Examination of Witnesses (Questions 1
- 19)
TUESDAY 14 OCTOBER 2008
COUNCILLOR CHRIS
WHITE, COUNCILLOR
GEOFFREY THEOBALD,
MR PATRICK
CROWLEY AND
MR SIMON
QUIN
Q1 Chairman: Good morning, everybody,
my apologies for keeping you waiting. This morning is the first
session of the Committee's new inquiry into the implementation
of the Licensing Act 2003 and we are beginning by taking evidence
from the Local Government Association and the Association of Town
Centre Management. I would like to welcome: Councillor Chris White,
Chair of the LGA Culture, Tourism and Sport Board; Councillor
Geoffrey Theobald, Chair of Local Authorities Coordinators of
Regulatory Services; Patrick Crowley, Licensing Manager, Royal
Borough of Kensington and Chelsea; and from the Association of
Town Centre Management, the Chief Executive Simon Quin. Perhaps
I could begin by asking you to give just a general overview. One
of the claims that was made originally during the passage of the
Licensing Bill—which I at that time, in a previous capacity,
led for the Opposition and I remember well—said that it
was going to have a dramatic increase on the quality of life of
people living around licensed premises and in town centres. Do
you think that generally the Licensing Act has succeeded in achieving
that objective?
Councillor White: I think it has
been largely neutral with some positive elements. I think the
word "dramatic" certainly would not apply. My own direct
experience and the experience of the LGA is that there has been
a fairly neutral effect. In some cases crime disorder has gone
up and in one or two cases it has gone down. Therefore I think
the best summary is that it is neutral.
Councillor Theobald: I come from
Brighton and Hove and there are aspects, as Councillor White has
said, which have led to an improvement; and there are obviously
certain disadvantages. There has been an improvement certainly
in partnership working. Local councils are able to work with the
police, probation and others, and one does have the advantage
one can work quickly to close a premises—it was very rigid
before. You can apply conditions for door supervisors, cameras
and such like, so there is flexibility. People did used to complain
that they would go to the theatre and the cinema and the public
houses were closed at ten past eleven and they did not have the
opportunity to go afterwards; so it has given the flexibility
to enable people to go for a drink afterwards. As Chris has said,
one thing it has done of course is that it has pushed things later
in the night, as it were. I am sure ACPO will tell you this, and
I serve on the Sussex Police Authority, instead of many of their
problems finishing at midnight, it is now later on at night-time
and that does add to resources. As Chris has said, there are certain
advantages to the Act and there are downsides, particularly obviously
if you are living extremely close to a public house and that public
house is opening into the early hours of the morning when previously
it closed at ten past eleven.
Q2 Chairman: One of the points which
was made during the passage of the Bill was that it would spread
the exodus from licensed premises over a longer period; but the
counterargument was that actually everybody would leave at the
same time and it would just be a time three hours later than previously.
Which do you think has happened?
Councillor Theobald: Speaking
from Brighton and Hove's point of view, I would have said it has
led to a spread, because not everybody leaves at three or four
o'clock in the morning. I think it has led to a spread; but again
you will find different circumstances in different parts of the
country. In certain areas you will find it is much the same. Where
there is not a big club scene, for instance, you will find that
the pubs, instead of closing at eleven o'clock, are now closing
at twelve o'clock or one o'clock and everyone leaves at that time.
I think it would differ in different parts of the country.
Mr Quin: I think I would add that
most of what you have heard is reflected from the views of our
members as well, but I do think that in the larger cities, certainly
where clubs are important, there has been a spread and this has
actually led directly to a reduction in antisocial behaviour at
two o'clock in the morning as everyone leaves at the same time
and goes for the same limited number of taxis. So I think there
is a benefit from that. I think the other key thing to add here
is that both our members and indeed the evidence that came out
in the report published by the Department earlier this year show
that actually the overall impact, the overall change that has
taken place, is still quite minimal. We are not talking about
every town and city finding that every bar and every club is open
much later and, therefore, you can look and say, "What's
its impact?" In lots of places clubs and bars still close
at the same time as they always closed at; and really it is only
certain locations where this has been taken up to any great extent,
and there you are seeing some change, you are seeing some spread.
In terms of quality of life, I think what it has done is provide
for those people who wish to drink later, wish to be more in control
of their own timetables and their own life, and I think that is
something we should be positive about. It is one of the reasons
we have always been supportive of the flexibility this legislation
brought forward.
Mr Crowley: To cover the whole
question, generally speaking, I agree it has been pretty neutral.
