Rachel Blake

My hon. Friend makes a very good point about the number of premises that will be affected in central London by the statutory instrument as it was laid down. A large proportion will be open to this call-in power and that raises a really important question about whether City Hall is expecting to be able to call in that many, and indeed whether it would want to, and whether that fits in with what most people would consider a strategic intervention. I will come on to some questions for the Minister about how we might closely define a strategic intervention and monitor what a strategic call-in power might look like. We do have to ask whether the practical operation of these powers will remain consistent with the expectations during the passage of the Bill. The concern today is not whether strategic powers should exist. There are many places across London that are of strategic significance to our future as a successful world city—and Parliament has already settled that question, and I recognise that. The concern today is whether strategic powers will remain genuinely strategic. For communities such as Soho, where hospitality, culture and late-night activity are an integral part of the area’s character, a significant number of applications might fall within the category of strategic importance, and that really matters in Westminster and in the City of London. The City of Westminster contains around 4,000 licensed premises, with nearly half located in the west end and in St James’s ward, and I have some figures that I think are going to be really interesting for everyone present. I know everybody will be really pleased and interested to hear that 1,000 premises are licensed to 11 pm, 1,692 to midnight, 478 to 1 am, 131 to 2 am, 221 to 3 am, 22 to 4 am, 19 to 5 am and—this is really neat—24 premises open until 6 am so they are more like 24-hour premises. It is really important for everybody to acknowledge the number of premises that are open into the later hours, making sure that we are a truly global world city that is welcoming to people who want to be entertained through the night. Of course, that concentration of licensed activity is unparalleled anywhere else in the country, and therefore even small shifts in licensing policy can have significant consequences not only for residents and local businesses, but for London’s wider cultural and night-time economy. That is precisely why Parliament must be confident that powers described as strategic remain genuinely strategic in practice. Residents therefore have a reasonable question: if large numbers of applications—as my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington and Bayswater (Joe Powell) has drawn attention to—are potentially eligible, where is the line between a strategic exception and a routine intervention? That leads to perhaps the most important point: being eligible for a call-in is not the same thing as being called in. The regulations determine which applications may be considered by the mayor. They do not require the mayor to intervene. The revised section 182—of Licensing Act 2003—guidance now provides greater clarity about the operation of the new regime. It establishes a London-wide framework, confirms the mayor’s strategic role, and explains how call-in powers are intended to operate. But the publication of guidance does not in itself answer the practical questions that matter most to residents and local authorities. How many applications do the Government expect to qualify each year? How many call-ins does the mayor expect to make? How many venues across London are likely to fall within scope? On what basis will potentially eligible applications be selected for intervention? What evidence informed the thresholds that have been chosen? Those questions remain important because the impact of the regime will depend not on what may be called in, but on what is called in. The City of London Corporation has also raised concerns about the practical implications of the new arrangements, and about the scale of applications that could potentially fall within scope, and local authorities across London continue to ask many of the same questions as residents. When will these powers be used? What criteria will guide the decision to call in? How will strategic considerations be balanced against local evidence? These are reasonable questions, and they deserve answers. One of the strongest concerns I hear from residents is about local democratic control. Throughout the passage of the parent legislation, Ministers rightly spoke about neighbourhood voice, community empowerment and maintaining a strong democratic basis for decision making. The revised guidance itself emphasises the importance of community involvement in licensing decisions and the opportunities for local residents to have their say. Yet many residents still ask a simple question: if a resident speaks at a local licensing hearing, presents evidence on crime, noise, antisocial behaviour, dispersal and residential amenity, What democratic links exist between that participation and a subsequent determination by City Hall? Residents have every right to expect a meaningful voice in licensing decisions that affect where they live. Licensing decisions often depend on highly local evidence about noise, crime patterns, dispersal routes and residential amenity. Anyone who has attended a licensing hearing, as I am sure many of us here this afternoon have done, will know that these cases frequently turn on detailed local knowledge of a particular building, street or neighbourhood. That local knowledge matters, and Westminster’s experience demonstrates that clearly. Soho’s success depends on getting the balance right between supporting culture, hospitality and economic activity and protecting the people for whom Soho is home. What additional rights will residents have when an application is called in? How will they be able to make representations directly in a mayoral determination? What weight will be given to evidence heard by local licensing committees? How will borough licensing committees remain primary decision makers, rather than advisory bodies? How will the Government assess whether the new arrangements are strengthening, rather than weakening, community empowerment? My purpose here is not to argue against strategic objectives, to challenge the important role of London’s nightlife in its economic growth or to challenge these powers in principle; my focus is on safeguards, transparency and accountability. That is why I will continue to press for five practical measures. First, we need clear public guidance from the mayor on the circumstances in which call-in powers will be exercised and what factors will inform those decisions. Secondly, we need annual transparency reporting, rather than waiting two years for the first statutory review. Thirdly, we need publication of every call-in decision with full reasons. Fourthly, we need meaningful opportunities for resident participation in every mayoral determination. Finally, we need the publication of annual data, broken down by local authority area, showing how many applications became eligible, how many were called in and which criteria triggered the intervention. If these powers are genuinely intended to be used sparingly, there should be no objection to that degree of transparency. London’s success depends on maintaining the balance between growth and community. Soho’s success depends on maintaining the balance between being a world-famous destination and a place that people proudly call home. Residents deserve confidence that local voices will continue to matter; Parliament deserves confidence that powers described as exceptional will remain exceptional; and we all deserve confidence that implementation will match the assurances that Ministers gave when these powers were first proposed. It is my responsibility as the Member of Parliament for Cities of London and Westminster to stand up for centuries-old communities who live side by side with thriving nightlife. I am absolutely determined that they will do so into the future, and I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say.