Conclusions and recommendations
Introduction
1. We
look forward to the final report of the Independent Licensing
Fees Review Panel and expect that our Report will be of use to
the Review. (Paragraph 6)
Timescale
2. We
are not convinced that a longer period for applications was needed,
but consider the administration of the process within this time
to have been lacking to the extent that applicants were disadvantaged,
and local authorities put under unnecessary strain. The First
Appointed Day could have been delayed once it was clear that the
Regulations would be laid so close to the start of the six month
transition period; inflexibility regarding the date of implementation
is unproductive if the required legislation cannot be produced
in a timely fashion. (Paragraph 11)
3. Imposing a two
month time limit on licence application decisions without any
flexibility to allow for the volume of applications was unrealistic.
The Government should not impose time limits of this sort again
without adequate provision for change if necessary. (Paragraph
12)
4. We urge the Government
to introduce a mediation procedure into the process, in order
to foster better relations between licensees and residents, to
reduce the burden on magistrates' courts and to minimise the cost
to applicants. It is disappointing that the two month deadline
on decisions imposed during the transitory period may have prevented
successful mediation in some cases. (Paragraph 15)
5. We agree with the
Elton Review's suggestion that an Annual Day for the payment of
fees be established, although we do not wish to see licensees
suffer financially from such an arrangement. Licensees who would
be substantially disadvantaged by the introduction of an Annual
Day should receive a pro-rata rebate of the first year's fee.
(Paragraph 18)
Fees and Funding
6. We
expect the DCMS to iron out the inconsistency that prevents residents
from objecting to Temporary Event Notice applications. (Paragraph
21)
7. We are concerned
that the handling of Temporary Event Notices by local authorities
appears to be poorly co-ordinated. We welcome the inclusion of
the subject in the Elton Review and recommend that the system
be revised to ensure consistency and fairness. (Paragraph 22)
8. We look forward
to the conclusions of the Elton Review concerning flat rate fees.
(Paragraph 25)
9. We are aware that
the Elton Review will be considering the impact of fees on very
small businesses and has received evidence on the subject from
some of those who informed our inquiry. The review has yet to
make its opinion known on these 'stakeholder issues' but we hope
that the final report of the review makes the disproportionate
impact of fees on small operators an important part of its recommendations.
(Paragraph 28)
10. We welcome the
Elton Review's intention to examine the implications for local
authority finance of the new licensing regime. Local authorities
should not be left out of pocket by the new fee structure. (Paragraph
30)
Guidance
11. The
dilatory approach on the part of the DCMS was completely unacceptable,
and left local authorities open to challenges based on guidance
produced after they had already been obliged to make decisions.
(Paragraph 33)
12. The Government
took an unacceptable time to produce statutory guidance. No adequate
reason has been given for the late production of such important
paperwork. The DCMS should have foreseen both the need for timely
production of the guidance and regulations, and the amount of
work needed to produce the guidance within the right timeframe.
The short timescale also meant that it was not possible to try
out the guidance, which could have eliminated many of the problems
experienced by local authorities in the transition period. (Paragraph
36)
13. The timing of
the delivery of the statutory guidance, which did not appear until
nearly two years after the Act was passed, caused expense, inconvenience
and stress for local authorities, already faced with implementing
a massive licensing change. The Government failed in its duty
to support implementation of its legislation by providing local
authorities with the appropriate guidance in a timely fashion.
Next time a major piece of legislation is passed requiring significant
work on the part of local authorities, for example, the forthcoming
Gambling Act, consistent guidance must be published before local
authorities are required to act. (Paragraph 39)
14. There are many
small businesses in England and Wales run by people who do not
have English as a first language and we find it reprehensible
that this material was only made available in other languages
late in the transition period. DCMS severely let down a proportion
of potential licence applicants by lack of preparation. (Paragraph
41)
15. The DCMS let licence
applicants down by failing to provide a satisfactory level of
support. Resources were introduced late or failed to appear as
promised. Government departments should make every effort to plan
and deliver all necessary resources to all parties during the
implementation of legislation. (Paragraph 44)
16. We recommend that
the DCMS include the guidance available to residents in its review
to ensure clarity. (Paragraph 45)
17. Local authorities,
or those organisations co-ordinating their activities, should
make greater efforts to ensure good practice is established when
implementing new legislation. (Paragraph 47)
18. The DCMS should
ensure that its review of the guidance looks at the issue of local
authority consistency in the implementation of the Licensing Act
and the need for best practice information. (Paragraph 49)
19. While we are very
glad that the DCMS has recognised the need to improve the current
guidance, the process should be sensitive to the implications
of any changes. The review will inevitably cause disruption for
some; unfortunately it is necessary given the failings of the
Department's original guidance. (Paragraph 50)
Zoning
20. The
confusion between the Act and the statutory guidance regarding
the issue of zoning is unhelpful. We recommend the Government
clarify its position towards the issue of zoning in the reviewed
guidance, and make the right of local authorities to create zones
of cumulative impact explicit, so that local authorities and licensees
alike can understand the aims of the Act in this respect. (Paragraph
55)
Small Operators
21. We
are concerned that the new licensing system will discourage community
facilities from carrying out the range of activities they have
previously engaged in, and this goes against the ODPM's drive
for sustainable communities. We expect the DCMS to take this fully
into consideration when assessing the results of research into
the effect on village halls and similar organisations. (Paragraph
58)
22. We consider that
the impact on small operators should be a prime focus of the reviews
of the Act and its workings. The DCMS should look urgently for
a solution to the problem of small operators which are stagnating
or ceasing activities as a result of the new fees structure. (Paragraph
61)
Regulatory burden
23. ODPM
should provide clear leadership to local authorities as they implement
the Licensing Act 2003, and make clear its role as the department
responsible for local government structures and working. Government
should ensure that, if it claims to be legislating to reduce regulatory
burden, this actually occurs. (Paragraph 65)
24. We endorse the
findings of the Elton Review concerning the application process
and ask the Government to consider whether such prescriptive requirements
are necessary, particularly in relation to small operators. (Paragraph
69)
25. The DCMS should
take account of the complaints of residents to discover if there
are acceptable resolutions to the problems encountered by those
formally objecting to licence applications. (Paragraph 71)
Application Process
26. The
DCMS should include provision for flexibility in the membership
of Licensing Sub-Committees when reviewing the Licensing Act 2003.
(Paragraph 73)
27. We recommend that
the restriction placed on elected representatives who wish to
act against licensing applications on behalf of others be lifted.
It would also be expedient for licensing officials to have the
power to make representations against applications. (Paragraph
74)
28. The ODPM should
investigate the feasibility of issuing good practice guidelines
within local authorities to ensure effective co-ordination. (Paragraph
76)
29. The DCMS and the
Department for Constitutional Affairs should make clear whether
they have practical plans to help magistrates' courts deal with
high demand arising from the new licensing regime, and should
ensure that any revision of the guidance likely to lead to an
increase in appeals is introduced in a way that eases the burden
on the courts. (Paragraph 78)
30. We urge DCMS to
consider the evidence presented to us on the matter of overly
prescriptive regulations when reviewing their guidance, and to
investigate the feasibility of a 'slip rule'. (Paragraph 84)
Conclusion
31. The
ODPM failed local authorities: the department is there to support
the workings of local authorities. We see little evidence that
this was done during the transition period. Nor was action taken
when direct appeals were made. (Paragraph 86)
| 
