Memorandum submitted by Department for
Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS)
POLICY CONTEXT
1. The Department for Culture, Media and
Sport is the Government Department responsible for licensing policy,
law and regulation. In taking forward this work, the Department
is guided by Departmental Strategic Objective 3:
DSO3: Economic impact—Maximise the economic
impact of its investment, improving value for money, taking full
advantage of the contribution these sectors make towards the Government's
long-term goal of raising productivity and protect consumers through
proportionate and effective regulation.
2. A key measure of success in delivering
DSO 3 will be the reduction of administrative burdens on business
caused by DCMS regulation as measured against a baseline set in
May 2005.
3. The Department also works closely with
the Home Office and the Department of Health in supporting their
delivery of PSA 25:
— Reduce the harm caused by alcohol
and drugs (lead Department Home Office).
LICENSING ACT
HISTORY
4. In 1998, George Howarth, the responsible
Minister in the Home Office, announced a review of the liquor
licensing laws. This involved all key stakeholders: the police,
magistrates, local authorities, industry and groups such as Alcohol
Concern. The review continued until 1999 and led to the White
Paper published in April 2000.
5. Also in 1998, a sub-group of the Better
Regulation Task Force (BRTF), chaired by the Association of Chief
Police Officers, reviewed the licensing laws. Their work led to
the BRTF's report "Licensing Legislation", published
in 1998.[11]
It recommended that the Government should reform the alcohol and
public entertainment licensing laws; deregulate licensing; allow
greater flexibility; and transfer responsibility from the magistrates
to local authorities.
6. The White Paper, "Time for Reform:
Proposals for the Modernisation of Our Licensing Laws"[12]
was published on 10 April 2000 for a three month public consultation
which generated just over 1200 responses.
7. In May 2001, the then Home Secretary
announced his intention to legislate to reform the laws with only
minor adjustments to the original White Paper proposals. On 8
June 2001, the Government transferred responsibility for licensing
policy to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport.
8. A Licensing Bill was laid before Parliament
in November 2002 and the Licensing Act 2003 ("the 2003 Act")
received Royal Assent on 10 July 2003. The Act applies only in
England and Wales.
9. A transitional period, during which old
licences were converted into new ones, took place between 7 February
2005 and 24 November 2005 when the 2003 Act came fully into force.
10. The Violent Crime Reduction Act 2006
amended the 2003 Act. As a result, in April 2007, new offence
provisions were brought into force concerning "persistently
selling" alcohol to children. In October 2007, new provisions
came into force allowing for "fast track" reviews of
licences where premises were associated with serious crime and/or
serious disorder. The latter provisions were primarily designed
to tackle gun and knife crime.
BACKGROUND TO
THE 2003 ACT
11. The purpose of the 2003 Act was to modernise
and replace a raft of licensing statutes, which concerned the
licensing of the sale of alcohol; the provision of entertainment;
and the provision of late night refreshment. The main statutes
were:
— Schedule 12 to the London Government
Act 1963;
— Private Places of Entertainment Act
1967;
— Late Night Refreshment Act 1969;
— Schedule 1 to the Local Government
(Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982;
— Cinemas Act 1985;[13]
and
— Part 2 of the London Local Authorities
Act 1990.
12. Essentially, the Act aimed to replace
eight licensing regimes, governed by three different licensing
authorities (and in the case of special orders of exemption also
by the Commissioners of Police for the Metropolis and the City
of London) with a single regime under the administration of a
single authority ("the licensing authorities"), which
are mainly local authorities.[14]
Licensing objectives
13. The Act aimed for the first time to
bring clarity to the purpose for which activities were to be regulated.
The statutory purpose of the system introduced is to promote four
fundamental objectives ("the licensing objectives").
Those objectives are:
(c) the prevention of public nuisance; and
(d) the protection of children from harm.
Other aims
14. Ministers also made clear that they
hoped the Act would support a number of other key aims and purposes:
— more democratic arrangements for
alcohol licensing with decisions devolved to locally elected councillors
rather than the courts;
— the introduction of better and more
proportionate regulation to give business greater freedom and
flexibility to meet their customers' expectations;
— greater choice for consumers, including
tourists, about where, when and how they spend their leisure time;
— the encouragement of more family
friendly premises where younger children can be free to go with
the family;
— the further development within communities
of our rich culture of live music, dancing and theatre, both in
rural areas and in our towns and cities;
— the regeneration of areas that needed
increased investment and employment opportunities; and
— the necessary protection of local
residents, whose lives can be blighted by disturbance and anti-social
behaviour associated with some people visiting places of entertainment.
Licensable activities
15. The Act regulates the sale by retail
of alcohol; the supply of alcohol by or on behalf of a club to
a member of the club; the provision of regulated entertainment;
and the provision of late night refreshment (hot food and drink
after 11.00 pm).