We still get the same level of complaints from residents. What
has increased is the partnership working, and there are many aspects
of that to try and resolve problems. In relation to violent crime,
it has shifted later. I do not think there has been a reduction
in that.
Q3 Janet Anderson: If we could just
specifically talk about night-time disorder. There was a recent
evaluation of the impact of the Act by the Home Office and the
DCMS which found some limited evidence that alcohol consumption
had fallen slightly, as well as evidence that crimes involving
serious violence might have reduced, although there were more
violent crimes occurring in the early hours of the morning. Do
you think that is because people can drink for longer and therefore,
say, at two o'clock in the morning they are likely to be more
drunk than they would otherwise be and that would account for
the increase in the violent crimes at that time of the morning?
Councillor White: I think there
is certainly some reason to suppose that. I think you probably
need to do more research on individual cases to be absolutely
certain. I think also it is worth making a contrast. A lot of
people feared that it would get a great deal worse than it was
before the legislation was passed; so it is quite remarkable that
we are only seeing limited changes of this nature. There has been
evidence throughout the world that large amounts of alcohol consumed
quickly is more of a problem than the same amount of alcohol consumed
more slowly.
Mr Quin: I think we are seeing
from some of our members there is evidence that people are going
out later, so they are not necessarily drinking for longer but
they are just changing the hours in which they do drink. I think
that is possibly a counter to the thought you are suggesting.
Q4 Janet Anderson: It is interesting
because Noctis, who describe themselves as "the voice of
the night-time economy", say that they think the scale of
below cost alcohol sales is now "enormous" and that
people commonly arrive at late-night venues "pre-loaded".
On your point, Simon, about them arriving later, could they have
got themselves really tanked-up in advance?
Mr Quin: I think that is certainly
the case in some instances. I think what is happening with a lot
of that is that is not on licensed premises, where there are some
controls; but it is people using off-licences to buy cheap alcohol
and drink at home.
Q5 Janet Anderson: I cannot quite
see it, but do you think the Licensing Act may have encouraged
that kind of pre-loading in some way?
Mr Quin: I am not sure it has.
I think the risk here is that we look at the Licensing Act and
say it is responsible for all of the changes that have happened.
Lots of other things have been going on at the same time. There
is an argument that as we sought to reduce cheap drinking in licensed
premises what it has meant is that those who do not have as much
cash are then drinking at home more cheaply, and perhaps with
no controls initially, and then going out later on. That might
be a counterargument to the thoughts that we should ban all happy
hours and other things.
Councillor White: If you want
to get drunk go to a supermarket.
Councillor Theobald: I think it
is a big problem—whereby young people in particular go,
firstly, to off-licences get cheap drinks and such like and they
then go to public houses. I think we should be looking more carefully
at off-licences, corner shops and such like, and trying to ensure
that these bargain offers are restricted more.
Q6 Janet Anderson: Also in supermarkets.
I was told by Asda in my constituency in Rossendale that they
will not, for example, sell alcohol beyond a certain time in the
evening because they take the view that if people come in for
cans of cider, or whatever, in the middle of the night they have
only got one purpose in mind. Do you think that more supermarkets
should follow that example?
Councillor Theobald: I personally
think there are too many off-licences, too many convenience stores,
generally available to purchase drink. You do not want to penalise
everybody—this is the problem—but you have only got
to see there just seem to be more of them than there were previously.
Councillor White: We certainly
welcome what Asda are doing and it is something that all supermarkets
should look at.
Q7 Janet Anderson: Briefly, what
about the smoking ban—do you think that has had an effect.
In licensed premises where there is not a secure outside area—and
I know this has happened to some of the pubs in my constituency
which have not got an outside area where people can smoke and
they stand on the pavement—do you think that adds to the
general sense of disorder and could, of itself, cause problems?
Councillor White: Yes, it certainly
does. I have certainly had complaints from my residents about
people standing on the pavement. It is not the standing on the
pavement, it is the loud conversations which come with it. I tend
to assume that it is, hopefully, a matter of time, if this particular
ban works, that fewer and fewer people will smoke and the problem
will solve itself—but perhaps I am an optimist!
Mr Quin: I think we are certainly
seeing that borne out by the reports from our members as well
in terms of the additional nuisance that is caused by people standing
on pavements because of the smoking ban; that is not to say I
would like to see the smoking ban repealed.
Councillor Theobald: Of course
it does add to councils' costs to investigate noise complaints,
and of course the litter outside.
