Memorandum submitted by the British Beer
and Pub Association (BBPA)
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The pub sector plays a crucial role
in welcoming and providing excellent services and facilities not
only to their local communities but also to visitors within the
UK and from overseas. The recent changes to the licensing laws
have given licensees the opportunity to further adapt their offering
to meet the needs of their customers.
Increases in regulation and associated
costs in recent years, including the smoking ban and duty increases,
have damaged the licensed trade and have left many pubs unable
to withstand the current economic pressures.
The Licensing Act 2003 has generally
had a positive effect in terms of addressing public nuisance issues
where they arise. There is no evidence to suggest that the Act
itself has contributed to any increase in public nuisance.
There is no evidence that the Licensing
Act 2003 has led to any significant increase in the overall number
of night-time offences.
There has not been any increase in
the provision of live music as a result of the Act.
Recommended changes to the Act and
the Licensing process include:
removal of the Triennial review of
Licensing Policies,
simplication of the application process,
implementation of the minor variation
process as soon as possible,
extension of the Interim Authority
notice period, and
introduction of a Slip Rule for Local
Authorities.
The Licensing Act, 2003 imposed greater
costs than originally anticipated.
The proposals in the recent Government
consultation Safe Sensible Social have the potential to undermine
the operation and intention of the Licensing Act, 2003 and could
impose greater burdens on businesses.
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 The British Beer and Pub Association
(BBPA) represents brewing companies and their pub interests, and
pub owning companies, accounting for 98% of beer production and
just over half of the 58,200 pubs in the UK. The pub sector contributes
over £22 billion to the economy and employs in the region
of 600,000 people. Over 80% of pubs (ie nearly 50,000 outlets)
are small businesses which are independently managed or run by
self-employed licensees. The provision of food has become increasingly
important to pub businesses over the last decade, and the pub
food market is currently estimated to be worth in the region of
£6 billion per annum.
Economic Overview
1.2 Increases in regulation and associated
costs in recent years, including the smoking ban and duty increases,
have damaged the licensed trade and have left many pubs unable
to withstand the current economic pressures. On 5 March 2008,
the BBPA released figures on pub closures, which have increased
sharply over the last two years. 1,409 pubs closed in 2007 compared
with 216 in 2006 and 102 in 2005. Figures released on 8 September
confirmed that the closure rate is increasing, with 36 pubs per
week now being lost compared to 27 pubs per week back in March.
The current closure rate is 33% up on 2007. Pubs are now closing
nine times faster than in 2006, and 18 times faster than in 2005,
as illustrated in the BBPA economic report attached at Annex 1.[1]
1.3 As explained above, the vast majority
of pubs are small businesses, and they have faced much new legislation
over the last three years. In addition to the change to a new
licensing regime, there are also new gambling laws, and the ban
in smoking in public places. As pubs are already highly regulated
businesses, absorbing the cost and social impact of new legal
provisions, together with the downturn in the economy as a whole,
is now taking its toll. Urban pubs have been hardest hit to date,
with 2% of all urban pubs closing in the last six months. Pubs
without the space to provide an attractive outside area for smokers,
and those that are not heavily focused on food sales have faced
particular difficulties. At this rate of closure, many villages
across Britain may lose their pub in the next few years, and thousands
of local jobs would also be lost. Total alcohol sales in pubs
have fallen by around 6% in the last 12 to 18 months. While there
has been some increase in food sales, profit margins are being
squeezed because of the additional costs associated with selling
food.
1.4 The "The Pub Under Pressure"
chart, which illustrates the extent of regulatory pressure on
the pub sector, is contained in Annex 1.
The Licensing Act 2003
1.5 The pub sector plays a crucial role
in welcoming and providing excellent services and facilities not
only to their local communities but also to visitors within the
UK and from overseas. The recent changes to the licensing laws
have given licensees the opportunity to further adapt their offering
to meet the needs of their customers. We are concerned, however,
that the negative publicity surrounding the introduction of the
new licensing laws has damaged the image of the pub sector with
Government, to the extent that it is no longer perceived to be
part of the hospitality and tourism sectors, but purely about
the sale of alcohol. This is not the case, and it is important
that the balance is redressed. As the sponsor department for tourism
and hospitality, we believe that DCMS has an important role to
play in promoting the positive aspects of pubs as an important
part of our national heritage and tourism industry.