16. Regulated entertainment includes:
— A performance of a play.
— An exhibition of a film.
— An indoor sporting event.
— A boxing or wrestling entertainment.
— A performance of live music.
— Any playing of recorded music.
— A performance of dance.
17. It also includes the provision of facilities
for making music or dancing. Various exemptions apply and are
detailed in Schedule 1 to the Act.
18. Types of premises affected by the 2003
Act include:
— Public spaces such as market squares,
village greens or open fields.
— Hotels and some guest houses and
B&Bs.
— Canteens retailing alcohol.
— Shops and convenience stores retailing
alcohol.
— Department stores retailing alcohol.
— Garages retailing alcohol.
— Non—profit making clubs with
25 members or more (including, sports clubs, political clubs (Labour,
Liberal Democrat and Conservative Clubs), working mens' clubs,
miners' institutes, ex-services clubs (eg Royal British Legion)
and others.
— Village, church and community halls.
— Indoor sports complexes staging sports
entertainments.
— Outdoor venues staging boxing and
wrestling entertainments.
— Late night "take aways".
19. The 2003 Act is the mechanism by which
film exhibitors are obliged to comply with film classifications
given by the BBFC, or in the alternative, by the licensing authority.
20. Late night refreshment covers the provision
of hot food or hot (non alcoholic) drink between 11.00 pm and
5.00 am. Again, numerous exemptions apply.
21. The system of licensing is achieved
through the provision of authorisations, which include personal
licences, premises licences, club premises certificates and temporary
event notices.
Personal licences
22. Personal licences authorise individuals
to sell or supply alcohol, or authorise the sale or supply of
alcohol, for consumption on or off premises for which a relevant
premises licence is in force. A personal licence is not required
where the licensable activities are confined to entertainment
or late night refreshment.
23. To qualify for a personal licence an
individual must be aged 18 or over, possess a recognised accredited
qualification and be able to show the licensing authority that
he has not been convicted of certain offences ("relevant
offences" and "foreign offences").
24. If a person has been convicted of a
relevant offence or foreign offence, and taking into account the
views of the police, the licensing authority can refuse to grant
a personal licence if it considers that doing so would undermine
the crime prevention objective. Personal licences last for ten
years and are then renewable.
Premises licences
25. A premises licence authorises the holder
of the licence to use the premises to which the licence relates
("the licensed premises") for licensable activities.
26. The premises licence details operating
conditions. The purpose of these conditions is to regulate the
use of the premises for licensable activities in line with the
licensing objectives. They will vary according to the risks each
individual premises presents to the achievement of the four objectives.
In the case of alcohol, the old permitted hours have been abolished.
In effect, the hours of trading for each premises are another
condition which will vary according to the risks identified.
27. A premises licence has effect until
the licence is revoked or surrendered, but otherwise is not time
limited unless the applicant requests a licence for a limited
period. There are no renewal procedures. Under the old licensing
regimes licences had to be renewed either on an annual or on a
triennial basis.
28. Representations may be made about an
application for the grant of a premises licence; for example by
local residents and businesses, the police, the fire authority
and other public bodies with responsibility for environmental
health, health and safety, children, trading standards and planning.
29. Such representations must concern the
promotion of the licensing objectives. Once the licence has been
granted the same classes of persons and bodies may seek a review[15]
of the premises licence and the conditions attaching to it.
Club premises certificates
30. Club premises certificates provide authorisation
for qualifying clubs to use club premises for qualifying club
activities. Such clubs tend to be, for example, political clubs,
sports clubs, ex-services clubs, working men's clubs and social
clubs with at least 25 members. The qualifying club activities
are a subset of the licensable activities. They are the supply
of alcohol by or on behalf of a club to a member of the club,
the sale by retail of alcohol by or on behalf of a club to a guest
of a member for consumption on the premises and the provision
of regulated entertainment by or on behalf of a club for its members
and guests. A qualifying club does not require a permission for
late night refreshment or a Designated Premises Supervisor.
31. As with premises licences, the right
to make representations on the application for a club premises
certificate is given to a range of persons and bodies.
Temporary event notices
32. The 2003 Act established new arrangements
for the carrying on of licensable activities at occasional or
temporary events. These arrangements replace the multiple systems
of "occasional permissions" and "occasional licences"
which applied to the old alcohol and entertainment regimes.
33. They apply in relation to events with
fewer than 500 people (including staff) attending at any one time.
The new arrangements are based on a notification to the licensing
authority of salient details of the event and an acknowledgement
by that authority of the notification. To reflect the temporary
nature of the events, these arrangements do not place organisers
under the same obligations that apply in relation to those who
regularly wish to undertake licensable activities on or from premises.