Mr Crowley: It is noise, but it
is also glasses, glass, cigarette butts and other litter which
we would hope licensees would clear up themselves, but they do
not always. As well as that, as you get later into the night the
nuisance is obviously worse. Although the same level of noise
is happening, there is less noise to hide it in the street. The
later you are smoking outside the more chance you have got of
disturbing people.
Q8 Helen Southworth: Could I explore
a little comments that were being made about "pre-loading".
My understanding is that it is an offence to sell alcohol to an
intoxicated person. If somebody is coming in pre-loaded how does
that mean they can then buy alcohol on licensed premises and consume
it?
Councillor White: Self-evidently,
first of all, it is circumstances. If you have had too many then
do not go up to the bar and demonstrate you have had too many
but get a friend to do it. A very pressed licensee on a very busy
Friday night will not necessarily see that some of the drinks
he or she is pouring will be for people already intoxicated.
Q9 Helen Southworth: That is actually
a legal responsibility on the licensee, so it is not good enough
to say they had not noticed.
Councillor White: No. I am not
here to defend licensees but just trying to explain how I perceive
that is likely to happen.
Q10 Helen Southworth: In my experience
one of the issues I have discovered around this process is that
everybody thinks everybody else should do something, and nobody
thinks that they have a role to play in it if it is not going
well. If it is going well everybody thinks they have had a part
to play in it and everybody cooperates to make it work and you
then see improvements. One of the things I want to ask you about
is how you get that virtuous circle, rather than one that says,
"It wasn't me—it was him"?
Councillor White: There is a missing
piece in the legislation and I understand why it is missing; but
it is not the role of the licensing authority to initiate a review;
it is the role of somebody else, like the police. I think it would
be helpful if the legislation were ever to be changed for the
licensing authority itself, which often receives the complaints,
which is in touch with councillors like me who are talking to
residents about it, to be able itself to initiate a review. That
gets round the problem you rightly identify of it always being
someone else's problem. It should be the problem principally of
the licensing authority. Indeed, the semi-judicial nature of a
licensing authority should protect the licensee if that is handled
correctly.
Q11 Helen Southworth: The Licensing
Act in itself does not appear to be able to work in isolation.
It seems to be very heavily dependent on the local cooperation
and practice between agencies. How important are things like Business
Improvement Districts and Best Bar None in this? Is there a real
difference in places that have those sorts of schemes and places
that do not?
Mr Quin: Shall I kick off and
declare an interest at the outset. We, as ATCM, are responsible
for the national BIDs pilot project which introduced Business
Improvement Districts into the United Kingdom, supporting the
legislation through its passage; and we still administer the national
BIDs advisory service, and support the growth of BIDs. I am also
a board member of Best Bar None. I think those initiatives have
had a part to play. I think the reason we had been so supportive
of them was that the night-time economy mushroomed very rapidly
and we did not really have the infrastructure and management in
place in most locations to deal with that. It was not something
the local authorities were equipped to do, or the police were
equipped to do, or anybody else was doing. What we looked for
were solutions as to how we provided more effective management
of that. I think what has happened, what the Licensing Act has
done has given a spur to, is this sense of working more closely
together—whether it is the police, the local authorities,
the street wardens and the premises themselves. Through initiatives
like Best Bar None, which is recognising good practice from the
on-licence trade, we are seeing a real change happen. I think
we are seeing much more responsible retailing taking place and
a much greater willingness to engage with the police and the local
authority on a non-confrontation basis. Discussions happen about
things that could be improved in order to achieve recognition,
rather than, "You must do that", and I think that creates
a more positive attitude. As far as BIDs are concerned, both they
and voluntary Town Centre Management initiatives are now funding
evening economy managers, street wardens in an evening, taxi marshals
and other such things. The evidence seems to be that they are
having a notable impact. Again, it is about creating this sense
of joint responsibility for the location and showing that something
can be done, and the key problems are being addressed.
Councillor Theobald: We have a
BID in our area and it works very well. It employs two wardens
to go round during the daytime as well as at night-time. One of
our premises won the Bar None Award the first year. I think all
these things, to encourage premises to do well, are to be commended.
I did say at the very beginning one of the things the Licensing
Act has done has led to a very much closer working relationship
by all the various agencies. To give you an example, you mentioned
something about why are licensees serving people who are intoxicated?
