Memorandum submitted by Business In Sport
and Leisure Limited
Business In Sport and Leisure is an umbrella
organisation that represents over one hundred private sector companies
and organisations in the sport, leisure and hospitality industry.
Its membership is comprised of a mixture of leisure operators,
the large majority of whom operate a licensed bar or other licensable
activity even where it is not their primary business. BISL's membership
is presently in excess of a hundred and its members are valued
either on the London Stock market or through private equity investment
at in excess of £40 billion.
BISL develops policy through six Working Groups
and these comments are a result of deliberations by the liquor
Licensing Working Group and shared with the membership as a whole.
OVERVIEW
In 2000 the Government published the White Paper
"Time for Reform: Proposals for the Modernisation of Our
Licensing Laws" which set out a relaxation of the legislation
on alcohol and entertainment licensing and was intended to reduce
the burden of unnecessary regulation. Responsibility for the licensing
of alcohol and gambling subsequently transferred to the DCMS and
in 2003 the Licensing Act was passed. The then Secretary of State
at the DCMS introduced the Act stating that it "would allow
the responsible majority of people more freedom and choice about
how they spend their leisure time and replace an out-of-date,
mish-mash of legislation with a modern, accessible regime, responsive
to the society it serves".
BISL welcomed this policy which it believed
would bring not only an improved hospitality offer to local communities
and the tourism market but increased opportunity for industry
to respond to those markets. Unfortunately in practice much of
the promise of freedom and flexibility has failed to materialise,
with a progressive hardening in policy towards the licensed trade
reflected in the three main revisions of the associated Guidance
published since 2003.
I would also draw your attention to the report
of the Better Regulation Commission on the Licensing Act published
in 2006 which had six recommendations for the reduction in the
administrative and cost burden. Whilst some of these issues have
been addressed such as the relaxation of a specified scale for
plans and more recently a consideration of the de minimis exemption,
others still have not and remain a massive burden on the sector.
PREMISES LICENSES
The application process for a premises license
is now a significant administrative and cost burden on the industry;
a former single sheet application has been replaced by a complex
document of over 30 pages and in many cases has now required applicants
to seek professional advice for submission. The production of
multiple copies for circulation to responsible authorities, coupled
with the need to provide not only local notices but also newspaper
advertising has significantly added costs to the already increased
fee level. All of these points were raised by the BRC Report in
2006 which recommended that it should be the outcome of informing
the local community which does mean that is mandatory.
The absence of a slip rule has been a regular
complaint from operators and licensing lawyers alike. Whilst some
authorities have taken a more liberal approach to the process
and allowed amendments to deal with minor errors during the application
process, many more have applied the letter of the law with consequent
real administrative and cost penalties on the applicant. This
was typified recently by an applicant who had met all the correct
requirements of an application, including newspaper advertising,
but whose local notices issued on blue paper had faded in the
sun. Only at the end of the statutory display period was the applicant
informed that a completely new application with the additional
costs of re advertising was therefore required.
The lack of consistency is also borne out in
the treatment of minor variations where some authorities already
apply an adhoc policy of just accepting a redrawn plan of the
premises whilst others require the full variation application
process. BISL welcomes the current proposal for a new minor variation
process and hopes that it will be applied consistently to speed
up changes to premises that are vital,in response often, to customer
needs. Our members have always questioned however, why any variation
procedure is required for alterations to a venue that will have
no impact on the licensing objectives.
BISL is also pleased to note the present consideration
within the department of a de minimis exemption for certain premises
presently required by the Act to obtain a premises license, but
would like to see the small bed and breakfast operator and the
small voluntary sports club opening its bar perhaps just one night
a week, added to the present list under consideration.
STATEMENTS OF
LICENSING POLICY
BISL has noted with concern the very wide variation
in local authority statements of licensing policy on which it
has been consulted over the past five years. In many cases the
policies are quite rightly strictly confined to meeting the licensing
objectives as laid out in the Act. However, others have endeavoured
to introduce conditions well beyond the scope of the Act. Recent
examples have been the pressure applied by authorities within
the Thames Valley for conditions to require the use of polycarbonate
containers, instead of glass, whilst elsewhere membership of Pubwatch
has been required even where the Pubwatch scheme had closed down.
Challenge 21 is becoming an industry norm as
best practice but only in limited cases is it actually a condition
on the premises license, breach of which becomes a licensing offence.
BISL is aware of a London borough where the licensing authority
are seeking to ensure that all premises within their area operate
a Challenge 21 policy and to this end are asking all premises
licence holders to sign a contract to this effect. The contract
recites that its purpose is to assist in the promotion of the
licensing objectives and retailing alcohol in a responsible manner
and sets out various obligations on the part of the licence holder.
It also goes on to require that in the event of breach, the contract
may be renegotiated; a review may be initiated or other legal
action may follow, whilst the covering letter suggests that by
entering into the contract, a possible review (the grounds for
which appear to be wholly unsubstantiated) might be avoided.
BISL is particularly concerned about these emerging
conditions and in some cases these may be seen as a result of
the shifting policy contained within the Guidance published by
DCMS for local licensing authorities. We would like to draw the
Committee's attention particularly to the introduction of special
policies surrounding cumulative impact, not specified in the Act
but where the most recent Guidance promotes special policies around
concentration of sales by on trade outlets only.
Although the Licensing Act 2003 was designed
to be deregulatory, there is a perception now amongst many of
BISL's members that licensing authorities and some responsible
authorities have moved well beyond the application of the Act
and the subsequent Guidance. It is the contents of local licensing
policies rather than the actual legislation that is the main driver
in some areas for the action of licensing authorities.
September 2008
| 