1.6 The BBPA believes that the implementation
of the Licensing Act 2003 has been successful to date and is encouraged
by reports of decreased levels of disorder associated with licensed
premises. The first chapter of the current Government consultation
on Safe, Sensible, Social states that "Alcohol-related
violent crime fell by a third, from about 1.5 million incidents
in 1997 to fewer than one million in 2007-08".[2]
Welsh police reported that "the Act may have been more generous
with licensing hours, but its also far more proactive in tackling
premises which are causing problems."[3]
Councils have also embraced the Act, the leader of Manchester
City Council states in the foreword to their licensing policy
"that the greater freedom and flexibilities offered by the
new licensing regime placed tremendous responsibility on the operators
of licensed premises [...] I am pleased that for the vast majority
of premises this is indeed the case [...] right across Manchester".[4]
1.7 The intention of the Act was to allow
flexibility of operation for licensed premises, and not "24
hour drinking", as widely but erroneously reported by the
media. Three years on from the implementation of the Act, most
pubs are only open, on average, 21 minutes longer than before
the changes to the licensing laws.[5]
1.8 The Association welcomes this opportunity
to provide comments below as part of this inquiry. We firmly believe
that the Act is making a positive contribution to the management
and control of licensed premises. DCMS (in its 2008 evaluation
of the Act) makes the point that "assessing the impact [...]
will require time" and that "several studies (have)
concluded that the impact of licensing cannot be considered independently
of other factors".[6]
1.9 We would also draw the Committee's attention
to the low number of licence reviews that have taken place since
the introduction of the new Licensing Act. There were 666 licence
reviews recorded by DCMS between 2006 and 2007, of which 91 licences
were suspended and another 91 revoked.[7]
This is a small fraction of the 176,400 licences in force at the
time. There has, therefore, been no need to take large numbers
of licensed premises to review.
2. THE SPECIFIC
QUESTIONS RAISED
BY THE
CULTURE, MEDIA
AND SPORT
COMMITTEE
2.1 Our observations on the key questions
for this inquiry are as follows:
Whether there has been any change in levels of
public nuisance, numbers of night-time offences or perceptions
of public safety since the Act came into force
Public nuisance
2.2 The prevention of public nuisance is,
of course, one of the four licensing objectives, and is, in our
experience, primarily concerned with noise issues. In addition
to the requirements under the Licensing Act 2003, noise and other
public nuisance issues such as litter, are subject to other legislation,
including the Control of Noise at Work Regulations 2005, the Noise
Act 2006 and the Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act 2005.
Concerns about the potential for noise nuisance in particular,
has had an effect on the provision of live music. (We comment
further on this below).
2.3 Recently, an appeal decision in favour
of local residents seeking to restrict the hours granted to a
particular licensed premises on the grounds that there was potential
for noise nuisance, was overturned following a judicial review
where the judge ruled that residents need specific grounds to
appeal licence applications. The judgement also makes the point
that the grant of a licence should be subject to minimum bureaucracy
and that due regard must be taken of the statutory Government
guidance, which is approved by Parliament.[8]
2.4 With regard to dispersal issues in town
centres, our view is that these have improved since the introduction
of the Act, as the majority of town centre premises are now required
to have door supervisors. This has had a positive impact on managing
often large numbers of people in high streets and town centres
in the evening. The role of the police, however, still remains
crucial.
2.5 The introduction of the smoking ban
across all public places from 1 July 2007 has proved something
of a challenge for licensees in terms of noise management issues
as well as the economic impact of the ban. Prior to the ban, some
premises with formal outside areas such as beer gardens, patios
or courtyards had accepted conditions on their licences prohibiting
the use of these areas after a particular time in the evening,
eg 9.00 pm. With the advent of the smoking ban, some licensees
applied for variations to remove such conditions or to extend
the hours of use for the external areas, in order to provide an
option for smoking customers.
2.6 For a significant minority of "landlocked"
premises, which have no external area, smoking customers have
little option but to stand outside the premises. It is, therefore,
the knock-on effect of separate legislation which has, in some
circumstances, led to problems with noise nuisance where none
existed previously. We believe that reports of increased noise
nuisance as a result of groups of smokers outside licensed premises
are greatly exaggerated, but in those cases where noise has become
an issue as a result of the ban, this can be addressed as necessary
under the Licensing Act 2003.