Quite often it is when they go outside afterwards that it really
hits them in the cold air. It is very important there are initiatives—and
I do not want to keep referring to my one but I am sure it is
common in other places—for instance, in one of our leading
streets we have a church hall where girls in particular are taken
so that they can be looked after before they get into a taxi and
go home. Taxi marshalling and all sorts of initiatives afterwards
are important but I go back to cost grounds—authorities
would like to do more. We have our public safety and our police
team working together in the same building and the police would
like us to have our environmental health people in there as well
but we cannot lose that resource entirely. Again, a lot of this
results on costs. As you probably know, despite assurances by
ministers from day one that councils' costs would be reimbursed
that has just not happened, despite the Elton Report. We were
told they would be reimbursed and it would all be cost-neutral
but that has just not happened.
Q12 Helen Southworth: That is one
of the benefits of Business Improvement Districts, is it not,
that it does allow a contribution to be made from the industry?
Mr Quin: On a voluntary basis
until a ballot has taken place of businesses, and if a majority
vote in favour to pay a contribution then all businesses have
to pay it. It is not just the licensed trade obviously, other
businesses are included in it, or can be included. We are particularly
grateful that the legislation was framed as facilitating legislation,
rather than particularly prescriptive, because it does allow the
variation to suit the local needs.
Councillor White: I would not
want the impression to be given that it is only in places where
you have got BIDs that we are getting this level of cooperation.
Licensees know, local authorities know, that this is going to
work best where there is close cooperation. In my own district
St Albans, where there are Pubwatch schemes, any sensible licensee
knows that they do not want drunks coming in, they do not want
fines, they do not want a bad reputation and they work with the
council on that, and it is largely successful.
Q13 Mr Sanders: Is it not the case
that actually things are a lot better today than perhaps they
were 30 years ago? There was no CCTV then; there were no taxi
marshals; there were no community support officers; street lighting
was not perhaps as good as it is today; door supervisors were
not trained; there was no coordination, or rarely coordination,
between licensed premises. In my area you have a safe bus for
people; there are also street pastors working; essentially it
is a safer environment today than 30 years ago. Or is it that
the numbers are bigger today that makes it feel it is less safe?
Mr Quin: I think there is merit
in both arguments. Undeniably now there is a much better infrastructure
provision for all of the kinds of things you have mentioned—including
night buses and all sorts of things which help to get people away.
I think if you went back as far as 30 years most town and city
centres in the UK were practically abandoned after 5.30 at night
because they were just retailing centres or working centres; and
there might be the odd small corner pub a few old men drank in,
but most people drank out in their suburban locations, in smaller
town centres, or in pubs close to where they lived. I think the
change that happened within that 30-year period was that pubs,
bars and clubs came back into town; we became a more successful
economy in terms of the amount of money we had available to spend,
and this was what developed this sudden growth in the evening
and night-time economy, taking on premises that actually interestingly
had been abandoned by banks and building societies as they merged.
So who knows what may happen in the future! That growth happened
in a place where no-one had previously expected it. Certainly
from my experience when I was a town centre manager, the police
did not really have to patrol the town centre at night because
there was no-one there. That was the challenge we had; and that
was the period where we had a kind of ten-year chaos, where trade
was growing, people were coming in but we had not got the means
of putting the management infrastructure in place. I think you
are right, now in most places we have and we are managing the
issue and it is allowing more people to have a good time and to
use their centre for longer, perhaps in a more sustainable way.
Councillor White: The question
is: would we prefer to be in 1978 or 2008? I think fairly clearly
I would prefer to be now for the reasons just given. It is not
just a night-time economy. I remember when pubs closed at two
o'clock on a Sunday and it was five long hours—and really
long hours—before they reopened again, and then they closed
again at ten. Sundays were a wretched time in terms of enjoyment.
The public, until this legislation came in, felt very helpless.
You were dealing with a slightly remote magistrates' court; there
were no roles for councillors; and they now know they can go along
and make objections and be heard; and maybe their objections are
taken into account and maybe they are not but at least they get
a hearing now. I think that gives quite a lot of reassurance to
the public.
Q14 Mr Sanders: The big difference
now of course is the Licensing Act, and the fact that people do
have a right to participate in the process. Do you think the public
has actually grasped that opportunity to influence decisions on
licensing?
Councillor White: Possibly not
as much as we would like. One of the problems is that it is unclear
the degree to which it is right and proper to advertise a new
licence or a licensing chain. With a planning application it is
very clear that those who are close to it need to be given notice
of it; and they can object to the council, attend the hearing
and lobby their councillors. With licensing it is not quite like
that. The notice goes up and it is of course available in the
newspaper. Some councils advertise it and some do not, fearing
litigation. I think some clarity there would help. It is not unreasonable
for the licensing authority to say quite neutrally, "An application
has come in; have a look at it and tell us what you see",
but that is not strictly in the rules.
