Examination of Witnesses (Questions 20
- 39)
TUESDAY 14 OCTOBER 2008
COUNCILLOR CHRIS
WHITE, COUNCILLOR
GEOFFREY THEOBALD,
MR PATRICK
CROWLEY AND
MR SIMON
QUIN
Q20 Chairman: Is the case presumably
that councils are going to pay attention to the local residents
because the local residents have votes, whereas the people visiting
the concert probably are not going to be voters?
Councillor White: I think it would
be dangerous to go down that particular route because of the rules
as to who can sit on a particular licensing sub-committee. If
you are a ward councillor you cannot sit on a sub-committee and
there are no whipping arrangements, and indeed there is not political
proportionality. Councillors are very good at taking very seriously
their judicial roles.
Q21 Janet Anderson: I wonder if we
could just pursue this subject of local authority statements of
licensing policy. In quite a lot of the evidence we have got there
have been complaints about inconsistency between authorities.
The British Beer and Pub Association, for example, argues that
some local authorities are overly prescriptive and include blanket
conditions, which it claims are prohibited by the Act. One of
the examples it gives, for example, is that some local authorities
might require membership of Pubwatch, which might seem to be a
good idea but that that is not required by the Act. Councillor
White, could you tell us what kind of guidance the LGA gives to
authorities, and why there should be these consistencies?
Councillor White: I will pass
that on to Geoffrey, if you do not mind.
Councillor Theobald: It is a matter
for each local authority if they get advice. Obviously you will
be challenged, and I think that happened quite early on in a case.
A particular authority had a very strong statement and they were
challenged and they lost.
Q22 Janet Anderson: Was that Canterbury?
Councillor Theobald: Yes. Statements
of licensing policies have to go before full councils, and councillors
are aware of the fact that if they start producing statements
that cannot be supported then they will lose when it comes to
committees. They will look at this very, very carefully indeed
to ensure that they are following the letter of the law, as it
were.
Councillor White: DCMS does give
comprehensive guidance. It is an interesting example about Pubwatch,
because to some degree we need to have a consistent approach to
this. If we think it is good to work in partnership then it does
not seem wildly unreasonable to say you should actually work in
partnership with the licensees; equally, if you have local government
if there are going to be differences between different areas.
What is remarkable about licensing practices is how different
local authorities actually are. Local authority wards are very
different. I live in a ward which has no pubs in it whatever;
yet I represent a division which has got some of the largest density
of pubs in the country. You get that sort of variation which does
need to be reflected in local documents.
Q23 Janet Anderson: Could I take
you back briefly to the Chairman's point about Kenwood and the
points raised with us by the Musicians' Union. It does seem, does
it not, that a small group of "influential" residents,
if I could put it that way, have had an effect on that policy,
and the people who get a lot of enjoyment out of the open air
concerts at Kenwood have not had a say. Is there any way you think
the Act should be amended to make sure that happens in the future?
Mr Crowley: The Act does not prevent
people speaking in support of an application at all. A representation
can be for or against an application. Certainly in my experience
we do get people making representations in support of an application.
Q24 Janet Anderson: There is no requirement
for local authorities in a situation like that to go to the users
of Kenwood and ask them what they think?
Mr Crowley: There is not. Their
obligation is to advertise according to the legislation and that
is not, in a sense, to advertise against an application but just
to tell people an application is apparent.
Councillor White: You could make
the same sort of argument about planning law as well. My suggestion
would be in that sort of case that the applicant should make sure
that the users are aware—it is a political process as well
as a quasi-judicial one. Certainly I know there has been a spat
in my local newspaper where a particular home-grown St Albans
band felt it was being denied the ability to occupy premises which
sold alcohol, and they made the front-page of the local paper.
You always squirm with embarrassment to some degree when your
council is in that position. Brutal politics also works here rather
than necessarily changes in legislation.
Q25 Helen Southworth: I also represent
an area that has one of the largest density of premises in the
county, and my town centre, I have to say, is something which
has given me cause for some considerable concern over the years.
I have spent a lot of time doing night patrols with the police
and meetings with all the various different people. One of the
first things I learnt was not to have meetings with people separately,
but to get them altogether in the same room so that they could
not transfer blame across from each other. From that process I
am a very strong supporter of local authorities being able to
determine what is needed in a particular area and making sure
it happens there. Do you think the Act is strong enough at the
moment in terms of allowing local authorities to identify what
needs to happen in a local area? I am thinking about things like
cumulative impact areas, but also about things like polycarbonate
glasses in appropriate places and appropriate timing, not just
because of the guide dogs for the blind that have had their feet
cut up on mornings when they have been walking round areas, but
also because of the time I have spent at the local A&E seeing
what has actually happened and what they have been trying to put
back together again after a Friday or Saturday night. Do you think
the legislation works well enough at the moment considering that
a council has already lost a case; or do you think it needs to
be looked at again?