2.7 In our view, the Licensing Act 2003
has generally had a positive effect in terms of addressing public
nuisance issues where they arise. There is no evidence to suggest
that the Act itself has contributed to any increase in public
nuisance. It has, however, contributed to improved relations between
the police, local authorities and industry and better partnership
working at local level.
Night-time Offences
2.8 While the BBPA has no figures of its
own with regard to the impact of the Licensing Act 2003 on the
numbers of night-time offences, it would take this opportunity
to highlight the following published data.
2.8.1 The DCMS evaluation report published
earlier this year states that the Home Office found that "local
residents were less likely to say that drunk or rowdy behaviour
was a problem after the (licensing regime) change than before
it, and a majority thought that alcohol related crime was declining".[9]
Violent crime fell by 3% overall in the year after the change,
although there was an increase in the small proportion of violent
crimes occurring between 3.00 am and 5.00 am in the first year
of the new licensing regime.[10]
2.8.2 The DoH consultation document, Safe,
Sensible, Social, clearly states that "alcohol-related
violent crime fell by a third, from about 1.5 million incidents
in 1997 to fewer than 1 million in 2007-08".[11]
While both the Liquor Licensing Act 1968 and the Licensing Act
2003 were in force during this period, DCMS have reported that
following the implementation of the 2003 Act, "the overall
volume of incidents of crime and disorder has remained stable
and not risen".[12]
2.8.3 A survey by LACORS revealed that the
majority of Primary Care Trusts, Police Authorities and Local
Authorities surveyed believed that there has been no change in
the level of alcohol related disorder since the Act came into
force.[13]
2.8.4 A report for the Alcohol Education
and Research Council by Middlesex University concluded that "the
effect of the Licensing Act 2003 has been largely neutral. There
has been little change in noise levels, alcohol-related violence/fights,
drink driving alcohol-related crime and under-age drinking".[14]
2.9 Again, there is no evidence that the
Licensing Act 2003 has led to any significant increase in the
overall number of night-time offences.
Perception of public safety
2.10 The promotion of public safety is,
again, one of the four licensing objectives and is supported by
additional health and safety legislation which must be complied
with by all businesses. There are few, if any, significant health
and safety issues in pubs which are not already addressed by legislation.
The BBPA in conjunction with Noctis (formerly BEDA), has produced
Managing Safety in Bars, Pubs and Clubs, a guide to assessing
the risk of violence in individual licensed premises, which is
based on existing good practice. Where specific high level risks
are identified, the guide provides possible solutions to addressing
these as necessary, for example through such measures as CCTV,
toughened glass/polycarbonates, door staff, notices etc.
2.11 Negative perceptions of wider public
safety issues and crime and disorder as a result of the Licensing
Act 2003 have been largely fuelled by the media. In reality, there
is no evidence that there has been a decline in public safety
either inside or outside licensed premises, and indeed it is clear
from Government figures that overall levels of violent crime are
falling.[15]
The impact of the act on the performance of live
music
2.12 The impact of the Licensing Act 2003
on live music has already been looked at in some detail by the
Live Music Forum, chaired by Feargal Sharkey. The Forum concluded
in its report published in July last year that, overall, "the
Licensing Act 2003 has had a broadly neutral impact on the provision
of live music."[16]
The report identified that most of the concern around live music
was focused on the possibility that further risks of noise nuisance
and crime and disorder might be created by licensed premises opening
for longer hours after the introduction of the Act. The Forum
was unable to find any evidence to support the idea that live
music is a potentially greater widespread source of crime and
disorder than other forms of licensed activities. In its report,
the Forum has questioned the need for the licensing of live music
at all "given that there is little if indeed any inherent
harm in the performance of live music". When looking at how
and if live music events should be licensed, the key consideration
for the Forum was that controls should be proportionate to the
scale and nature of the event.
