Memorandum submitted by the Local Government
Association and LACORS
KEY MESSAGES
— Councils have been successfully implementing
the Licensing Act since its introduction and have used it to pursue
their licensing objectives. Much of the new legislation works.
However, there are areas where it can be improved.
— The Government should reimburse the
£102 million implementation costs currently borne by council
tax payers. It should also, as a matter of urgency, respond to
the 2007 Elton report. Councils believe the administration of
the Licensing Act should be moved onto an audited, but genuine,
cost recovery basis.
— The DCMS should cut red tape, initially
by moving to implement its own Licensing Act simplification plan.
It should also consider further measures to remove administrative
burdens and support local flexibility.
— Councils are community leaders with
a duty to tackle crime and disorder. As such they should be able
to intervene on crime and disorder prevention grounds in the awarding
of Temporary Events Notices.
— Licensing authorities should have
the power to suspend licenses where annual licensing fees are
not be paid. This power would be comparable to that available
under the Gambling Act 2005.
Q1—Has there been any change in levels of
public nuisance, numbers of night-time offences or perceptions
of public safety since the Act came into force?
1. In spring 2008, the LGA surveyed one
in seven councils, half of police authorities and just under a
third of all Primary Care Trusts (PCTs) as part of an analysis
of the implementation of the Licensing Act. The surveyed authorities,
report that the Act has simplified and improved licensing processes.
It has also contributed significantly to closer public sector
working with, for example, a third of councils now working more
closely with their PCTs.
2. Further results from this survey show:
— Between 20% and 25% of each kind
of organisation considered that alcohol-related disorder had reduced
as a result of the implementation of the 2003 Act.
— Between 66% and 75% of each category
of organisation perceived either an increase or no change in alcohol-related
incidents since the implementation of the Act.
— Specifically, 10% of police authorities
and 4% of local authorities reported an increase in alcohol-related
incidents since the implementation of the Act.
— More alarmingly, however, 29% of
PCTs reported an increase in alcohol-related incidents.
3. A majority of councils, police authorities
and PCTs therefore report that the Licensing Act has not contributed
to an improvement in alcohol-related disorder incidents. If the
Act was ever conceived as a single solution to alcohol-related
disorder and health issues, it has failed to meet that objective.
4. The Government's policy objectives for
alcohol-related disorder would be best met by facilitating closer
public sector working. This can be achieved by addressing our
key recommendations of cutting red tape, meeting the financial
burdens incurred by council tax payers and by empowering local
authorities to find innovative solutions to the local problems.
5. A further discrete recommendation regards
public safety and Temporary Events Notices. Councils are community
leaders with a duty—in partnership—to tackle crime
and disorder. As such they should be able to intervene on crime
and disorder prevention grounds in the awarding of Temporary Events
Notices. Currently only the police are allowed to make such interventions.
6. A related public nuisance issue can also
be seen in the increased numbers of crowds gathering outside licensed
premises to smoke, following the Smokefree legislation of 2007.
Although currently untested, councils are unlikely to be able
to use statutory nuisance powers under the Environmental Protection
Act (1990) and powers under the Noise Act (1996) to address noise
created by such crowds. It is therefore important that councils
can be confident in using the licensing regime. The Licensing
Act supplementary guidance seeks to express (at paragraph 7.40)
that Licensing Authorities can have regard to potential as well
as actual public nuisance. This is a helpful tool in addressing
such issues. However, the current wording of the guidance is unclear
given the common law definition, and we recommend that it is amended,
following consultation with councils.
Q2—The impact of the Act on the performance
of live music
7. The LGA/LACORS have not analysed the
impact of the Act on specific entertainment sectors. We are aware
though that the majority of premises licenses with regulated entertainment
include live music as a licensable activity. Overall very few
applications for live music have been refused, and we are not
aware that the Act has had any significant impact, either positive
or negative, relating specifically to live music.
Q3—The financial impact of the Act on Sporting
and Social clubs
8. The LGA/LACORS have not undertaken their
own analysis of the financial impact of the Act on specific types
of licensable premises. The Independent Fees Review (2006) however,
found "insufficient evidence" that community and amateur
sports clubs had discontinued licensable activities because of
the increase in licensing fees following the introduction of the
Act.
