility measures and substantial job creation plans. In the medium term, we must also draw up detailed plans for the regeneration of our town centres, supported by the Government.

I support the provisions in the Bill, but feel that there are opportunities for other areas, including the retail sector, to be included, because they are a vital part of business, a vital part of planning and a vital part of the economy.

Lord Moynihan Portrait Lord Moynihan (Con)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

My Lords, my noble friend in sport, the noble Lord, Lord Addington, gave a powerful speech on the implications of this Bill for sports clubs, so I will amend what I was going to say and focus on the detail behind his thesis, with which I fully agree. As many noble Lords have said, the purpose of the Bill is to introduce measures to help businesses adjust to new ways of working as the country recovers from the disruption caused by Covid-19. The measures support the transition from immediate crisis response and lockdown into recovery and getting the economy moving again. The measures support businesses to implement safer ways of working to manage the ongoing risks from Covid-19, particularly the need for social distancing. It is an approach which, conceptually, was supported by direct financial support for the arts this morning, which was welcomed by all. We desperately need the same for sport, especially clubs that do not benefit from the professionalism of the top level of sport.

Clause 11 is designed to amend the Licensing Act 2003 and associated regulations, to allow licensed premises to serve alcohol for takeaways while being open for on-site delivery at the same time. This is designed to allow pubs to make up revenue lost as a result of social distancing restrictions. However, the Act also applies to club premises certificates. These alcohol sales licences are slightly different; they apply largely to sports club bars and social clubs. The legislation before us explicitly excludes these venues and does not allow them to make the same changes as pubs. This can be seen in the table on page 16 of the Bill, which shows that club premises licences are specifically not included. This means that sports club bars and social clubs will not be allowed to sell takeaway alcohol, despite facing the very same revenue-losing restrictions as pubs.

The Royal Yachting Association predicts that 95% of its club bars have a club premises certificate, and as such, will lose revenue. The RFU, referred to by my noble friend in sport, the noble Lord, Lord Addington, is also concerned that a great number of rugby clubs will face the same problems. Given the losses that grass roots sports clubs have been facing and the continued cessation of activity for many of those clubs, including cricket clubs, it seems wholly unfair to penalise them further when their bars are allowed to open.

I hope that this explanation is helpful to the Minister, to whom I gave advance notice. We are asking the Government to look again and include club premises certificates in the Bill. If not, we could see the loss of a number of sports clubs up and down the country, and in that context, I look forward to the Minister’s reply.

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

My Lords, I congratulate the Minister on the clear, coherent manner in which he introduced this debate. The House has great fortune in having him on the Front Bench. I offer my support to the Bill. We need to get the economy moving and, although it is not a provision of the Bill, we need to get our young people back into education as soon as possible.

I shall cover two elements related to the Bill: inclusion and small breweries. I stand alongside the comments of my noble friend Lord Blencathra and my friend the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, about pavements and public spaces. We must ensure that we build back together or we will not build back much that is worth while. The measures are temporary, but inclusion and accessibility are about every moment and they count just as much for temporary fixes as for anything else. It is vital that we get our economy moving again, but it should not come at the expense of the exclusion of disabled people from our high streets and local communities. That exclusion is utterly avoidable. It would be invidious if we took regulatory barriers away temporarily only to replace them for disabled people and those with young children in pushchairs with impassable physical barriers. Economic growth and equality are not mutually exclusive or, indeed, diametrically opposed. They walk hand in hand. This makes great moral, legal and business sense. In fact, the greater the level of inclusion, the greater the level of social and economic activity. There is only one economy, there is only one United Kingdom—it flourishes and we are all at our best when everything is underpinned by dignity, inclusion and respect. I thank all the organisations that do so much good work on accessibility and inclusion, not least the Guide Dogs for the Blind Association and the RNIB.

The changes to the licensing requirements are welcome, but hundreds of small independent breweries find themselves locked out and unable to take part in this unlocking of the economy. They find themselves having extremely tough times for want of small, doable legislative changes. It is imperative that they have a successful summer, otherwise they may have no autumn or winter. We could do such a service for these small independent breweries if we just make these small legislative changes to enable them to sell to the public, which they are currently unable to do. The innovation and ingenuity that we have seen from small independent breweries, particularly in the past decade, have brought vast sectors and areas of the public to not just the product but the approach and the methods of brewing, and often these breweries put themselves right in the heart of the community.