2.13 The DCMS evaluation report on the Act
which was published earlier this year also notes that "there
has been no serious adverse effect on the provision of live music"
as a result of the Act.[17]
However, there does not appear to have been any increase in the
provision of live music, which was supposed to be promoted under
the Act. It is also likely that live music is under threat from
other legislation such as the Control of Noise at Work regulations
2005, and the increasingly expensive copyright licences which
must be obtained from the Performing Rights Society and Phonographic
Performance Ltd.
2.14 As a result of the Control of Noise
at Work Regulations 2005, which have implemented new European
restrictions on noise levels in the workplace, noise levels have
been significantly reduced from 85dBA to 80dBA at the "lower
action level" and 90dBA to 85dBA at the "upper action
level". Because noise is measured on a logarithmic scale,
these are significant reductions. Noise levels may be averaged
in respect of staff, but it follows that some premises will need
to reduce their overall noise levels, which in turn should have
an impact on potential noise nuisance as a result of music and
entertainment for example.
2.15 The draft Regulatory Reform Order introducing
a minor variations process into the licensing system is likely
to implement a number of the recommendations of the Live Music
Forum's report, including a de minimis exemption for small
scale live music events, up to no more than 200 people in licensed
premises (where there would be a greater degree of control) and
a limit of 100 people in unlicensed venues. "Incidental music"
is also to be clarified by importing a definition that is now
in the Guidance to the Act. At a recent meeting with DCMS officials
to discuss these proposals, representatives of the live music
sector and the trade were in favour of the proposals which are
a positive response to the perceived fall in live music events
at small venues since the introduction of the Licensing Act 2003,
particularly those that would previously have taken advantage
of the two-in-a-bar rule.
2.16 The City of London is currently consulting
on changes to its licensing policy, which would introduce the
following mandatory condition on all new premises licences and
variation applications under its jurisdiction:
"No promoted events shall take place at
the premises except where express written consent of the Commissioner
of Police for the City of London being given no less than 14 days
prior to the event. A promoted event is an event involving music
and/or dancing where the musical entertainment is provided at
any time between 11pm and 7am by a Disc Jockey or Disc Jockeys
one or some of whom are not employees of the Licensee (Premises
Licence Holder) and the event is promoted to the general public".
2.17 Such an approach is fundamentally contrary
to the Licensing Act 2003 and the statutory Government Guidance
to the Act, which make it clear that blanket conditions across
all premises, other than those mandatory conditions explicitly
stated in the Act itself, are prohibited. If the police are concerned
about a particular licence application in respect of music and
dancing, then they are able to make representations on that application.
In the case of Temporary Event Notices, the police can also make
representations on TEN applications on the grounds of crime and
disorder. The statutory notice period for TENs is 10 days. The
process as proposed is clearly ultra vires, and the BBPA has responded
to the consultation to this effect.
2.18 There was no satisfactory reason given
as to why the "two-in-a bar" rule could not have been
carried over into the new regime during transition in the same
way as other licence permissions, with only new licence applications
having to apply for live music going forward. It was the only
permission which was excluded from Grandfather Rights in this
way. Those venues which had a Public Entertainment Licence under
the previous licensing regime were able to grandfather this permission
which allowed them to have a much greater scale of entertainment,
including live music involving more than two musicians as well
as DJs, music and dancing.
The financial impact of the Act on sporting and
social clubs
2.19 The Association has no comments to
make on this aspect of the inquiry, as it is outside our area
of expertise.
Whether the Act has led, or looks likely to lead,
to a reduction in bureaucracy for those applying for licences
under the new regime and for those administering it
2.20 In general terms, we believe that the
Licensing Act 2003 has made the licence application process more
straightforward for most types of premises. For example, it is
simpler to apply for a Personal Licence and there is more consistency
in the overall process. However, a number of issues have arisen
in the course of the first three years of the Act which bear greater
scrutiny with a view to simplifying the process further and reducing
bureaucracy for those involved. We are pleased to expand on these
as follows:
Triennial Review of Local Licensing Policies
2.21 The Association sees no need for local
licensing policies to be reviewed and republished every three
years as required by the Act, particularly as it is open to Councils
to review their policies at any time within that period. The process
is onerous for both licensing authorities and those wishing to
respond to policy consultations. We would also argue that the
consultation process itself is flawed. During the most recent
review of local policies, the vast majority were presented for
consultation without any recommendations for amendments by local
authorities. Any changes made post-consultation as a result of
comments received, were not then subject to further consultation.