9. Despite this we are aware of concerns—amongst
sporting bodies in particular—that increases in licensing
fees divert money from "frontline" sports provision;
away, for example, from equipment or coaching services. Local
councils are both a central funder and keen advocate of community
and amateur sports clubs. They recognise the contribution that
such clubs make to levels of public fitness and satisfaction,
and to local priorities such as improving public health and fostering
social capital.
10. Any licensing fee exemptions for sports
clubs, however, would—under the current fee regime—simply
add to the financial burden already imposed on council tax payers.
Therefore, we again strongly recommend that the DCMS reimburses
the costs already incurred by local authorities and seeks to move
towards an audited, but genuine, cost recovery basis for its future
administration. This should be a prerequisite to any other moves
that advantage specific sectors, benefiting—as it would—all
local residents.
Q4—Whether the Act has led, or looks likely
to lead, to a reduction in bureaucracy for those applying for
licenses under the new regime and those administering it
11. Councils welcome the Licensing Act's
existing administrative reforms, which are a positive step towards
reducing the burdens of the licensing process. The DCMS' own simplification
plan however notes many continuing administrative burdens. It
also contains many welcome potential solutions. However the plan
was first issued in 2006, and we have real concerns over the lack
of progress made to date. We urge the Department to implement
the plan as a priority.
12. We would also like to the see the Department
go further than those steps set out in the plan. We recommend,
for example, that local discretion to award Temporary Events Notices
(TENs) after their application deadline has passed should be allowed
in cases where the police and the local authority both support
this.
13. The Department should also act to lift
the resource and financial burdens imposed by its licensing statistical
bulletin. Prior to the implementation of the Act in 2005, licensing
authorities invested in data collection systems that were appropriate
to local needs. In 2007 the Department introduced additional reporting
requirements that mean councils must retrospectively, and often
manually, sift hundreds of license application. Such data returns
are not mandatory, in order to comply with the new central-local
performance framework. However, by "naming and shaming"
in the final report those councils that do not provide them the
Department contravenes the spirit of both the new performance
framework and the central-local Concordat.
Q5—Whether the anticipated financial savings
for relevant industries will be realised
14. The story of council implementation
of the Act is one of financial costs rather than savings. The
latest figures collated by LGA and LACORS show that the Act has
cost, to date, over £100 million more to implement than the
Government expected, and that council tax payers are footing this
bill, which is worth nearly £5 for the average council tax
payer. In response to the LGA/LACORS 2008 survey, 94% of councils
reported an increase in pressure on their resources.
15. The Government's own report, produced
by Sir Les Elton, recommended that councils be reimbursed for
£45 million of the costs so far incurred, and that fees should
rise immediately by 7%.
16. We strongly recommend, therefore, that
the Department should resolve the financial deficit currently
borne by council tax payers. This would bring the Act into line
with ministerial assurances to Parliament that its implementation
would be cost neutral to councils. It should also, as a matter
of urgency, respond to the Elton report. This response should
seek explanation of the report's criteria for assessing "justifiable
spending"—so that a single assessment of the true costs
of the Act's implementation can be reached.
17. We also recommend further action to
resolve the underlying pressure on council resources caused by
outdated fees levels. The administration of the Act should be
moved away from fixed fees and onto an audited, but genuine, cost
recovery basis. Failure to do so will leave council tax payers
out of pocket and councils perpetually advocating the review of
centrally set fees.
18. The costs borne by councils are further
exacerbated by the fact that they can not impose sanctions upon
licensees for non payment of annual fees. Many authorities have
reported increasing levels of unpaid annual fees. They must wait
several years for the debt to accrue to a level sufficient to
make the debt recovery process viable. We recommend that the Act
be amended to provide the same sanction for non payment of annual
fees as that set out in the Gambling Act 2005, which allows authorities
to revoke the relevant licence.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
LGA and LACORS
19. The Local Government Association (LGA)
is a cross party organisation that speaks for over 500 local authorities
in England and Wales that spend some £113 billion per annum
and represent over 50 million people. The LGA exists to promote
better local government.
20. The Local Authorities Coordinators of
Regulatory Services (LACORS) provides advice and guidance to councils
on regulatory matters, including licensing and gambling. LACORS
is part of the LGA Group of organisations that support councils.
Further Information
21. The joint LGA/LACORS report unfinished
business: a state of play report on alcohol and the licensing
act 2003 is appended to this submission.[1]
September 2008
1 Not printed. Back
| 
