Proposals to transfer liquor licensing to local authorities
in 2004 have received a mixed response. Tracey Khanna looks
at some of the main objectives of the new regime
The modernisation of alcohol and entertainment licensing has been
on the cards since the Government published its white paper Time
for reform in April 2000.1 After a failed attempt in 2001, proposals
to reform the antiquated alcohol licensing laws in England and Wales
are now only six months from the statute book with the introduction
of the Licensing Bill in the House of Lords last November. This
has ensured that the new regime is set to become a biting reality
for local authorities in a little under 18 months' time.
But the changes to the licensing regime go much further than simply
reforming the sale of alcohol. The deregulation that is proposed
will sweep away a whole raft of legislation dealing with public
entertainment, theatre and cinemas. And while it is undoubtedly
logical for local authorities to take on board the responsibility
for issuing liquor as well as entertainment licences, they will
face many challenges in the transitional period before the responsibilities
pass from the magistrates courts in full in 2004.
CLAMP DOWN
The main thrust of the Licensing Bill is to clamp down on anti-social
behaviour, crime and public disorder, while giving the responsible
majority of citizens greater freedom and choice about how they spend
their leisure time. In addition, the new bill also aims to encourage
tourism and self-sufficient rural communities. In theory, it is
hoped that the bill will facilitate a more civilised and responsible
approach to alcohol consumption. It is also the Government's intention
that deregulation of the sale and supply of alcohol will give the
public a stronger voice in the licensing process, while cutting
red tape for the industry, leading to substantial financial savings.
Broadly, the Licensing Bill will:
bring together six existing licensing schemes (alcohol, public
entertainment, cinemas, theatres, late night refreshment house
and night cafes) under one single integrated scheme;
introduce a new system of personal licences that allow holders
to serve alcohol for consumption on or off any premise possessing
a premises licence. Personal licences will be issued for a period
of 10 years to applicants aged 18 or over who do not possess a
relevant criminal record, following successful pass of a "knowledge
test" of licensing law and social responsibilities. The bill
also provides for endorsement or withdrawal of licenses within
this period;
incorporate operating conditions - ie hours, noise, fire exits
and capacity - into the premises licence, limited to factors regarding
crime and disorder, public safety and nuisance. Premises licenses
will be set on the basis of the operator's requirements, taking
into account the views of residents and the local community, and
police and fire authority assessments;
pass the responsibility of issuing personal and premises licenses
to local authorities;
provide an avenue of appeal for parties (including the police
and local residents) to the magistrates courts;
introduce flexible opening hours - with the potential for up
to 24-hour opening, seven days a week - subject to consideration
of the impact on local residents. The abolition of existing permitting
hours in favour of this flexible regime is in order to minimise
public disorder resulting from a mass of people spilling onto
the streets at "chucking out time"; and
provide a flexible range of sanctions (including temporary
reduction in opening hours) instead of the present single "all
or nothing" sanction or loss of licence.
GETTING THE BALANCE RIGHT
Although the Licensing Bill contains dozens of legislative proposals
and changes, the one that has received a disproportionate amount
of interest is the transfer or responsibility for licensing matters
from magistrates to local authorities. While some organisations
representing local communities and local partnerships are concerned
that the legislation is unbalanced, trade bodies are worried about
inconsistent and inappropriate decision making by local councillors,
who, they believe, could be overly influenced by local residents.
Following a one-day national conference in March 2001, the Civic
Trust set up a working party to assess the impacts of licensing
decisions on local communities, in particular in areas where concentrations
of late night premises have been rapidly expanding. The working
party has now published a report, Open all hours? A report on licensing
deregulation, and launched a campaign, supported by the Civic Trust
and the Institute of Alcohol Studies.2 The campaign would like to
see the Government make a distinction between the "evening
economy" - which it believes has brought vibrancy to town and
city centres by the later opening of shops, sports and cultural
centres, as well as restaurants and bars - and the post-midnight
"late night economy" - which it believes holds less benefit
and higher costs to society in general.
According to campaigners, "the night economy is already causing
problems of crime and disorder, anti-social behaviour, noise and
nuisance for local communities." In particular, campaigners
would like to see the bill amended to combat "saturation"
- an over concentration of premises in a single locality leading
to "hot spots" of trouble - which, they assert, cannot
be controlled by the blanket grant of licences with attached conditions.
One of the recommendations in the Open all hours? report is the
addition of a fifth licensing objective to the bill that would see
"the prevention of licensed premises in a defined area becoming
so numerous that the granting of further premises licenses will
undermine the other licensing objectives".
Two further key changes the Open all hours? campaign would like
to see implemented in the Licensing Bill are that licensing authorities
should be given sufficient discretion to formulate robust licensing
policies to respond to local conditions, and the ability to set
their own fees based on legitimate local costs.