34. Such notices are subject to various
limitations. These include:
— no more than 12 may be given for
the same premises in a calendar year;
— in aggregate, the 12 temporary event
notices given for the same premises may not exceed 15 days;
— no more than five TENs may be given
by any individual (who does not hold a personal licence) in a
calendar year;
— no more than 50 TENs may be given
by a personal licence holder in a calendar year; and
— the duration of a temporary event
may not exceed 96 hours.
35. TENs are given by community groups and
organisations such as parent/teacher associations, as well as
commercial organisations.
Licensing statistics
36. According to the DCMS Statistical Bulletin[16]
as at 31 March 2007, there were 162,100 premises licences and
15,200 club premises certificates in force. There were over a
quarter of a million personal licence holders [based on responses
from 86% of LAs].
— 123,700 licences and certificates
in force were authorised to sell alcohol [based on responses from
approx. 70% of LAs]:
— 32,900 premises licences were authorised
for off-sale of alcohol only.
— 28,100 licences authorised on-sale
of alcohol only, of which 4,900 were club premises certificates
(eg political clubs, workingmen's clubs, British Legion etc).
— 62,700 allowed both on and off sales,
of which 7,300 were club premises certificates.
— Just over 50,000 premises were licensed
for late night refreshment. [72% response rate].
— 72,600 premises licences and 9,100
club premises certificates were authorised for any form of entertainment.
Over 260,000 regulated entertainment activities were authorised;
the most common types of which were playing of recorded music
and the staging of live music. [this is based on 68% of all LAs].
— 5,100 premises had 24 hour licences
[Based on 83% of all LAs].
— 3,320 of which are hotel bars which
have always been able to serve their guests alcohol for 24 hours.
— 920 are supermarkets and stores.
We do not have any data on actual opening times of such premises,
although one of the trade bodies representing the off-trade has
suggested that one of its largest members reports that 15% of
their stores with 24 hour alcohol licences do not actually open
their stores for 24 hours. Others choose not to open their alcohol
aisles for 24 hours, often following discussions with the police
about local issues.
— 470 pubs, bars and nightclubs have
24 hour licences, but there is no evidence that more than a handful
operate on that basis.
— Around 100,000 TENs were given in
2006/07 [85% response rate], mainly by non-commercial organisations
Fees
37. The Act provides for the setting of
fees in relation to applications, notifications, licences and
certificates. Fees are set centrally and aim to be set on the
basis of full recovery of the costs to local authorities of their
functions under the 2003 Act.
Reviews
38. The Act allows interested parties and
responsible authorities to ask the licensing authority to review
premises licences and certificates if problems arise in relation
to one or more of the licensing objectives. Licensing authorities
have the power, on review of a premises licence or certificate,
to suspend or revoke the licence, and/or to exclude specific licensable
activities from the licence, and/or to modify operating conditions
attaching to the licence; and/or to require the removal of the
designated premises supervisor (where one exists). These powers
must be exercised only where they are necessary to promote the
licensing objectives.
39. This graduated system of sanctions replaced
the single choice available to licensing justices under the old
alcohol licensing regime of either revoking a licence or doing
nothing when problems arose. Justices were understandably reluctant
to put individuals out of business and their staff out of jobs
unless the issues were very serious. The new arrangements allow
for a proportionate response to the issue before the licensing
committee.
Closure powers
40. The 2003 Act confers powers on the police
to close individual licensed premises to deal expeditiously with
disorderly behaviour and excessive noise; these powers are both
anticipatory and reactive. The police may also seek an order from
the courts to close multiple licensed premises in a geographical
area where disorder is either actually taking place or is anticipated.
Powers to close licensed premises are also included in section
19 of the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001 (to do with breaches
of conditions at on-licensed premises) and sections 40 and 41
of the Anti-Social Behaviour Act 2003 (to do with noise nuisance).
Enforcement
41. The new regime is supported by a range
of offences, inspection powers and enforcement provisions.
42. Breach of a licensing condition is a
serious offence which can render the holder of the premises licence
(often a business) liable to a maximum fine of £20,000 or
imprisonment up to six months or both.
43. Fines for selling alcohol to children
under 18 were increased fivefold by the Act to a maximum of £5,000.
44. Fines for selling alcohol to people
who are drunk were doubled by the Act to a maximum of £1,000.
Selling alcohol to children and purchase of alcohol
by children
45. Under the old alcohol licensing regime,
the laws governing sales of alcohol to children applied only to
licensed premises. The 2003 Act made it an offence to sell alcohol
to children under 18 anywhere and abolished the arrangements which
had made it lawful to sell alcohol to children in:
— almost 20,000 non-profit making members'
clubs;
— on river and coastal cruises; and
46. Provisions which had allowed children
over five years to consume alcohol in around 25,000 restaurants
and in areas in public houses away from the "bar area"
(such as the beer garden) were also repealed.