Councillor Theobald: If I was
here in three months' time I could answer that question better,
because in my own authority we have a cumulative impact which
has recently been introduced, and we have just turned down (the
licensing committee) a particular establishment; but they can
of course always appeal to the magistrates' courts. We have only
had three appeals to the magistrates and we have lost all three;
one of course was the famous lap dancing club, and I understand
the Minister is looking at that issue anyway. At the end of the
day you must ensure that your cumulative impact policy will stand
up, because you will be challenged on it and you have to justify
it, and there is always an appeal to the magistrates' courts.
Councillor White: I think there
is a real dilemma about cumulative impact because it is an illiberal
concept to say that "You are the next one to apply, so tough.
We've now put the gate down". Nevertheless there is a frustration
in town centres, and I do not need to tell you as an MP this,
about where it does seem that most premises are licensed premises
where there is noise and disturbance, vomiting and urinating,
and all these other things which are really very antisocial, and
the feeling that somebody ought to be able to do something about
it. I suspect what we need to do is test whether we can move slightly
further along the spectrum. As for polycarbonate glasses, that
sort of flexibility for local authorities is absolutely essential;
to be able to impose that for exactly the reasons given. I would
not want to see a blanket national requirement for polycarbonate
because I do not want to take out my beloved in February and drink
out of plastic glasses—and I am sure no-one else does. There
is a place for glasses and probably pubs are not the place.
Councillor Theobald: I think there
is a perception by the public that councils can do more than they
can under the Act. In other words, if residents do not want a
particular pub to stay open later then the council can stop that;
but of course the council has to operate under the licensing objectives
and they can only do that. There is a perception that councils
could do more when they cannot, because they are tied to the licensing
objectives of the Act.
Mr Quin: To me the whole point
on this would really be about ensuring that the local authority
works with the licensed trade and works with the other interests
and the police and, between you, you actually look at how you
are managing that environment and addressing the issues that relate
to it. In some places very much so—polycarbonate glasses
have been an important requirement as part of the Pubwatch and
Best Bar None; in others it does not seem to be as much of a problem.
Really it is about working in partnership together to make the
place attractive, and make the place welcoming to all kinds of
people. Again, I think there is a slight presumption that we talk
of town centres at night and we think of young people; but actually
if you go in the town centre at night there are people of all
ages there and some of them are drawn in just because now there
are more people on the streets and it feels a more welcoming environment
than previously, when you were not quite sure who was lurking
in that shadow down there. This is not the case everywhere yet,
but I think we are getting towards it and we are getting towards
a sense that many more people feel comfortable out at night.
Q26 Helen Southworth: Can I ask about
your response to the issues of promotions, and in particular to
irresponsible promotions, and what you believe needs to be done
about that?
Councillor White: I think we have
to be quite firm on this one. Irresponsible promotions—how
do you define that? I think we would all say something like a
promotion which would actually encourage you to be intoxicated,
as opposed to enjoying the drink, is something that should be
stopped. Indeed, the fair trading legislation is not helping in
that.
Q27 Helen Southworth: Is that a generally
held opinion?
Councillor Theobald: I think it
is unfortunate—and I think I did say this earlier in the
evidence—where you see these happy hours and people are
being encouraged to drink as much a they possibly can within a
certain period of time. I couple that with drink promotions in
off-licences. These are certainly things that one would not encourage.
Certainly the police, environmental health officers and licensing
officers are looking at these things all the time. If you can
lead this back to a particular establishment where people are
getting intoxicated then one can try and do something about that.
Councillor White: That is a big
"if", and therefore not to happen in the first place.
Councillor Theobald: Absolutely.
Mr Quin: From my side, that comes
with the caveat I raised earlier that if all drinks are expensive
in licensed premises than that might encourage some people to
drink more from off-licences before they actually go to those
licensed premises, so you may not actually achieve a uniform improvement.
Q28 Helen Southworth: Briefly, can
I give you one example from my constituency. There is a bar called
The Bridgewater in Derwent in my constituency where, if
you go in and order two large glasses of white wine, you get the
rest of the bottle free. Would you include that in an irresponsible
promotion; or would you think that is fairly okay?
Councillor White: It is fine if
I am doing the drinking, I think! Cheap alcohol is not the right
message. I am sorry to be hair-shirted about it, but where you
are basically giving away alcohol you are saying it is fine to
drink more than you can. Let us just it was for me—if I
bought two glasses I could finish off the entire bottle—I
would be in some degree of inebriation after that; reasonably
coherent but certainly not able to drive a car. Is that a sensible
way for me to be encouraged, to be told that it is alright for
me to drink down a bottle of wine more or less on my own? I do
not think it is.
Councillor Theobald: I am surprised
they can afford that. Is this purely a bar; not a bar and a restaurant?
Q29 Helen Southworth: It is a trendy
modern bar/pub. That is what they do: if you order two large glasses
of wine you get the rest of the bottle free.