Small legislative changes will make such a big difference to our small independent breweries. We owe it to them to make those changes. Does the Minister agree, and does he agree that everything that we do not just in this Bill but across all our activities should be predicated on inclusion?

Baroness McIntosh of Pickering Portrait Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con) [V]
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

My Lords, I take this opportunity to welcome the Bill and to congratulate my noble friend on his maiden Second Reading speech, which he made so eloquently. I declare an interest as chairman of the board of PASS, the Proof of Age Standards Scheme. We are also looking at the possibility of proof of age going forward digitally, which I think will have great scope within this Bill. While we can look at the proposals in more detail in Committee, this is a question of reaching a balance between the rights of businesses to operate and to recover from what has been a very difficult period and the rights of residents, which I would like to consider under three different aspects. I also want to refer to the report of the ad-hoc licensing committee; we looked at the Licensing Act 2003 and made a number of recommendations which I would like to consider in Committee.

Looking at the fast-track approach for cafés and bars and the opportunity to place chairs and tables on the pavements outside, I know that the 90% fall in consumption of food and drink has been felt keenly, and the knock-on effect on farming is worthy of note as well. When looking at outside spaces, in addition to pavements, will the noble Earl consider car parks and parking spaces where practicable? In terms of serving off-licence, I echo the concerns raised by other noble Lords about plastic being used rather than glass. Also, would he look at the issue of serving people who are already intoxicated and the recommendation that we came up with of having young people acting as volunteers, trying to encourage those of their own age not to drink any more when perhaps they are already slightly tipsy?

I realise that this is a temporary measure, but will the noble Earl confirm that there will be consultation on the guidance going forward, particularly as relates to construction, and that regard will be given to residents, particularly those working at home at this time who might find longer hours to be just one step too far?

Local authorities have asked for a number of issues to be taken into consideration—for one, the extra burden that is going to be placed on them. They request that clear and comprehensive guidance will be given and ask what regard will be given to the fees levied. I have a concern that the fees be appropriate and not disproportionate. They also ask that when the committees meet, they can now start meeting in physical or at least hybrid form, recognising the social distance. I hope that the Government agree.

When it comes to the wider reforms on planning, I hope that the noble Earl will look at some of the recommendations that the ad-hoc committee made, such as licensing committees being merged with planning committees, which has a lot to commend itself. The planning going forward, particularly as regards construction sites where it should be flexible, should be done on a site-by-site basis. Many of my other comments will be for the wider reforms or for Committee.

Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth Portrait Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth (Con) [V]
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend on introducing the legislation with such clarity. I welcome it and I think it gives a much-needed adrenaline boost, as was noted by my right honourable friend Alok Sharma in the House of Commons. Principally, of course, it is helping the hospitality sector, which has suffered such a massive drop of some 90% in business because of the virus. It is right that we fast-track these pavement licences and that there is a reasonable fee but, like the noble Lords, Lord Blunkett and Lord Low, and my noble friends Lord Blencathra and Lord Holmes, I think we need to be very careful about access issues and to ensure that appropriate measures are taken to protect access for the partially sighted, the blind, people in wheelchairs and so on. That is absolutely right.

Like others, I have some concerns relating to Clause 11 about off-sales, particularly late into the night. We know that drink and social distance do not mix. We should very much bear that in mind when we try to square the circle of opening up the economy while recognising the dangers that still exist from the virus; we ignore it at our peril. The British Beer and Pub Association has noted that 25% of pubs are still not able to reopen, even with one-metre social distancing, so encouraging the opening up of pavement licences is something I very much welcome.

The position on convenience stores appears a bit confused. The Association of Convenience Stores, which covers shops such as the Co-op, Nisa, Budgens, SPAR, petrol forecourts and lots of independent businesses, is not convinced that they are covered by this legislation. It seems to me that they are, in Clause 1(4)(b), but I hope that my noble friend Lord Howe will confirm that when he sums up. We should ensure that that is the case, because we need to be innovative and broaden our approach. We need to open up the economy.

I share my noble friend Lord Hunt of Wirral’s welcome of today’s announcement of help for the arts, but note that we need a road map as well for continued regeneration of arts and culture venues, as we do for sports, as we just heard from my noble friend Lord Moynihan. I hope that is also something we can turn our attention to. I very much support what my noble friends Lord Wei and Lord Lucas said about the need for an innovative approach to try to regenerate and revitalise our town centres with drive-through cinemas and drive-through facilities, and to open up towns with more markets, food approaches and so on. We should look at that. We need to be innovative and to make sure that we really do get the economy humming again.