We also found that industry comments were very often disregarded.
Application Process
2.22 The BBPA strongly supports the recommendations
made in the Elton Review with regard to the need for further simplification
of all forms required by the licensing process, including premises
licence application forms and Designated Premises Supervisor Transfer
forms. The current application form is 28 pages long, and there
is certainly scope for a more streamlined approach.
2.23 In the interests of minimising cost
and bureaucracy for applicants, the Association would also support
a "one-stop-shop" approach to applications for premises
licences or variations to premises licences, where the application
is sent to the licensing authority only, which would then be responsible
for distributing it to all of the relevant responsible authorities
under the Licensing Act 2003. It should also be possible to submit
applications by electronic means.
2.24 At the moment, applicants must send
hard copies of their full application (including the plan of the
premises) to the licensing authority and each of the seven responsible
authorities under the Act, ie the police, the fire authority,
trading standards, the child protection body, environmental health,
the planning authority and health and safety. This obviously incurs
photocopying costs and above average postal costs, since it is
advisable to send the documentation by registered post to ensure
proof of postage in case one of the responsible authorities does
not receive the application (which would otherwise invalidate
the application, leaving the applicant to re-apply and incur further
cost, including additional advertising costs).
2.25 We understand that these additional
copies are not necessarily kept on file by the responsible authorities,
and have heard that some councils shred them once the application
process is complete, with just one copy being retained by the
licensing authority. We believe that the administrative and cost
burdens on applicants could be significantly minimised if licensing
authorities could distribute copies of applications to those involved
in the process.
Local Licensing Policies
2.26 While we accept that local licensing
authorities should have policies on how they administer the Act,
we do not necessarily consider that local policies should be,
in effect, a set of local rules about how licensed premises are
run. There is a huge variation in the approach of local authorities
to the Licensing Act 2003, ranging from minimal to very prescriptive
policy requirements. It is a cause of concern for us that many
local policies are overly long and complex, and have been drafted
to include blanket conditions (prohibited by the Act), common
examples of which include:
membership of Pubwatch;
requirement for the Designated Premises
Supervisor to be on site at all times;
duplicating existing legislation
(eg. health and safety, disability law);
requirements on glass and polycarbonates;
restrictions on opening hours; and
2.27 The BBPA won a judicial review of Canterbury
City Council's licensing policy in 2005, when the judge ruled
the policy was ulra vires on the basis that it could mislead
applicants into including measures in their operating schedules
which may not have been necessary for their particular businesses.
Nevertheless, members continue to bring to our attention examples
of initiatives and local actions, recent examples of which include:
an "Acceptable Behaviour Contract"
"voluntarily" binding licensed premises to operate Challenge
21;
a Voluntary Code of Conduct requiring
licensed premises to sign up to a number of standards, eg On entry
times, dress code, which is effectively a list of blanket conditions;
and
pressure on premises to use polycarbonates,
regardless of the risk level of the premises and whether this
is warranted or necessary to promote the licensing objectives.
2.28 Such requirements are building unnecessary
bureaucracy, and therefore cost, into the licensing system, and
at local level can have a detrimental effect on partnership working.
2.29 Our analysis of local policies following
the recent triennial policy review is enclosed at Annex 2.
2.30 The licensing system is generally based
on complaint, not prevention. However, we are seeing an increasing
trend for pre-emptive enforcement by councils and police.
Minor Variations
2.31 Towards the end of 2006, the BBPA was
pleased to have the opportunity to discuss various issues with
DCMS officials in the context of its departmental "Simplification
Plan", in order to assist in identifying any continued barriers
to savings. The key issue that emerged was the need for a "fast
track" or "minor" variation process which did not
require full representations, advertising etc. Currently, a variation
application is effectively a re-run of the licence application
process, with the same cost to a pub business. We estimate this
cost to be in the region of £1,800.
2.32 The Association has, therefore, welcomed
the proposed Regulatory Reform Order to introduce a minor variations
process into the Act, which will reduce bureaucracy and cost to
both applicants and licensing authorities, enabling small changes
to be considered more efficiently without the need for representations
from responsible authorities, advertising etc. It is important
that the objective of the RRO, namely the reduction of unnecessary
bureaucracy, remains central to the process going forward.
