Memorandum by Peter Wright, Environmental
Health and Trading Standards Manager, Gateshead Council (RL 09)
The ODPM decision to investigate the problems
surrounding the implementation of the Licensing Act is to be applauded.
The difficulties experienced during this transition by Licensing
Authorities, the Licensed Trade, the public and Responsible Authorities
should never be allowed to happen again.
A summary of the lessons to be learned from
this process follows.
1. EVIDENCE FOR
24 HOUR DRINKING
1.1 There was little evidence to support
24 hour drinking as a means of reducing drink related problems.
It has worked in some countries and failed in others. UK subjects
on holiday in countries with 24 hour drinking do not always behave
in the same way as the local population.
Recommendation
1.2 Future legislation should be based on
evidence, and a realistic assessment of how proposals will work
across the full range of cultures within the UK.
2. LEGAL DRAFTING
AND GUIDANCE
2.1 The drafting of the Act and Guidance
is, at times, "vague", inconsistent and naive. Much
of it reads as "policy" rather than legislation.
2.2 The Guidance fails to clarify many of
the most unclear provisions of the Act, for example, whether a
Personal Licence Holder must be present whilst alcohol is being
sold. Nobody has benefited from the lack of clarity in this Act
and Guidance.
Recommendation
2.3 Future legislation of this nature would
be better left to those government departments with experience
in dealing with criminal legislation, so that clarity and enforceability
is inbuilt.
3. PROJECT MANAGEMENT
3.1 The slippage in the implementation timetable
has caused significant problems, particularly for local authorities.
Many created and filled posts in anticipation of the first appointed
day being in 2004, only to have the staff in place with no work
to do for considerable periods while awaiting the first appointed
day.
3.2 Considering that the implementation
date slipped by approximately 14 months, it was inexcusable that
application forms and delegated legislation were so late, and
contained errors that needed corrective legislation. Surely these
could have been ready by January 2004.
3.3 Because the application forms were produced
at such a late stage, suppliers of our data management software
were unable to build and implement a web application site until
six months after the first appointed day.
3.4 Late publication of the forms also led
to very few applications being ready in the first four months
of the six-month transition period.
3.5 The late publication of fees meant that
Councils had to decide on staffing their Licensing Teams at a
conservative level, as there was no certainty about the level
of income.
3.6 The financial planning cycles of Licensing
Authorities were not factored into the project plan for implementing
the Act.
3.7 The failure to simultaneously declare
the first and second appointed days has resulted in the possibility
of a late Parliamentary challenge to the November date, meaning
that hundreds of thousands of pounds worth of work by applicants,
responsible authorities and Licensing Authorities may be wasted.
Recommendation
3.8 The implementation of future legislation
should be properly managed in accordance with the Government's
preferred project management methodology, PRINCE2.
3.9 Where bodies other than the Government
are involved in such implementation, the project planners should
ensure that their policy and financial planning timetables are
reflected in the overall project plan.
3.10 Those involved in project planning
should undertake reality checks with representatives of those
who will be affected to ensure that timescales are realistic.
4 CONSISTENCY
4.1 In the Secretary of State's introduction
to the Guidance issued on 7 July 2004, there appeared the following
paragraphs on page 7:
"The legislation provides a clear focus
on the promotion of four statutory objectives which must now be
addressed when licensing functions are undertaken. They are:
— the prevention of crime and disorder;
— the prevention of public nuisance;
and
— the protection of children from
harm.
But the modernisation of the legislation has
also been pursued to support a number of other key aims and purposes.
These are of vital importance and should be principal aims for
all involved in licensing work. They include:
— the introduction of better and
more proportionate regulation to give business greater freedom
and flexibility to meet their customers' expectations;
— greater choice for consumers,
including tourists, about where, when and how they spend their
leisure time;
— the encouragement of more family
friendly premises where younger children can be free to go with
the family;
— the further development within
communities of our rich culture of live music, dancing and theatre,
both in rural areas and in our towns and cities;
— the regeneration of areas that
need the increased investment and employment opportunities that
a thriving and safe night-time economy can bring; and
— the necessary protection of local
residents, whose lives can be blighted by disturbance and anti-social
behaviour associated with the behaviour of some people visiting
places of entertainment."
4.2 By giving almost equal weight to the
six key aims and purposes with the four statutory objectives has
resulted in a significant degree of confusion in the message about
what the Act is for. Substantial parts of the guidance appear
to be written to give greater weight to the freedom and flexibility
aspects than to the protection of local residents.
4.3 Such lack of consistency has given the
media free reign to criticise, and has created concern in the
community over, for example, 24-hour drinking. It has also allowed
the different agendas of various Government Departments to be
exposed in the press, creating the impression that Departments
are arguing with each other. The Licensing Objectives are clear,
and the Government could have used these as the basis of a consistent
message throughout.
4.4 The various timescales prescribed in
the Act and Guidance are variously described in terms of calendar
days, working days, weeks and months. If a Bank Holiday occurs
during the part of the process measured in working days it delays
the process by a day. If measured in weeks or calendar days there
is no effect. The confusion caused by this has led to applicants
advertising the incorrect last date for representations and having
to re-advertise or reapply in some extreme cases.
Recommendation
4.5 The objectives of forthcoming legislation
should be used as the basis for all future public relations and
media activity on that legislation.
4.6 Where legislation and guidance is drafted,
one means of defining time periods should be adopted throughout.
The unit of the week should be the unit of first choice.
| 