The legislation is welcome in many other ways: I very much welcome the flexibilities for the construction sector and for planning permission. They are very sensible, as is the flexibility for driving licences. We need to ensure that we fund our local authorities, considering the extra burden that they are taking on. We owe them that to ensure that we all go forward together. Subject to that, I very much welcome the legislation. It shows some imagination. We perhaps need to show even more imagination as we try to open up our economy and get it moving yet again.

Lord Alderdice Portrait The Deputy Speaker (Lord Alderdice) (LD)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

I call the next speaker, the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock. Oh, could you unmute? I am afraid we cannot hear you.

Baroness Penn Portrait Baroness Penn (Con)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

My Lords, I beg to move that the House adjourn for five minutes to resolve the technical issue.

Sitting suspended.
Baroness Pinnock Portrait Baroness Pinnock (LD) [V]
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

My Lords, now that the technical issues have been resolved, I draw the attention of the House to my interests as a councillor in Kirklees and as a vice-president of the Local Government Association. I thank the noble Earl, Lord Howe, for his ever-helpful approach. We have had an excellent and well-informed debate on the proposals in the Bill and my hope is that he will be able to respond positively to the many concerns that have been raised.

Liberal Democrats on these Benches understand and support the general thrust of the Bill, which is to provide additional flexibility to some specified businesses that have been hit hard by lockdown in the early months of the pandemic. We also appreciate that the Government want to provide these new flexibilities as soon as possible. However, that should not result in the measures included in the Bill not being given the full level of scrutiny for which this House is responsible. My colleagues and other noble Lords from across the House have raised questions and concerns on a number of issues which require answers from the Government.

Part 1 enables pubs, bars, and cafés to apply for pavement licences to expand on the amount of seating available and provide some recompense for a reduction in the customers permitted within the premises. My noble friend Lady Thornhill has drawn attention to the confusion of responsibilities for licence applications in two-tier local authorities, which needs to be resolved. My noble friends Lady Randerson and Lady Bowles have spoken on this issue and suggested variations on the measures in the Bill. The RNIB and Guide Dogs have raised concerns, as have local councils and disability organisations. They are all concerned that people with visual impairments, in wheelchairs or pushing buggies will find that they are unable to pass safely on the pavement. Reassurances must be provided that the needs of businesses will not surmount the needs of pedestrians.

Part 1 also includes one of the more controversial proposals, which is to permit sales from pubs and bars of alcohol in “open containers”. My noble friend Lord Paddick has spoken eloquently, and from his vast experience, on the topic. This measure really does require modification to minimise the problems that could well follow in town and city centres, putting additional pressure on the police and councils. It is not right to pass the additional costs created by businesses on to these public services without providing appropriate financial compensation. Noble Lords from across the House have voiced anxieties on this provision. It requires changes in the Bill.

On Part 2, my noble friends Lady Kramer, Lady Bowles and Lord German have explained why they have concerns about the Bill regarding the loan scheme and highlighted issues about insurance and whistleblowing. We look forward to the Minister responding constructively to their expert comments. My noble friend Lady Randerson has also voiced concerns about the renewal of driving licences for bus drivers. I look forward to the response on this vital safety question.

Part 3 relates to changes to planning legislation. The elements that relate to extending permissions are welcome, both for planning authorities and for developers. However, one part of this provision, for automatic extension involving environmental conditions in a planning consent, has to be reconsidered, in order that vital environmental protections are not overridden in the name of construction for the short term, while enabling destruction of our natural environment in the long term. This is not in tune with the Government’s claims of “building green”.

Every planning consent includes conditions on hours of working. They are there for a purpose. They provide a safeguard for neighbours; extension of hours has to be with the consent of those it affects. The Bill fails to give enough emphasis to the views of neighbours and gives the impression that construction needs are more important, especially as it is possible for developers to apply for a construction period of 24 hours a day. My noble friend Lady Randerson rightly warned that one man’s bureaucracy is another man’s democratic right, and this applies particularly to planning.

My noble friend Lord Shipley asked whether a pre-consultation period can be included, so that the narrow windows for applications make for more transparency and inclusivity. He also asked the Government to disapply the current requirements on councils for the housing delivery test, for which there are draconian consequences where not met. Will the Minister give assurances on this issue? My noble friend Lady Doocey raised planning issues regarding tourism and I look forward to the Minister’s response.