47. It had also been lawful for children
aged 16 or 17 years to purchase and consume beer, porter and cider
where they were consuming them with a table meal. These provisions
were replaced with new provisions which allowed children aged
16 and 17 to consume (but not purchase) wine, beer and cider with
a table meal where they are accompanied at the meal by an adult
that had purchased the alcohol.
48. Test purchasing of alcohol sales to
under 18s under the authority of the police or trading standards
officers was first made lawful by the Government in the Criminal
Justice and Police Act 2001. These provisions were continued in
the 2003 Act and have become central to campaigns since 2004 to
tackle unlawful selling to children. Overall, the test purchase
failure rate has fallen from 50% in 2004 to 15% in 2007.[17]
49. The most recent data on consumption
by 11-15-year-olds is contained in "Drug Use, Smoking and
Drinking Among Young People In England in 2007".[18]
It reports that the proportion of 11-15-year-olds who have never
drunk alcohol has risen in recent years from 39% in 2003 to 46%
in 2007. There has been a corresponding decline in the proportion
of pupils who have drunk alcohol in the last seven days from 26%
in 2001 to 20% in 2007. But for those who do drink, the amount
drunk is increasing.
Evaluation
50. An evaluation of the implementation
of the Licensing Act 2003 was completed and published on 4 March
2008.[19]
On the same day, the Secretary of State made a Written Statement
in the House about the evaluation.[20]
The evaluation included:
— an assessment of the impact of the
Licensing Act 2003 on levels of crime and disorder (Home Office
report) (more detail is given later in this Memorandum);
— the views of 10 licensing authorities—the
"Scrutiny Councils" on how the new licensing regime
is being delivered and whether it is meeting its aims—Scrutiny
Council Initiative: Progress Report 2007;
— an assessment of the impact on terminal
hour by market segment (ie. actual closing times);
— an Independent Fees Review Panel
to ensure the fees are set at the right level for local government
and licensees;
— a review of the Guidance to licensing
authorities and the police on the discharge of their functions
under the Act;
— the first Licensing Statistical Collection
for the new regime;
— the Live Music Forum's Report "Findings
and Recommendations" (more detail is given in later in this
Memorandum); and
— independent research to establish
live music activity in England and Wales prior to and following
the implementation of the 2003 Act.
51. In the first year of the new licensing
regime, overall problems of crime and disorder did not increase.
In aggregate, five case study sites showed little change. Overall
violent crime fell by 3%. In four out of five[21]
sites there was a fall in levels of violent crime between 11.00
pm and midnight; and a small proportion of violent crimes between
3.00 am and 5.00 am grew in the year after the change. The proportionate
increase in these areas was large, but the absolute numerical
increase was very small.
52. Alcohol consumption figures from the
General Household Survey and derived from HM Customs and Revenue
statistics indicate that alcohol consumption has been falling
in recent years.
CHANGES IN
LEVELS OF
PUBLIC NUISANCE,
NUMBERS OF
NIGHT-TIME
OFFENCES OR
PERCEPTIONS OF
PUBLIC SAFETY
53. Appendix A to the Evaluation of the
Impact of the Licensing Act 2003[22]
utilised the following evidential strands to evaluate the impact
of the 2003 Act on levels of crime and disorder:
— a statistical exercise covering 30
of the 43 police forces in England and Wales;
— a national telephone survey of police
licensing officers;
— findings of the British Crime Survey
(BCS) Night Time Economy module covering periods before and after
implementation; and
— detailed case studies of the experience
of five towns and cities.
54. The Report assessed against the available
evidence the impact of the Act on:
— crime and disorder in the five case
study areas; and
— crime and disorder nationally.
55. In doing so, it looked at:
— low level offending and anti-social
behaviour, including harassment offences;
— the spread of offences at different
times of day and night;
— perceptions of the safety of people
in town centres at night; and
— levels of people witnessing drunken
anti-social behaviour in town centres.
56. The main findings in relation to crime
and disorder were:
— There are no clear signs yet that
the abolition of a standard closing time has significantly reduced
problems of crime and disorder and, overall, the volume of incidents
of crime and disorder appears unchanged.
— There are signs that crimes involving
serious violence may have reduced overall, but there is also evidence
of temporal displacement, in that the small proportion of violent
crime occurring in the small hours of the morning has grown.
— Alcohol-related demands on Accident
and Emergency (A&E) services appear to have been stable in
aggregate, though some individual hospitals have seen increased
demand, others a fall.
— Police, local authorities and licensees
generally welcomed the changes, the new powers it gave them, and
the Act's partnership philosophy. They did not report significant
problems with implementation—once teething problems were
solved—and did not think generally that alcohol-related
problems of crime and disorder had worsened.