Mr Quin: You are paying for two-thirds
of it and you are getting the rest of it. I think the issue is
that this is a competitive market; retailers compete by doing
sales and other types of things; but maybe what we want to look
at is not stopping promotions per se but stopping promotions
that are about the provision of alcohol. If you bought two large
glasses of white wine and got free olives or free nuts, or something
of that kind, that might well be a nice balancing act.
Chairman: I do not think there will be
queues around the block!
Q30 Helen Southworth: In terms of
those kinds of promotions, do you think they support or undermine
policies that say you should not have opened alcohol transported
round the town centre? If you have your two glasses of wine and
you get the rest of the bottle free you cannot actually carry
it anywhere if there is a policy that says you do not have open
alcohol around specific parts of the town centre?
Councillor White: I presume they
give you the bottle and you take it to your table or wherever
you are.
Q31 Helen Southworth: So you drink
it?
Councillor White: Yes. I do not
think it would make any difference to that policy.
Q32 Helen Southworth: It seems to
make quite a difference in terms of how people perceive things.
If you give them a sealed bottle of alcohol that you can take
away and drink at your own leisure there is a difference from
giving something you have to drink there and then. You have to
drink it there and then and you are going to consume it.
Councillor Theobald: I think we
have said this once or twice in this evidence, but buying cans
of alcohol and promotions of those sorts can be just as dangerous
because young people can get all these cans.
Q33 Mr Hall: In the evidence we have
got in front of us there are only two licensed outlets in the
whole of the UK that drink 24 hours a day. Is that correct?
Councillor White: I believe that
is correct, yes.
Q34 Mr Hall: The whole concept of
this is 24-hour drinking across the whole of the UK but in fact
it is two particular pubs in one particular location. My local
authority with the police authority produced a paper which is
aimed at going back to dispersal from having town centres as a
location for drinking and dispersing people back to the communities
where they come from so that they drink in their own communities.
In this particular strategy they are also trying to make the price
an important factor of where people drink, but that would have
an impact on the restaurant trade in the town centres in my constituency.
I see it as slightly incompatible. Is it feasible to disperse
drinking into outlying areas rather than concentrated in town
centres?
Mr Quin: I think there is some
evidence that has certainly come out of some of the northern cities.
I was talking with people in Leeds recently about this. They are
seeing fewer people in central Leeds now on what were traditionally
big nights out, like coming out on Good Friday or New Years Eve,
because in the smaller suburban centres and the town centres that
surround them you have a greater chance now of being able to drink
until later. Rather than having the difficulties of trying to
get a cab home, or get transport home from the centre of Leeds
on one of those nights, people are drinking locally. That has
brought its own issues, because previously you were marshalling
and dealing with everybody in one location and the police were
prepared for it and everything else, but suddenly this is in 20
centres around Leeds and issues can arise in those smaller centres.
Q35 Mr Hall: This is primarily aimed
at the weekend trade every weekend of the year?
Mr Quin: I am not convinced that
you will change that. I think what you may find though is that
those people who want to party will still go to the big town centre
or the big city centre; but maybe those who are slightly older
who were previously only going there because it was a place they
could drink a little bit later may stay more locally. I think
it is still too early in this whole position to look and say,
"Have we achieved all we set out to achieve? Has there been
the testing of the flexibility and changes?" Certainly from
my side, we have lots of inbound visits from around the world
looking at town centre management, because we are the largest
organisation in the world; and the consistent message I get when
they arrive is they have heard about 24-hour drinking, they come
to Westminster and they struggle to drink after eleven o'clock
anywhere apart from in their hotel, so they go, "What's going
on?"
Q36 Mr Hall: The other part of the
strategy is related to age. Some people are suggesting you should
reduce the drinking age to 16. My local authority and police propose
you should increase it to 21. Is there any consensus around this?
Is it a very controversial area?
Mr Quin: I am not sure there is
consensus.
Councillor Theobald: I have a
personal view but that has certainly not been canvassed.
Q37 Mr Hall: Would it be possible
to increase the drinking age to 21?
Councillor Theobald: They do in
the USA.
Councillor White: Only if you
want to give a message that drinking is a forbidden fruit. That
seems a very good way of doing it.
Q38 Mr Hall: On the process itself,
there is an issue that the LGA have said that the new Licensing
Act has actually streamlined the position, brought in lots of
people networking around it; part of the beer trade have said
it is actually a good move; but other people are saying that the
new application process is bureaucratic and overbearing. Where
are we?
Councillor White: I think simultaneously
all are true.
Q39 Mr Hall: Can that be?
Councillor White: It could be
better, and indeed we welcome the DCMS's simplification of the
application forms, for instance, which were too long and were
paper-based to an on-line application—all these things can
help. I think it has been a problem for those bodies which really
were not touched by licensing legislation at all in the past like
schools. Work needs to be done but, by and large, we are happier
where we are now.
| 