Planning appeals are a crucial part of the planning process and, as the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhope, stated, these are already weighted heavily in favour of developers. It is to be regretted that this is the one change that is to be permanent. It should be a temporary change along with the other measures, with any permanent change being included in the next planning Bill.

My noble friend Lady Kramer also raised what must be a government oversight: TfL, and other London development agencies, are not included in the Covid legislation on virtual decision-making. I am confident that the Government will want to rectify this omission to enable those bodies to make decisions openly and transparently.

The majority of these changes affect local government, yet they incur additional costs without additional funding. It is already clear that many councils have huge financial pressures, even after the latest funding announcement from the Government. The extra costs for councils in the Bill need to be reimbursed.

In conclusion, there are important changes in this Bill, which are largely supported. However, the measures are piecemeal and apply to a narrow section of local businesses. The Bill cannot be seen as part of a more thought-through response. In that sense, it is very much a wasted opportunity for setting out a clear strategy that will provide some hope, both to communities and to businesses. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

Lord Kennedy of Southwark Portrait Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

My Lords, I first draw the attention of the House to my relevant registered interest as a vice-president of the Local Government Association.

This has been an interesting debate on important issues contained in the Bill. The position of the official Opposition is that we support the Bill in general but have reservations on a number of issues, which we will raise during the Bill’s passage through the House. At the outset, I want to make it clear that if we fail in our endeavours to persuade the Government, we will seek to Divide the House at Report on our amendments that deal with issues that we think are important.

The balance to be struck here is one that supports businesses in the hospitality sector and elsewhere to get back on their feet but, at the same time, gives a voice to local residents and does not lead to a second spike in Covid-19 infections. That is very difficult to achieve, and the Government do not have a good record with regard to the pandemic: the worst death rate in the whole of Europe; the scandal of care home deaths; the testing shambles; the track and trace app that was to be world-beating by 1 June, but does not work; and the procurement offers that were turned down. The devastation caused to families by the loss of loved ones has been heartbreaking.

Moving on to specific areas of the Bill, Part 1 deals with the consumption of food and drink outdoors. The Bill introduces a new legal framework for issuing licences which will enable food and drink businesses to put removable furniture on the pavement adjacent to their premises in order to sell food and drink. What is important here is the ability to manage carefully a number of different and conflicting issues and objectives. These include the need for the business to reopen, the desire for customers to enjoy meeting friends and family in a local pub or restaurant in a socially distant and responsible manner, the need to maintain the accessibility of the public highway for all users, the concerns of local residents about excessive and unreasonable noise causing nuisance and annoyance, litter, poor behaviour in general, and the ability of the local authority enforcement teams and the police to take effective action.

There are resource implications for these changes, and the proposed £100 licence fee that local authorities can charge will of course not cover the costs that they will incur. In responding to the debate, can the noble Earl explain how local authorities will be reimbursed for the additional costs they incur? The Government have a track record of loading additional burdens on to local authorities and providing woefully inadequate resources. Local government finances are in a perilous state, and this is just not acceptable.

My noble friend Lord Stevenson of Balmacara raised issues of concern about street vendors and small breweries, which have, in effect, been left out of the provisions of the Bill. I fully support the points he made.

My noble friends Lady Goudie, Lady Wilcox of Newport and Lady Kennedy of Cradley highlighted the role that local authorities will play in delivering the vast majority of the proposals in the Bill and the need to properly support local authorities, and the police, in delivering the framework in order to get it right.

There are similar concerns about Clause 11 in Part 1, which many noble Lords have highlighted. It deals with alcohol licensing, off-sales and getting the balance right between supporting business and protecting residents from additional nuisance. What we have before us fails to do that at present. The problem is that, when you have a number of licensed premises together, as many noble Lords have mentioned, local residents already suffer that nuisance. In many ways they accept it, but the off-sale proposals could make it even worse. The issue is not confined to Soho—I know there was a lot of coverage there over the weekend—but applies to other parts of London and many other cities and towns, which all have their entertainment areas and high streets where people go to enjoy themselves.

We must be clear that the problem is not just noise; it is people urinating in the street, defecating in bushes and behaving disgustingly. The Government need to restrict off-sales to 11 pm. That is more than reasonable. I endorse the comments of the noble Lords, Lord Paddick and Lord Randall of Uxbridge; no matter how long the on-sale licence is for, 11 pm should be the end for off-sales. That is a reasonable, proportionate measure that I hope the Government will embrace.

The noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew, also has my full support. He referred to the unacceptable behaviour that has taken place in London Fields in the London Borough of Hackney. I endorse all his comments; we must ensure that people are not subjected to more disgusting behaviour. My noble friend Lord Whitty rightly raised the similar concern that we are encouraging more drinking on our streets but not dealing with its possible consequences.

In preparing for this debate, I talked to a number of organisations, including USDAW and the Bakers, Food and Allied Workers’ Union. There are huge concerns about the safety of staff working in the sector, who risk dealing with people who have consumed too much alcohol and are incapable of socially distancing. Keeping staff safe from the risks to their health when at work, from the handling of cash to the role of door staff, needs to be dealt with by the Government. It is very difficult, as we all know, when someone has had too much to drink to get them to understand how they need to behave. My noble friend Lady Wilcox referred to that in particular.

We need some clarity from the Government on the situation regarding toilets. The law is very limited here, with only four provisions in the Public Health Act on keeping toilets clean in establishments serving food to be consumed on the premises. Local authorities do the enforcement work through visits to premises, but we need a clear commitment from the Government to provide guidance on the cleaning and maintenance of toilets with sufficient frequency to ensure the protection of customers, and staff, who are always the ones doing the cleaning. This is not easy because, as I have said, people who are drinking will want to use the toilet more. We need to ensure we get this right.

There are also issues around public toilets, as considerable numbers of them have been closed in recent years and with this Bill we are encouraging more off-sales and off-the-premises drinking. We need to ensure that that there is clear guidance from the Government or other bodies, ensuring that we get this right. They should seek advice from organisations such as the British Toilet Association. I think it is very clear what can and cannot be done.

Regarding Part 2, my noble friend Lord Stevenson of Balmacara referred to the bounce-back loan scheme. I endorse his comments and will not speak further on that part of the Bill. Similarly, I endorse the comments of, and concerns raised by, a number of noble Lords, including the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, regarding Clauses 13, 14 and 15.

Part 3 deals with the planning system and puts in place temporary measures. I welcome most of the proposals before us—I actually had an Oral Question on planning issues a few weeks ago. I first want to raise an important omission also raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, about mayoral development corporations and bodies such as the London Legacy Development Corporation and TfL, which are planning authorities but have not been included under the definition of a local authority and so will have real difficulties moving forward. That is an unintentional omission by the Government; I hope the Minister can look at that before Committee. I hope we can get an amendment agreed which corrects that error.

I was pleased to learn that these measures are not a precursor to further changes to the planning system. Many in this House and elsewhere are of the view that certain parts of the Government are strangely obsessed with planning and reform, rather than dealing with the hundreds of thousands of planning permission applications that have been approved and are sitting there, with not a single brick being laid or a single shovel being put into the ground.

The noble Lord, Lord Best, raised concerns that future reforms will include extensions to permitted development rights, which would not get more affordable or green homes built, or address the real problems. We have said we need to “build, build, build”, but we must also build well, build green and build with a long-term future in sight.

I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Randall of Uxbridge, that the environmental considerations of our planning system are vital and should not be lost in any future reviews. My noble friend Lady Andrews outlined the problems facing local authorities, businesses and the high street. I hope the noble Earl will address those points when he responds shortly. I agree with my noble friend Lord Blunkett that we need to strip away any plans to support entrepreneurs and innovation to the detriment of residents and communities. This false premise should be resisted and is no basis for achieving what the Government want to achieve.

My noble friend Lord Blunkett, the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, the noble Lord, Lord Low of Dalston, and others raised the concerns of the RNIB and wheelchair users. It is important for the noble Earl to respond to those points in respect of how we move forward. We should also be aware of the blight that extended hours of construction could cause residents, the noise of construction sites working many more hours than normal and the problem of vehicle movements. Again, I hope the noble Earl assures the House about what the Government are doing.

In conclusion, we support the Bill but want to see movement from the Government on a number of issues highlighted by me and other noble Lords in this House today.

Earl Howe Portrait Earl Howe (Con)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

My Lords, this has been a constructive debate and I am grateful, as ever, for your Lordships’ detailed engagement with the measures in the Bill. I congratulate my noble friend Lord Greenhalgh on making his first speech in this House in physical form. He set out succinctly the measures that the Bill seeks to introduce. I therefore intend to focus mainly on responding to questions and comments posed in the debate. Those that I do not have time to cover today—and there will be several, for which I apologise in advance—I will answer in writing.