— In surveys, local residents were
less likely to say that drunk and rowdy behaviour was a problem
after the change than before it, and the majority thought that
alcohol-related crime was stable or declining.
— The main conclusion to be drawn from
the evaluation is that licensing regimes may be one factor in
effecting change to the country's drinking culture—and its
impact on crime—but they do not appear to be the critical
factor. The key issue is how they interact with other factors.
57. The Home Office evaluation also indicated
that, while the Act's impact on crime and disorder has so far
been broadly neutral, 13 out of 27 police licensing officers felt
that the Act had improved crime and disorder, a similar number
felt it had been mixed or made no difference, and only one felt
it had got worse. This was consistent with the findings of a National
Audit Office report on the effectiveness of violent crime reduction
at local level which found that 46% of Crime and Disorder Reductions
Partnerships found the Licensing Act either effective or very
effective in reducing violent crime, whereas 41% reported that
it was neither effective nor ineffective, and 13% considered it
to be either ineffective or very ineffective.[23]
58. The evidence suggests that the predictions
of increases in crime and disorder that accompanied the Act's
implementation have not been borne out. There are some signs of
positive benefits from the new legislation, with those who are
involved in its operation generally positive about the new regime.
59. However, despite some positive reports
from some areas, there is no consistent evidence of a positive
impact. While there are signs that crimes involving serious violence
may have reduced, there is also evidence of a shift in the small
proportion of violent crime occurring in the small hours of the
morning.
60. The Secretary of State announced a number
of measures as a result of the evaluation in a written Ministerial
statement to Parliament.[24]
As a result the Home Office and DCMS are conducting additional
research into violent crime in the early hours and patterns of
post midnight opening. They are also progressing a programme of
activities to encourage better local partnership working between
enforcement authorities and to share best practice in identifying
problem premises and using licensing powers alongside other interventions
to deal with them.
61. The Scrutiny Councils provided examples
of where the legislation had been successfully used to tackle
public nuisance.[25]
The Live Music Forum (see sections below on the impact of the
Act on live music) found that licence conditions relating to the
prevention of noise nuisance were often applied in relation to
licences which included live music. The Forum felt that some authorities
had been acting unreasonably by applying blanket or unnecessary
and disproportionate conditions relating to noise against the
spirit of the legislation and the guidance.[26]
62. The Scrutiny Councils raised the possibility
that public nuisance concerns could be exacerbated by customers
gathering outside of licensed premises as a result of smoke free
legislation and this was echoed in the Department's engagement
with local residents' groups. While no firm evidence yet exists
about whether this has had such a negative impact, the revised
statutory guidance to licensing authorities clarified how licensing
can be used to control areas directly outside a licensed premises
in response to issues raised during consultation.[27]
63. In relation to public safety, DCMS is
aware that there have been some concerns about how licensing,
and the public safety objective in particular, should operate
following the changes to fire regulations through the Fire Reform
Order.
64. There is no evidence linking the changes
brought by the Licensing Act 2003 with incidences of road traffic
accidents involving drunk drivers.
THE IMPACT
OF THE
2003 ACT ON
THE PERFORMANCE
OF LIVE
MUSIC
65. Partly in response to concerns about
the possible impact of licensing reform on the performance of
live music, the Government set up the Live Music Forum in January
2004 to monitor the Act's impact on live music and to make recommendations
to Government on how it might further bolster live music provision.
The Forum's findings and recommendations were published on 4 July
2007.[28]
The Forum found that:
— Some of the predicted benefits of
Licensing reform, such as abolishing the need for annual renewal
and consistency over fee levels, have been delivered.
— There was no evidence of a serious
detrimental effect on overall live music provision, but neither
had the legislation led to an increase in live music provision.
— The majority of local authorities
had been fair and reasonable in their licensing decisions, although
a minority of authorities had been acting unreasonably and against
the spirit of the legislation and the guidance.
— The Forum believed licensing was
not appropriate, proportionate or necessary for non-amplified
performances of live music or those with audiences under 100 people.
66. Ministers responded on 17 December 2007.[29]
A key element of the Government's response was a commitment to
explore exemptions for low-risk performances of live music which
do not cause public nuisance or compromise public safety. DCMS
has been engaging key stakeholders in a pre-consultation exercise
to try to agree possible exemption. At the time of writing, there
was is consensus between stakeholders with local authority representatives
particularly concerned that such exemptions will remove necessary
public protection.
67. DCMS commissioned research to support
the work of the Forum and to monitor any changes in the number
of performances before and after the legislation came into effect.[30]
While this suggested that the provision of live music in "secondary"
venues had declined by 5%, it did not find that the decline was
due to the Licensing Act. The data suggested that decisions on
staging live music were driven primarily by commercial considerations,
such as customer demand, cost-efficiency and fit with the nature
of the business, as well as by practical considerations, in particular
the suitability of the venue for staging live music. These reasons
had not changed since before the 2003 Act came into force.
