Strategic Licensing Regulations: London

Deirdre Costigan Excerpts

Wednesday 4th November 2026 Commons Chamber

[Rachel Blake (Cities of London and Westminster) (Lab/Co-op)]

I am grateful for the opportunity to raise this matter this afternoon, and I thank the Speaker’s Office for granting this debate.

I am sure I am not the only Member of Parliament to have had a late night, to have spent time in Bar Italia as a young person, or to have enjoyed the wonderful culture of central London, whether at the Royal Albert Hall, the Theatre Royal, Haymarket or the Soho Theatre. The west end’s history and culture is synonymous with the openness, creativity and diversity that define modern London. However, I am the only Member of Parliament to represent the communities in the Cities of London and Westminster. Few places have contributed more to our cultural life, and few places demonstrate more clearly the importance of striking the right balance between supporting a thriving night time economy and making sure that residential communities can also thrive.

I represent some of the most vibrant, economically critical and culturally significant communities in the country, from the City of London to Pimlico, from Covent Garden to Marylebone and from Fitzrovia to Soho. These are the places that help power London’s economy and define our global reputation, and they are also places where people live, where people enjoy their own lives and where people bring up families. They enjoy their homes and the internationally renowned nightlife that exists alongside them. Many of them raise families there, they sleep there, and they expect to have a meaningful say over decisions that affect their neighbourhoods and their quality of life. That balance between a thriving city and a liveable city is at the heart of any licensing policy, and it is why these regulations matter.

Let me be clear at the outset of this debate: I support devolution; I support economic growth; and I support thriving communities. And I support the principle that genuinely strategic issues may require a strategic voice. I also recognise that the Government’s final regulations that they published a few weeks ago are narrower and more objective than many feared they might be. The Government have rightly moved away from the broader and more subjective approach originally proposed. Concepts such as economic importance, reputational importance and strategic geography have not been adopted. Instead, the regulations rely on statutory criteria based on venue size, operating hours and licensing classifications.

[Deirdre Costigan (Ealing Southall) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate this evening—this afternoon, even! Does she welcome the fact that the Mayor of London will still need to take into account the four strategic licensing objectives in coming to any decision: protecting public safety; protecting children and young people; preventing public nuisance; and preventing crime? Does she also note that there is a facility for people to then appeal the Mayor of London’s decision if at that point they do not agree with it?

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Jim McMahon)]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Rachel Blake) for securing this important debate and for the significant effort that she has put into representing her constituents on this matter over a long period of time; I know how much it matters to her and to them. Hopefully I will address the points that she has made in the course of her speech, but I know that this will not be our final conversation on the issue, nor should it be.

This is about how we balance competing interests. We must recognise that London is a global city and acts as a draw, but it is also where people live and are part of a community. I know that my hon. Friend is trying to strike that balance. The new strategic licensing arrangements came into force yesterday. They give the mayor a strategic role in licensing across the capital, with a duty to publish a London-wide policy and a power to call in certain applications of potential strategic importance. Before I address their impact, it is important to explain the problem that the reforms are intended to solve.

London’s hospitality, cultural and night-time economy is central to the capital’s success and its appeal as a global city, but licensing decisions can have implications that extend beyond a single premises or borough, affecting London’s wider economy, cultural offer and international reputation. Individual boroughs are rightly focused on their local circumstances, and these reforms are intended to complement that local expertise with a strategic role for the mayor where an application may be significant to London as a whole. The aim is not to set local and London-wide interests against each other, but for them to complement each other. The aim is to support a licensing system that is capable of balancing those interests fairly while continuing to protect residents and uphold the licensing objectives.

Let me start with residents and the concerns that my hon. Friend has rightly raised on their behalf. I want to be clear that the protections at the heart of the licensing system remain unchanged. The four statutory licensing objectives—the prevention of crime and disorder; public safety; the prevention of public nuisance; and the protection of children from harm—continue to apply. Those protections apply equally where the mayor intervenes. Any application that is called in will still be determined in accordance with the Licensing Act 2003 and with regard to the importance of promoting those objectives, while residents and other interested parties will retain their existing ability to make representations on individual applications. Residents have also had the opportunity to respond to the mayor’s consultation on his new strategic licensing policy, which will set out the wider framework for his strategic licensing role.

Alongside those opportunities for residents to make their voice heard, the new arrangements include specific transparency requirements around the mayor’s new strategic role. Advertising requirements will ensure that residents are informed when an application is identified as being potentially strategically important, and, if the mayor intervenes, of the decisions taken. There are clear lines of accountability. Mayoral directions remain subject to the existing rights of appeal, and where a direction is appealed, the mayor is legally responsible for defending it. Overall, residents will retain the protections at the heart of the licensing system, and transparency and clear accountability are built into the mayor’s new strategic role.

Let me turn to London’s licensing authorities. I recognise the concerns about what the mayor’s new role could mean for local decision making, as well as the additional responsibilities that it will place on licensing teams. I should reiterate that local licensing authorities will remain the default decision makers. They will continue to receive applications, consider representations, hold hearings where necessary and determine applications in the first instance. The mayor’s new role does not replace those core functions; it provides an additional strategic role for applications that meet the relevant criteria, with call-in decisions remaining discretionary.

[Deirdre Costigan]

The Minister makes a point about supporting local authorities in London. Will he commit to ensuring that local authorities are included in the two-year review of this measure? Will he look at the potential new burdens funding that might be required for local authorities?

[Jim McMahon]

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

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

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