Before I turn to those matters, it might help if I addressed some of the cross-cutting issues that your Lordships have highlighted. The first is the wider context. This is an important Bill, but I am the first to acknowledge that its scope is deliberately focused. It does not pretend to cover the whole waterfront of the UK economy. That is why my right honourable friend the Chancellor will make a summer economic update to the House of Commons on 8 July, outlining the next stage in our plan to secure Britain’s recovery, building on the Prime Minister’s speech. It is clear that the long-term plans and big decisions are for the Autumn Budget and spending review, but there are things we can and should do now to give the country the boost it needs.

The first phase has seen us help families and businesses through the crisis. As the economy opens up, we will move into a new phase. I cannot confirm the details in advance, but we have done the right thing by helping people through the crisis and we will do the same as we come out of it. The noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, indicated her view that support for the economy has been insufficient. I remind her that the Government have provided unprecedented support to help businesses through the lockdown. Over £350 billion of government-backed and guaranteed loans have been made available to businesses and individuals, as well as a range of support schemes, including business rate holidays, tax deferrals and the job retention scheme. Of course, we will continue to keep under review what further support should be provided to businesses.

I can say, particularly in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, that our recovery from Covid-19 should be clean and resilient, making our economy match fit for tomorrow’s challenges and not yesterday’s. This means reducing risk and increasing our resilience to the threat that climate change poses to the UK’s prosperity and security, as well as the linked challenges of biodiversity and public health. Action to support net zero can deliver jobs and opportunities across the country, as demonstrated by our success to date—with growth up by 75% and emissions down by 43% over the last three decades and more than 460,000 people employed in low-carbon businesses and their supply chains. This is a win-win area.

A number of noble Lords, including the noble Lords, Lord Stevenson and Lord Kennedy of Southwark, the noble Baronesses, Lady Wilcox and Lady Andrews, the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, and my noble friend Lord Sheikh, raised concerns about the impact of these measures on local authorities, taken in the round. First, I note that the Local Government Association has been consulted and has welcomed the proposals on pavement licensing and planning extensions. Licensing proposals have also been discussed with local government and the police. Secondly, I remind the House that the Government have provided £3.7 billion to local authorities through un-ring-fenced grants to address pressures they face in response to the Covid-19 pandemic. This includes the extra £500 million announced on 2 July. This further funding provision demonstrates the Government’s continued commitment to making sure that councils have the resources they need to continue to support their communities through this challenging time.

On pavement licences in particular, our measures will create a more streamlined process and may take away some of the current administrative costs associated with processing applications. For example—and in answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson—we have taken steps to ensure that local authorities can impose their own conditions up front across all licences, which should help mitigate concerns about automatic deeming of licences. However, we recognise that elements of the new fast-track process may have resourcing implications. We are undertaking a new burdens assessment to assess what support local authorities need to implement this new temporary process and whether any additional funding will be necessary.

As regards planning consents, let us bear in mind that the measures in the Bill are temporary and together do not amount to a significant new financial burden on local authorities this financial year.

The noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, expressed concern about the unclear situation, as she sees it, of councils returning to open public meetings. During the pandemic the Government have temporarily removed the legal requirement for local authorities to hold public meetings in person. While social distancing restrictions remain in place, we have provided councils with flexibility to hold meetings in a manner that ensures the decision-making process remains accessible to their residents. The local authority remote meetings regulations enable all meetings to be held remotely. They do not preclude either physical meetings or a hybrid form of meeting, where these can be held in accordance with public health regulations and guidance. The Government have amended the health protection regulations to allow indoor gatherings of more than 30 persons; these apply to meetings taking place in council buildings from 4 July.

The noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, expressed concerns about the shortness of consultation, there being no legal requirement to post applications online and having only lamp-post notifications. She felt that was discriminatory against those with visual impairments. Local authorities are required to publish, in such a manner as they consider appropriate, applications, material accompanying them and the fact that representations may be made. The draft guidance makes it clear that authorities might consider using digital means of publicity, such as on their website or via an online portal, and that in deciding what action to take to publish, they should consider the needs of those who might find it more difficult to access online publications.