Q15 Mr Sanders: What about using
their right to have a say on reviewing a licence? Are the public
getting involved in the process of the review of a licence and
demanding that changes are made to its conditions?
Mr Crowley: One thing I have found
from personal experience and experience from London and around
the country is that individual residents are loath to start that
route. Part of the process is serving a notice on the licence
holder. You are putting your head way above the parapet. If you
are a close neighbour of that operator there are obviously other
issues. This is one of the reasons why I would certainly support
the suggestion that licensing authorities can call reviews themselves.
Licensing officers are best placed to know the problem premises.
Residents have fears about commencing a review process, or even
joining in with a review process once it has been brought by someone
else.
Q16 Mr Sanders: What can be done
then to put that right?
Mr Crowley: I would suggest allowing
licensing authorities to call reviews of licensed premises.
Q17 Mr Sanders: Automatically?
Mr Crowley: In the same way as
they are allowed to under the Gambling Act 2005.
Q18 Mr Sanders: Can I put a contrary
position that is happening with Temporary Event Notices. A Conservative
councillor in my patch is very, very upset, and quite rightly,
that when there is a temporary event licence application he cannot
put across the views of the public; only the police are allowed
to put across their views to the decision-maker. When I raise
this with the police in my area they say they do not like being
in that position because they do not feel that that is where they
should be. Would you like to see a review of Temporary Event Notices
so that they too are democratised in the way that licensing applications
are?
Mr Crowley: Generally, yes, there
is an issue that one of the reasons for Temporary Event Notices
is that you only have to give ten working days' notice; so the
extent of input may be limited just by that. The only reason a
Temporary Event Notice could go before a licensing committee is
if the police feel there are crime and disorder issues. Public
nuisance issues are not catered for and I believe public nuisance
issues should be catered for.
Councillor Theobald: Temporary
Event Notices along with the fees are the two issues and we would
certainly like a review. One of the problems is, you put your
application in and the police have to comment within 48 hours.
If you put that in at a remote police station, which could well
be closed, say, late Friday afternoon, they only have 48 hours
to respond; and if they have not responded in time then they will
get this. This cannot be right and there should certainly be a
longer period for the police to be able to comment on this—it
is ludicrous. Also it is only the police who can comment on these;
and, as Patrick, has just said, we think the local authorities
should be able to comment on those as well, and other bodies.
Temporary Event Notices can of course also be used 12 times a
year for a period of 96 hours. If one works this one out, you
can therefore constantly be using Temporary Event Notices so that
you are not being regulated in the same way as you would be otherwise.
That is another reason why, definitely with Temporary Event Notices,
the system with it does need to be reviewed certainly.
Mr Quin: Can I just make a comment
on this democratisation and the involvement of people in the licence
process. Whilst it is very important in licensed premises in residential
locations that local residents have a significant input into that,
I think in many town and city centre locations, where the number
of residents is quite few, the difficulty is getting the engagement
of the potential users of these premises in that process—particularly
if they are younger people or they are people coming in from a
distance; they may not naturally engage in processes with the
local authority. The risk is that a majority view is drowned out
by a few local objectors who have a strong case to make. Perhaps
one of the reasons we have not seen a greater change with the
Licensing Act over the years since it has been in force has been
to some extent as a result of this. I look forward over the years
to come to see whether we can actually change that process and
perhaps be more willing to listen to the views of users of the
premises.
Councillor White: That said, having
witnessed on many occasions licensing committees operating, the
serial complainers are noted. I suppose I would say this, but
fair decisions are reached and you can filter this out and form
a compromise. The legislation basically is on the presumption
that a licence will be granted. Very often the argument is only
around the periphery and the loud noises of people who have some
axe to grind will normally be discounted by a good licensing committee.
Q19 Chairman: Just following that
up, we had a specific example drawn to our attention by the Musicians'
Union of the open air concerts at Kenwood where they argued that
a small number of local residents had a disproportionate influence
on the council, who then imposed conditions which actually had
quite a damaging impact on the whole viability of the event, in
terms of the time it had to finished etc. Do you think this is
a problem which is now occurring, or is Councillor White right
that basically councils are sensible enough to be able to overlook
people who are not representative?
Mr Quin: I suspect there are different
results in different places. Councillor White is correct in many
instances but I do feel the risk is that some of the people—and
I know they have the option to be engaged in this process but
who are not but then subsequently find a decision has been made
that is contrary to what they would desire—feel disenfranchised,
and that it is just this small group making a case. Maybe over
time the experience of that will make them engage in the process
themselves, and you will get submissions from potential users,
concert-goers or whatever it might be.
| 