68. The live music survey identified community
halls as a premises type which had experienced one of the biggest
declines in live music provisions. While it did not suggest this
was due to licensing changes, separate evidence from the sector
and, in particular, Action with Communities in Rural England (ACRE),
has suggested that such establishments were reluctant to obtain
full licences which included alcohol sales, in large part because
of difficulties in finding a volunteer to act as personal licence
holder and Designated Premises Supervisor. They were therefore
trying to accommodate such activities through the use of Temporary
Event Notices (TENs) which are limited to 12 each year.
69. The Government has responded by progressing
a Regulatory Reform Order to remove the requirement for a village
hall to have an individual named as the Designated Premises Supervisor
or a personal licence holder. When implemented, this will remove
a barrier to village and community halls securing full premises
licences which include the sale of alcohol, thereby reducing their
reliance on a limited number of TENS. This will give such venues
more flexibility to allow a range of events, including live music.
THE FINANCIAL
IMPACT ON
SPORTING AND
SOCIAL CLUBS
70. Prior to the Licensing Act coming into
force, representatives of sports clubs had advised Ministers that
the licensing fees would have a disproportionate effect on voluntary
sport. The Independent Fees Panel was therefore asked to look
at this issue as part of its review. The Panel reported in December
2006[31]
that it had examined the impact of the Licensing Act 2003 on sports
clubs and had been provided with information on impact; a rationale
for reducing costs to sports clubs; and a range of options for
doing so. The representative bodies all agreed with the Panel
that Government cannot be seen to be subsidising the sale of alcohol
and that the newly constructed licensing regime must run at full
cost recovery.
71. However, those stakeholders also suggested
to the Panel that sports clubs were paying significantly more
in licensing fees than the Government originally envisaged because
the majority of clubs did not necessarily fall into the lower
fee bands (A and B) as the Government had suggested.
72. The representatives submitted to the
Panel a licensing fee scheme that recognises the essential differences
between not-for-profit sports clubs and commercial drinking venues;
that voluntary sports clubs are established for the benefit of
the community as a whole and contribute to the health and quality
of life of the locality; and that this difference should be reflected
in the scale of fees.
73. The Panel also reported that the evidence
provided by licensing authorities to them suggested an impact
on all sport clubs under the current fees regime of around £500,000,
with the majority of premises in Bands A and B. The Panel advised
that they had looked at this issue in detail and suggested that,
should the Government wish to do so, a case could be made for
introducing a system whereby all clubs in the Community Amateur
Sports Clubs (CASC) scheme could have their licence fee calculated
at 20% of their rateable value.
74. However, the Panel said explicitly that
they were uneasy about recommending this discount. They said that
they had no evidence that any amateur sports clubs have actually
had to discontinue licensable activity as a result of licensing
fees. In addition, CASCs already benefit from rate relief alongside
village and community halls and other not-for-profit facilities.
The Panel therefore did not feel it would be appropriate to single
out CASCs for a further discount at that time, but acknowledged
that Government might wish to consider this further in the future.
75. More generally on not-for-profit groups,
the Panel reported:
"Whilst we are sympathetic to not-for profit
groups and cultural businesses, we have not been presented with
a coherent argument or solution which we believe currently justifies
any further exemptions or reductions in fees for these sectors.
What has come through in our research however is more the administrative
burden on these organisations. There are arguments for treating
village and community halls in a similar way to community amateur
sports clubs, but we believe that their concerns would be better
addressed though our recommendations for Temporary Event Notices
and proposals for the removal of the Designated Premises Supervisor
(DPS) requirements".
76. Since the Government received the Independent
Fees Panel's report, no new or additional evidence has been received
to indicate that sports and social clubs have suffered a detrimental
financial impact as a result of the 2003 Act coming into force.
Clubs have benefited in the same way as commercial operators in
terms of the reduction in administrative burdens.
77. There is some indication and anecdotal
evidence that smoke free legislation has had a detrimental financial
impact on some non-profit making clubs.
78. In line with the Fees Panel's comments
about regulatory burdens, the club movement should also benefit
from the Legislative Reform Order on "Minor Variations"
which the Government is currently taking forward and which, if
Parliament gives approval, will introduce a simpler and abbreviated
administrative process for variation applications that do not
impact on the four licensing objectives.
79. It remains the position that the Government
is unwilling to subsidise the consumption of alcohol in sports
and social clubs. It is also not possible under the current rules
governing "fees and charges" to cross-subsidise the
costs generated by clubs by requiring commercial operators to
pay more.