2.33 We would also take this opportunity
to point out that a number of variation applications are made
simply to amend the plan of the premises. The Association did
not originally envisage that the plan would form part of the licence
per se, but this is now the case. We do not believe that
this is necessary and suggest that there is scope to divorce the
plan from the licence so that it can be amended as necessary without
the need for a formal variation application, even under the new
minor variation process, which will not be implemented for some
time yet. Where any amendment to the plan is as a result of a
new activity, then of course a formal variation application would
still need to be made in order to allow this to take place on
the premises.
Interim Authority Notices
2.34 Seven days is not sufficiently long
a period to apply for an interim authority notice, particularly
where there has been a bereavement, and relatives of the deceased
have other duties to attend to. We are aware that there have been
cases where the time limit has caused unnecessary hardship for
licensees. The case of a Welsh licensee, whose family failed to
change the licence within a week of their father's death and were
prevented from running the business as a pub selling alcohol.
The case was taken up by Peter Hain MP who dubbed the interim
authority period a "bureaucratic nightmare". Where an
interest has been registered in the premises by a brewer or pub
company, we see no reason why the responsibility for running the
premises could not revert automatically to them. During the passage
of the Licensing Bill through Parliament, the BBPA promoted an
amendment to allow a more reasonable and sympathetic interim period
which was rejected by the Government.
2.35 The loss of the licensee should not
affect the premises licence, it should be possible to install
another personal licence holder, who registers with the police,
in order to keep the business running.
Slip Rule for Local Authorities
2.36 The BBPA, along with other industry
bodies and local authority representatives, has previously made
the case for a "slip rule" which would allow licensing
authorities to correct minor mistakes on applications in discussion
with the applicant, rather than applicants having to repeat the
full application process at what may be substantial additional
cost.
Amendment of the Licensing Act 2003
2.37 The Violent Crime Reduction Act 2006
amended the Licensing Act less than one year after the implementation
of the new licensing regime. The Association does not believe
that there is any evidence that such changes to a new piece of
legislation were necessary or justifiable. The "three strikes
and out" offence for staff found selling alcohol to customers
under 18, which was one of the changes to the Act, is now being
amended again to "two strikes and out". Given that the
pub sector has greatly improved its record on under-age sales
following increased enforcement of the law in this area, we question
the need for this. We are also concerned about further amendments
to the Act arising from the current Government consultation on
Safe, Sensible, Social.
2.38 The Violent Crime Reduction Act 2006
also introduced the concept of "alcohol disorder zones"(ADZs).
The whole concept is flawed, as is evidenced by the widespread
criticism that ADZs attracted from police, local authorities and
industry during its passage through Parliament, and undermines
the underlying philosophy of the Licensing Act 2003, which is
that each premises should be treated on its own merits.
Whether the anticipated financial savings for
relevant industries will be realised
2.39 Government estimates of the cost to
industry of maintaining a licence under the Liquor Licensing Act
1964 were between £1,500 and £7,000 a year. The cost
of the licence itself was £30 for three years. The main reason
for the difference in the two costings is a £5,000 lawyer's
fee for contested licences as opposed to £150 for an uncontested
application. The result is a compliance cost of over £4 billion
set against an estimate for the new regime of £2 billion
(of which around £400 million is attributable to pubs)both
over 10 years.
2.40 The BBPA would argue that the cost
estimates of the old system were exaggerated insofar as the £5,000
contested fees would only have arisen in a small number of premises
and that even at £1,500, at the bottom end, this would be
an over-estimate for the vast majority of pubs. It is arguable
that the original estimate of the costs of the old system should
have been around £2 billion, which makes the Time for Reform
White Paper Regulatory Impact Assessment (RIA) estimate of savings
to the industry of £2 billion look rather optimistic.
2.41 Since the White Paper RIA was published
the Government has stuck to its estimates of savings despite raising
the direct costs of fees in its consultation paper and then again
after that consultation. We calculate that the additional cost
to the industry of operating the new system is nearly £0.66
billion over and above those estimates used in the RIA.
