(1 week, 4 days ago)
Grand CommitteeMy Lords, I hope I am allowed to address a few remarks and questions to the Minister from this far away. I very much welcome the order. I was delighted to serve on the committee with my noble friend when we looked at the review of the Licensing Act 2003.
A number of concerns have been raised by the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, on which I should welcome the opportunity to press the Minister. In particular, is there any reason why the changes have been made at this late stage? Is it just administrative? Obviously, it is good that they going to be in place before matches take place, but it is a source of concern that, with any changes made, there is sufficient consultation with the licensed premises and the police in that regard. Has the Home Office considered whether a minimum notice period for the police might assist their planning and thereby reduce public safety risks? This approach may at the same time also help licensed venues themselves, for example in planning their staffing.
There is nothing too critical in what I am saying on the order, but I would welcome the Minister’s comments in regard to the timing and allowing sufficient preparation for all the parties concerned in the instrument before us.
Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)
My Lords, I again thank the Minister for setting out the rationale and purpose of this order. Somewhat unusually, I find myself in complete support of the Government’s policy in this regard. The overall impact of the order, as the Minister said, is to expand from 15 to 20 the number of events that licensed premises can hold each year under a temporary event notice. That continues the trajectory that began with the temporary expansion of TENs during the Covid pandemic, a policy implemented to help hospitality businesses that were struggling so much from the impact of lockdowns.
As my noble friend Lord Hayward said, the struggles experienced by the hospitality sector have not abated. Here, I fear I am more critical of the Government, because hospitality businesses are suffering under the collective weight of this Government’s hike in employers’ NI contributions, the increased minimum wage and the increase in business rates. Perhaps the most revealing fact about this statutory instrument is the Explanatory Memorandum, which admits that hospitality businesses continue to face
“challenging trading conditions, including high input costs, low margins and wider financial pressures”.
With the greatest respect to the Minister, the Government might want to ask themselves who is responsible for those pressures. If the Government are truly committed to easing the burden on the hospitality sector, they might consider scrapping business rates entirely for most high street hospitality and leisure businesses, as my party has advocated.
I note that the consultation undertaken by the Home Office saw 70% of public health stakeholders and 51% of local authorities strongly opposed to this measure. I find that deeply troubling. I ask the Minister which health stakeholders were consulted? For example, was it mostly NHS trusts and ICBs or was it the health sector more widely—health charities, NGOs et cetera?
It is concerning that we appear to have so many people opposed to measures that will not only help struggling businesses and boost the economy but allow a wider variety of events to go ahead, with all the social benefits they bring. I therefore welcome the fact that the Government have taken the decision to proceed with this measure none the less; I commend them for standing by their policy. The Explanatory Memorandum also sets out the benefits of this policy change, as envisaged by the Government, and establishes that the entire purpose is to try to help out struggling hospitality businesses.
To conclude, although we agree with this order and welcome the fact that the Government persisted with it, there is clearly much more to be done to help our struggling hospitality sector.