80. The Government does, however, keep the
impact of the regime on sports and social clubs under review.
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
81. The Government believes that licensing
reform has delivered significant reductions in bureaucracy for
those applying for and holding licences under the 2003 Act. The
table below shows the annual administrative processes under the
old licensing regimes which have been removed by the Licensing
Act 2003 and replaced with a system whereby there is no routine
renewal process for premises licences and certificates; where
personal licences are renewed every 10 years and a new light touch
process for temporary events. The numbers below are derived from
the May 2005 baseline established by PriceWaterhouseCooper.[32]
|
| Administrative Burden Removed | Number annually
|
|
| triennial renewals of justices' licences to sell alcohol
| 160,000 profiled as 53,333 annually
|
| triennial renewal of canteen licences | 4,500 profiled as 1,500 annually
|
| renewal of club registration certificates every 3-5 years
| 20,000 profiled as 5,000 annually
|
| annual renewal of cinema licences | 600
|
| annual renewal of theatre licences | 300
|
| annual renewal of public entertainment licences outside London
| 60,000 |
| annual renewal of indoor sports entertainment licences outside London
| 20,000 |
| annual renewal of public entertainment licences inside London
| 300 |
| annual renewal of indoor sports entertainment licences inside London
| 50 |
| annual renewal of night café licences in London
| 3,000 |
| annual renewal of late night refreshment house licences
| 5,000 |
| annual renewal of private place of entertainment licences
| 20,000 |
| applications for special orders of exemption
| 750,000 |
| applications for supper hour certificates for restaurants
| 500 |
| applications for extended hours orders for restaurants with live music
| 500 |
| applications for special hours certificates for commercial premises
| 2,000 |
| applications for special hours certificates for registered clubs
| 2,000 |
| applications for "removal" of a justices' licence (transfer of a licence to another premises)
| 7,500 (requiring court attendance by 11,250 individuals)
|
| applications for "protection orders"
| 1,500 |
| maintenance of (a) "day book" and (b) delivery or invoice book
| 12,500 |
| applications for children's certificates |
1,120 |
| applications for Christmas Day extension of permitted hours for restaurants
| 6,000 |
|
Hours of trading
82. The 2003 Act abolished "permitted hours"
which had restricted the hours at which alcohol may be sold either
for consumption on or off the premises. Apart from reducing the
disorder that was partly caused by fixed closing times, the Government's
aim was not only to give consumers greater freedom of choice and
businesses greater opportunity, but also to provide tough and
uncompromising powers to deal with those who abused these freedoms.
83. The Act established a system under which premises
were free to apply individually for their preferred hours of trading,
subject to representations that could be made by responsible authorities,
such as the police and environmental officers, or interested parties,
such as local residents and other local businesses.
84. The evaluation of the Licensing Act 2003 found that
on average pubs, bars and clubs were trading for approximately
21 minutes per day longer than under the previous regimes. Some
commentators have suggested that this proves that the Act had
made very little difference. It is important to understand that
this is an average. There are about 81,000 pubs, bars and clubs
in England and Wales. A daily average of 21 minutes translates
to approximately 10.3 million extra trading hours per year for
all on-trade premises.
85. Licensing reform has also reduced unnecessary burdens
on those administering the licensing regimes. One of the first
actions under the Act was on 17 July 2003, when the Government
used powers in the Act to abolish the requirement to allow polls
every seven years in Welsh districts to decide whether alcohol
could be sold on Sundays. Polls were due in 2003. This saved Welsh
local authorities an estimated £600,000.
86. The abolition of the requirement to renew 160,000
alcohol licences every three years removed the requirement for
the police to attend sessions at licensing magistrates thereby
removing unnecessary administrative burdens on the police. The
Licensing Act also remove the unintended subsidy for licence applications
which had arisen from the old liquor licensing fees being set
at a level which, it has been estimated, did not cover the court
costs to the tune of up to £25million a year.
Further simplification
87. The DCMS simplification plan (see section below)
sets out a number of measures to adjust the process to reduce
the burdens and costs. These include measures to allow for a light
touch process for minor variation to licences; to encourage village
and community halls to obtain full premises licence by allowing
them to remove the requirement for a designated premises supervisor;
and to identify low risk activities to exempt from the regime
entirely. In addition, the simplification plan commits DCMS to
progress measures to simplify the various application processes
and to look at the scope for introducing a single licence system
for travelling entertainment, such as circuses.
88. While the focus of the simplification plans has been
to remove unnecessary burdens on those regulated by the regime,
aspects of the plan may have benefits for those administering
the legislation. For example, making electronic applications a
reality could have a significant impact on helping licensing authorities
and responsible authorities deal with applications. Similarly,
Ministers have said that they would look at whether they can adjust
the TENs regime so that the required 48 hours notice given to
the police occurs on working days rather than calendar days.
