Select Committee on Office of the Deputy Prime Minister: Housing, Planning, Local Government and the Regions Written Evidence


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;

      —  public safety;

      —  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.


 
previous page contents next page

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2006
Prepared 17 March 2006