2.42 It is widely acknowledged by BBPA members
that the transition process to the new licensing regime was more
complicated than was necessary. According to the Elton Report,
the excess cost of transition was £95 million. The vast majority
of companies employed additional staff to cope with the workload
and commissioned additional legal support. Since transition, some
companies have retained a team of licensing administrators which
has meant that they are outsourcing less than was the case under
the Liquor Licensing Act 1964. While there has not been a significant
increase in costs as a result of the new law, there is no significant
saving. Many companies continue to rely on legal support as before.
The overall costs to industry are more than originally expected
due to:
the last minute introduction of the
multiplier fee (which was not included in the original RIA);
the costs of advertising applications
(not a recommendation of the DCMS Advisory Group);
the time and effort involved in the
application process (including the complexity of the forms, the
requirement to copy eight responsible authorities etc);
the time and effort involved in the
variation process which is, in effect, the same as the application
process even where the change required is minor, with little or
no impact on the licensing objectives;
the increased use of Temporary Event
Notices;
the large numbers of DPS transfers;
and
increasingly costly conditions (eg
Growing demands for CCTV, doorstaff, due diligence systems etc).
2.43 Many financial savings that the Act
may have achieved are, in many cases, being eroded by other Government
policy areas such as Safe, Sensible, Social and mandatory
codes of practice. The costs of Alcohol Disorder Zones remain
unknown at this stage, but the Home Office Consultation Document
estimated these to be in the region of £200 per week per
premises. DCMS and others tend to underestimate the true cost
of the licensing regime on pubs.
2.44 The Government has yet to implement
the recommendations of the Elton Report, many of which we agree
with, in particular the need for a single annual payment date
for annual charges for premises licences, further simplification
of the application processes through more streamlined forms, clearer
Guidance for local authorities as to what enforcement should form
part of the on-going costs of licensing (the Panel believes that
pre-existing enforcement costs should not be borne by the licence
fee), and re-definition of those premises that are liable for
the multiplier to include "all Band D & E premises in
city and town centres".
Other relevant issues
Alcohol StrategySafe, Sensible, Social
2.45 Alcohol policy is under discussion
in many forums from the World Health Organisation (WHO) to European
and national level, right down to local authority groups and forums.
There is a great deal of activity in this area, which requires
co-ordination and liaison with other related policy areas such
as licensing.
2.46 The Department of Health is currently
consulting on the next stages of the national alcohol strategy,
Safe, Sensible, Social. The document recognises that "it
is up to individuals to decide whether to drink alcohol and how
much they drink. It is not Government's role to restrict this,
unless drinking would take place under circumstances that place
the individual or others at unreasonable risk."
2.47 The on-licensed trade accepts its responsibility
for managing premises properly and providing a safe environment
in order to minimize harm to others. It will continue to play
its part by selling alcohol responsibly, in particular not selling
to under 18s and not serving drunks. We must also, however, acknowledge
that customers are ultimately responsible, and accountable, for
their own behaviour. The Government should not seek to excuse
those customers who choose to misuse alcohol and behave badly
as a result. The Association welcomes the recent Government advertising
campaigns on "know your limits", and believe that this
is absolutely the right approach to achieve a long-term cultural
shift in drinking habits and attitudes to alcohol. This shift
will not be achieved by repeated regulation of an industry which
is increasingly unable to absorb the cost of further legislation.
2.48 In our view, Government policy in respect
of all licensed premises continues to be based on high energy
music and dancing venues which are primarily to be found in town
centres. Such an approach fails to recognise that there is an
infinite variety of licensed premises covered by the Licensing
Act 2003, including village halls, community and rural pubs, cinemas,
theatres, restaurants, hotels and late night take-aways. The key
challenge for town and city centres across the UK today is the
management of often very large numbers of people on the streets,
particularly once they have left licensed premises. The industry
has become increasingly professional over the last 15 years or
so, thanks to the qualifications developed by the BII and wider
availability of industry guidance. This has been acknowledged
by the police, but it is clear that in some cases this improved
management of licensed premises has led to the displacement of
problems to outside the premises, into the town centre space.
2.49 Business Improvement Districts in particular
are a positive approach to solving town centre problems, as they
are not only a way of ensuring partnership working between all
those who can make a difference to these wider issues, but they
also provide an opportunity to address the issues in question.