WHETHER THE
ANTICIPATED FINANCIAL
SAVINGS FOR
RELEVANT INDUSTRIES
WILL BE
REALISED
Simplification and Administrative Burdens
89. The DCMS published Better Regulation Simplification
Plans in 2006 and 2007.[33]
Both have laid heavy weight on the importance of the contribution
to be made through the licensing reform programme.
90. In the first plan published in 2006, DCMS committed
to reducing the administrative burdens on industry resulting from
the regulations for which it is responsible by 30 % by 2010. The
2007 Plan reported excellent progress. The Licensing Act 2003,
implemented in November 2005, has reduced the costs of burdens
by £97.2 million compared to the old licensing regimes, but
without removing any of the protections. Revised licensing guidance
published in March 2007 secured a further saving of £2 million.
These savings were validated by an Expert Panel which included
independent representatives from industry. Together, this represents
a reduction in administrative burdens by 29%.
91. In effect, the 2003 Act has produced savings in administrative
burden reductions of about £8 million per month. The Act
came fully into force on 24 November 2005. By 24 November 2008,
savings should amount to approximately £285 million.
92. The Government is currently taking forward three
Legislative Reform Order proposals:
— "minor variations", which aims to introduce
a simplified and curtailed procedure for low impact variations
of licences, and which has completed public consultation with
an expectation of laying an Order for Parliamentary consideration
in November;
— "village halls", which aims to introduce
an easier arrangement for community premises in the interests
of volunteers whereby no designated premises supervisor need be
specified on a licence, and which has completed public consultation
with an expectation of laying an Order for Parliamentary consideration
in November; and
— "de minimis", which aims to exempt certain
low impact activities from the licensing regime and which is at
a pre-consultative stage with representatives of licence holders,
local authorities and the police. This will be the subject of
a public consultation later in the year.
92. Further licensing related elements of the simplification
plan which are being worked up include the simplification of the
application processes and options for a possible single transferable
licence for travelling forms of licensable activity, such as travelling
circuses.
11
http://archive.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/brc/upload/assets/www.brc.gov.uk/legislation.pdf Back
12
Cm 4696. Back
13
Only in England and Wales-the 1985 Act continues to have effect
in Scotland. Back
14
The others are the Sub-Treasurer of the Inner Temple and Under-Treasurer
of the Middle Temple, the Common Council of the City of London
and the Council of the Isles of Scilly. Back
15
See section below: "Reviews". Back
16
Bulletin covering the period to 31 March 2007 is available from
the DCMS website.
http://www.culture.gov.uk/images/research/AlcoholEntertainmentandLateNightRefreshmentLicensingStatisticalBulletin_janupdate.pdf
The 2007-08 data collection is currently underway and will be
published on 30 October 2008. Back
17
http://press.homeoffice.gov.uk/press-releases/underage-sales-down Back
18
http://www.ic.nhs.uk/webfiles/publications/sdd07/SDD%20Main%20report%2007%20%2808%29-Standard.pdf Back
19
http://www.culture.gov.uk/images/publications/Licensingevaluation.pdf Back
20
http://www.culture.gov.uk/reference_library/minister_speeches/1997.aspx Back
21
The five case studies were Birmingham, Blackpool, Croydon, Guildford
and Nottingham. Back
22
http://www.culture.gov.uk/images/publications/AppendixATheimpactoftheLicensingAct2003onlevelsofcrimeanddisorder.pdf Back
23
NAO report: The Home Office Reducing the Risk of Violent Crime,
page 17.
http://www.nao.org.uk/publications/nao_reports/07-08/0708241.pdf Back
24
http://www.culture.gov.uk/reference_library/minister_speeches/1997.aspx Back
25
http://www.culture.gov.uk/images/publications/ScrutinyCouncilFinalreport0706.pdf
and
http://www.culture.gov.uk/images/publications/AppendixBScrutinyCouncilInitiativeProgressReport2007.pdf Back
26
http://www.culture.gov.uk/images/publications/lmf_forewordexcsummary.pdf Back
27
http://www.culture.gov.uk/images/publications/RevisedGuidanceJune2007.pdf Back
28
http://www.culture.gov.uk/images/publications/lmf_forewordexcsummary.pdf Back
29
http://www.culture.gov.uk/reference_library/publications/3639.aspx Back
30
http://www.culture.gov.uk/reference_library/research_and_statistics/4854.aspx Back
31
The Panel's report was published in January 2007:
http://www.culture.gov.uk/images/publications/feepanelfinalreport.pdf Back
32
http://www.culture.gov.uk/images/publications/LiftingtheBurden.pdf
page 14 Back
33
http://www.culture.gov.uk/images/publications/dcmssp2007.pdf Back
| 