TRANSPARENT POLICIES
The bill requires local authorities to publish a "statement
of licensing policy" every three years, on which any licensing
decisions will be made. In producing the document, various third
parties must be consulted, including: the chief officer of police
and the fire authority for the area; representatives of holders
of premises licenses in the area; and local residents and businesses.
Plainly, it is important that local authorities produce a transparent
statement outlining their licensing policy alongside clear procedures
for the determination of decisions. The Local Government Association
(LGA) is recommending consultation through a local licensing forum
as the way ahead in formulating the required licensing statements,
which must be kept under constant review and revision. As the rationale
for licensing alcohol sale relates to health, safety and environmental
protection, environmental health departments clearly should be taking
a lead role in the new regime.
The new responsibilities will compliment the crime and disorder
strategies and regeneration and community plans already under the
remit of local councils. However, according the Ian Foulkes, CIEH
director of technical policy, while the organisation fully supports
the transfer of licensing to local authorities - as it sees licensing
as an administrative function that should be carried out by local
government rather than a judicial function - the record of elected
members in licensing matters has not always been good, with both
processes and quality of decisions being poor. As a result, he says,
the CIEH agrees with the Department of Culture Media and Sport,
the LGA and the trade that the majority of licensing decisions should
be delegated to officers, with only contentious applications being
referred to a licensing panel.
RELAXED OPENING HOURS, INCREASED CRIME?
With regard to the impact of the deregulation on the environment,
the most significant perceived impact will relate to noise and public
disturbance. While the Government continues to assert that the relaxation
of opening hours - in effect, the ability for premises to open 24
hours a day, seven days a week - will bring much needed benefits
in terms of tourism, culture and regeneration, there is much opposition
from residents and community groups. "But, doom and gloom predictions
on this subject must be kept in perspective," says Mr Foulkes.
"It is worth remembering that similar claims were made about
increased noise and drunken behaviour when all day opening was introduced
in 1988, and those fears were in no way realised."
Mr Foulkes believes that the current proposals are likely to have
a similar negligible impact. "Many existing licensees do not
actually want to open for anything more than they do at present,"
he points out, "with the possible exception of an extra hour
on Friday and Saturday nights. Equally, many premises already open
until three or four o'clock in the morning." Moreover, he asserts
that the main impact of deregulation will be to stop the forced
ejection of all customers from pubs between 11 and 11.20pm, thus
resulting in a mass of noise at the time. "This will also eliminate
the traditional British habit of 'getting one in' before closing
time and therefore indulging in a mini-binge," he continues.
"The absence of large numbers of people on the streets at the
same time should reduce the potential flashpoint of trouble."
LONGER LEAD IN TIME REQUIRED
At the moment, Government proposals are for a 12-month transitional
period before local authorities take over full responsibility for
licensing duties, however, according to the LGA this is insufficient.
Among the many new responsibilities laid out in the bill, local
authorities will undoubtedly also have to recruit and train additional
staff members, purchase and install new computer systems to manage
the premises and personal licensing registers, investigate links
to planning, regeneration and community strategies, transfer records
from magistrates and campaign for sufficient funding to maintain
an efficient system. The LGA is therefore calling on the Government
to extend the transitional period to 18 months, or perhaps even
two years, a call supported by the CIEH.
"The Chartered Institute supports the current licensing reform
proposals and the LGA call for a 24-month phasing in period,"
says Mr Foulkes. "The Civic Trust's call for local authorities
to have the ability to refuse a license application on the grounds
of market saturation in an area is also supported by the CIEH. It
is our belief that licensing decisions should be delegated to officers
and that environmental health should be the lead service for licensing.
However, officers must be given sufficient support, training and
resources to carry out the functions properly and not at detriment
to any other environmental health function."
References
Home Office, 2000. Time for reform: proposals for the modernisation
of our licensing laws (White Paper) CM4696.
Open all hours? A report on licensing deregulation, November
2002, supported by the Civic Trust and The Institute of Alcohol
Studies [www.civictrust.org.uk].
"Lords defeat is setback for bill", The Publican,
16 January 2003 [www.thepublican.com].
Acknowledgments: Many thanks to Ian Foulkes, CIEH director
of technical policy, for his technical advice and help in the preparation
of this article.
OBJECTIONS, OBJECTIONS
At the time of going to press, the Government was facing a setback
in its licensing reform proposals, following opposition in the House
of Lords to plans contained in the Licensing Bill. Specifically,
peers voted in favour of giving local councillors, MPs and MEPs
the right to formally object to applications to extend drinking
hours in pubs.3 The bill currently lays out plans for automatic
acceptance of applications unless opposition is received from local
residents.
For obvious reasons, trade representatives are against the amendment
and would like to see the Government overturn the House of Lords'
decision when the bill reaches the House of Commons.
Back to
contents