2.50 Since the changes to the licensing
laws, there is evidence which indicates that customers are going
out later than before the changes to the licensing laws and that
they are "pre-loading" with alcoholic drinks at home
beforehand, 37% of 18-24-year-olds surveyed by YouGov "pre-loaded"
before going to licensed premises.[18]
Despite this, 78% of all people drink about the same amount as
they did before the Act came into effect.[19]
In the DCMS evaluation report on the Licensing Act 2003, a Home
Office survey also shows that "the majority of respondents
[...] agreed that rapid drinking close to last orders had decreased
since the Licensing Act".[20]
2.51 The BBPA does not see that the invention
of a Code as proposed by Safe, Sensible, Social, be it
voluntary or mandatory, will be any more successful than the existing
industry standards in addressing the issues of irresponsible practice
in a minority of venues based in high streets or city centres,
as highlighted by the KPMG report. The vast majority of on-licensed
trade venuesranging from hotels and restaurants, pubs,
nightclubs, through to members clubs and village hallsare
selling alcohol responsibly, and should not be penalised for the
irresponsible actions of the few.
2.52 We refute the findings of the KPMG
report as a basis on which to introduce a Code, as we do not consider
that they reflect practice in the pub sector as a whole. The evidence
presented is subjective and unscientific, and presents a distorted
view of pubs. In addition, the on-licensed premises surveyed were
almost exclusively located in town centres and were late-night,
music and dancing premises. Where a premises is not meeting its
obligations to promote the licensing objectives contained in the
Licensing Act 2003, then enforcement authorities are able to address
its shortcomings through a review of the licence and/or the attachment
of any necessary conditions to improve the overall running of
the venue in question. The Association does not condone those
examples of bad practice highlighted in the report, but believes
that enforcement of existing legal mechanisms, in particular the
Licensing Act 2003, must be brought to bear in such cases.
2.53 Any form of blanket approach to restrictions
would be incompatible with the Licensing Act 2003, as would a
sectoral approach, since the whole ethos of the Licensing Act
is to be able to impose any appropriate conditions either at the
licence application stage where these are necessary to promote
the licensing objectives, or following a review of the licence.
2.54 The proposals contained in Safe,
Sensible, Social will impose an ever bigger burden on small
businesses, and force an ever increasingly amount of alcohol to
be sold in the off-trade rather than in the controlled environment
provided by licensed premises. The BBPA response to the consultation
document will be available shortly.
1 A Wake for Westminster-Economic Trends in the
Beer and Pub Sector (BBPA, September 2008). Back
2
Crime in England and Wales 2007-08, Home Office Statistical
Bulletin. Back
3
Welsh police praise Licensing Act (Morning Advertiser,
November 2007). Back
4
Manchester City Council Licensing Policy 2008-11. Back
5
CGA Strategy poll of licensed premises (for DCMS, March 2008). Back
6
Evaluation of the impact of the Licensing Act 2003 (DCMS, March
2008). Back
7
DCMS Statistical Bulletin: Alcohol, Entertainment and Late-Night
Refreshment Licensing (DCMS, November 2008). Back
8
Daniel Thwaites Plc vs Wirral Borough Magistrates Court
(6 May 2008). Back
9
Evaluation of the Impact of the Licensing Act (DCMS, March
2008). Back
10
Home Office Research Report 04-The impact of the Licensing
Act 2003 on levels of crime and disorder: An Evaluation (Home
Office, March 2008). Back
11
Safe, Sensible Social-Consultation on Further Action (Department
of Health, July 2008). Back
12
Evaluation of the impact of the Licensing Act 2003 (DCMS,
March 2008). Back
13
Licensing Act 2003 and the effect of alcohol (LACORS, June
2008). Back
14
Implementation of the Licensing Act 2003: A national survey
(Middlesex University for AERC, December 2007). Back
15
Crime In England and Wales 2007-08 (Home Office, July 2008). Back
16
Live Music Forum Findings and Recommendations (for DCMS,
July 2007). Back
17
Evaluation of the impact of the Licensing Act 2003 (DCMS,
March 2008). Back
18
YouGov Poll for BBPA, November 2007. Back
19
YouGov poll for BBPA, November 2007. Back
20
Quoted in Evaluation of the impact of the Licensing Act 2003 (DCMS,
March 2008). Back
|