The noble Lord, Lord Shipley, called for a quarterly review, rather as is built into the Coronavirus Act. We recognise the importance of keeping the measures under review and will closely monitor their effects. However, we think that a rolling parliamentary review would compromise the stability we seek to provide to businesses and local authorities in the recovery stage of the pandemic. Almost all the measures in the Bill are temporary; they have temporary effect or apply to temporary schemes. The end dates we have set out in the Bill are designed to be restricted to what is proportionate and necessary, while giving businesses, local authorities and government agencies the certainty they need to plan their activities over the coming months. We think that subjecting the measures to an unpredictable cliff edge through parliamentary review will undermine this certainty.

On the Bill’s specific provisions, we are all aware of the serious effect coronavirus has had on the hospitality sector. Even as restaurants, bars, pubs and cafés open up again, social distancing requirements will significantly reduce their capacity, and we want to help these businesses recover quickly. Measures in the Bill will help by allowing easier use of outdoor space to accommodate more customers safely while summer weather allows. I am grateful for the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of Cradley, the noble Lords, Lord Bhatia and Lord Campbell-Savours, and my noble friends Lord Inglewood, Lord Bourne and Lady Noakes in this context.

The Local Government Association and several individual councils have been consulted on pavement licence proposals, as have the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee and the Cycling and Walking Infrastructure Group, which—my noble friend Lord Sheikh in particular will be pleased to hear—recognised the importance of allowing businesses to open safely while ensuring highway accessibility. The proposals have been welcomed by the LGA, UKHospitality and the British Beer and Pub Association. In addition, measures on alcohol licensing have been discussed with local government, trade, police and licensing experts.

Noble Lords, including my noble friends Lord Holmes, Lord Blencathra and Lord Balfe, the noble Lords, Lord Blunkett, Lord Low and Lord Addington, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Randerson and Lady Pinnock, were understandably keen to know how our pavement licensing provisions might affect pedestrians and those with mobility impairments and visual impairments. I agree that this is an important point and that we should never lose sight of the inclusion agenda.

We are publishing a national condition which requires licence holders to maintain clear routes of access. This includes taking account of the needs of disabled people and, in particular, section 3.1 of the Department for Transport’s Inclusive Mobility guidance. This sets out the recommended minimum footway widths and distances required for access by mobility-impaired and visually impaired people. I say to my noble friends Lady Eaton and Lord Lucas, and the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, that any licences granted will be subject to local and national conditions, and the legislation contains robust enforcement procedures. Local authorities can revoke licences where they give rise to matters of public safety, highways obstruction, anti-social behaviour and public nuisance, as well as on a number of other grounds.

A number of noble Lords, including the noble Lords, Lord Stevenson, Lord Blunkett, Lord Carlile, Lord St John, Lord Paddick and Lord Kennedy, the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, and my noble friend Lord Balfe, understandably raised concerns about possible unwanted effects of the alcohol licensing provisions in terms of anti-social behaviour and disorder. We have established two main safeguards in designing these provisions, to ensure that any issues that arise can be dealt with swiftly and robustly. First, it is worth reiterating that the measures in the legislation will not apply to premises whose off-sales permissions have been removed, either voluntarily on a variation or on review, within the last three years.

Secondly, the Bill will introduce an expedited review process for automatically granted permissions. This can be used where there are problems of crime and disorder, public nuisance or public safety arising from how premises use the new permission. In this case, any responsible authority, including the police or environmental health, can apply for an off-sales expedited review. On receipt of this application, the relevant licensing authority must consider whether it is necessary to take interim steps within 48 hours, and must determine the review within 28 days. Interim steps can include: changing the hours in which off-sales are permitted; adding new conditions in relation to public nuisance, such as to prevent noise nuisance; and suspending the off-sales permission. As I have said, a review can result in the automatically granted off-sales permission being removed.

Beyond the provisions in the Bill, my noble friend Lord Balfe in particular may wish to note that the police also have the power, under Section 76 of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014, to issue a closure notice if there are reasonable grounds to believe that the use of a premises has resulted, or is likely to result, in nuisance to members of the public or that there has been, or is likely to be, disorder near the premises that is associated with the use of the premises. Having mentioned that, I am sure we can all identify with the very good points made by my noble friend Lady Stowell of Beeston regarding the relationship between the police and the public.

I shall sum up these protections with an example. If local residents complain to the police about disorder relating to a particular bar or restaurant, the police might first consider taking immediate steps to close the p