MPs attack the Licensing Act

The Government’s Licensing Act and its expected consequences has failed to impress the influential House of Commons Home Affairs Committee. Chaired by John Denham, the greatly respected former Health Minister, the Committee reaches conclusions which puts it in the opposite camp to Secretary of State Tessa Jowell and other enthusiasts for the high-risk reforms.

The Government, despite the consistent advice of experts, has insisted on focusing its strategy on irresponsible individual drinkers and individual premises, the precise position from which the industry and its mouthpiece, The Portman Group, would wish it to approach the problem. The Government has introduced new powers in relation to both these individuals and irresponsible outlets. The Committee notes this approach but goes on to say that “we conclude that, on their own, these measures will not solve the problem of alcohol disorder”.

The Government, at the urging of the industry has turned its face on “the polluter pays” principle. John Denham’s Committee says: “We recommend that pubs and clubs in designated areas should pay a mandatory contribution to help solve local problems of alcohol-related disorder”.

One of the Government’s boasts has been that the Licensaing Act will give more power to local communities. The Committee agrees with the many critics of the Act that this is clearly not the case. It says: “We were concerned to hear that licensing authorities will be unable to make use of their saturation policies unless they receive an objection to anapplication. This flies in the face of logic and runs the risk of exacerbating problems in the very areas that are struggling the most with disorder. We recommend that the Government legislates to reverse this situation before the Licensing Act 2003 comes fully into force. We recommend further that the
Government publicises clearly to members of the public what their rights are under the Act and how they can object to licence applications”.

The Committee rightly concludes that “there is no clear-cut evidence as to whether more flexible licensing hours will make current problems worse or will improve the situation”. It is, of course, equally unclear as to whether flexible hours will result from the legislation and its guidance as local authorities are specifically forbidden to impose them (see page 3). “We accept that there is unlikely to be wholesale moves towards 24 hour opening as such, but it is to be expected that many licensed premises will after a time apply to stay open longer, and in some cases much longer than currently. Moreover, once one place does extend its opening hours then others in the area are likely to follow suit because of competition. Staggered drinking hours may reduce some flashpoints, but the changes may make it more difficult for the police in an operational sense to predict where and when officers need to be deployed. We recommend that local licensing authorities work closely with police to ensure that this is addressed. In the meantime, we urge the Government to monitor the situation on the ground extremely closely and to seek to change the law if necessary.”

The drink industry is already testing the act by proceeding against councils which have formulated policies concerning density of outlet and closing times. The Committee anticipated this problem: “We are concerned also about the legal robustness of the Licensing Act 2003. We have heard of potential for challenges in relation to saturation and diversity and believe that there may be a possibility of legal challenges to decisions about closing hours. We welcome the Government’s commitment to keep the Licensing Act 2003 under review, and urge it to act quickly and decisively if there is any evidence that there are difficulties in these areas.”

Although the Committee concedes that some aspects of the new licensing regime, such as the role to be played by local authorities, will have a useful contribution to make, it has grave reservations about its ability to get at the root of the problem. “However, we agree with witnesses that the ability of the licensing regime to change fundamentally the nature of town and city centres is likely to be limited. This is because the central problem does not rest in individual premises, but in public space. As Professor Hobbs mentioned (at paragraph 284), research has shown a correlation between city centre licensed capacity and street assaults.”

Professor Richard Hobbs, who holds a chair in sociology at Durham University and who has made intensive studies of the nighttime economy said in evidence to the Committee: “During the late 1980s, in response to de-industrialisation and the loss of traditional sources of employment, local government administrations in Britain began to acknowledge the potentially important role that leisure activities could play in urban regeneration. As a result, the nighttime economy is now a major feature of economic life in Britain. In England and Wales alone, the licensed trade employs around one million people, and creates one in five of all new jobs. Each year, brewers, leisure companies and entrepreneurs invest around £1 billion within the sector, which is currently growing at a rate of 10%
per annum. The pub and club industry presently turns over £23 billion, equal to 3% of the UKGross Domestic Product.This new night-time economy is based upon the consumption of alcohol, and is aimed almost exclusively at young people. This economic boom has been accompanied by a rise in violence and disorder. In every research site across the country analysed by the Durham researchers, it was found that violence and disorder was exacerbated in direct proportion to the number of drinkers coming into the town or city. Further, we were able to trace the spread of violence and disorder that accompanied the development of new drinking circuits adjacent to established drinking routes.”

Throughout the formulation of the Act and its guidance, the Government and the senior civil servant responsible for this area in the Department of Culture, Media, and Sport, Andrew Cunningham, worked closely with the drink industry – indeed Cunningham was censured for his apparent partisanship. This may account for the emphasis put on voluntary regulation and the unwillingness to pursue “the polluter pays” principle. The Committee was concerned about aspects of the industry’s responsibility: “Although sections of the alcohol industry are working to try to improve the contribution of local pubs and clubs to tackling local disorder and to reduce the number of irresponsible promotions, we conclude that there are still far too many examples of pubs and clubs acting irresponsibly. We were particularly concerned to hear from the Chief Constable of Nottinghamshire that little has changed in the last six years in this regard.” The Chief Constable of Nottingham, Steve Green, has been prominent among those concerned about the Licensing Act and its likely consequences (see Alert, issue 3, 2004).

As far as “polluter pays” is concerned, the Committee expressed reservations about the robustness of Government intensions - despite indications from Government ministers when, to their surprise, they were confronted with public outrage at the threat to local communities implicit in the Licensing Act’s measures: “We welcome the acceptance of the principle that clubs and pubs ought to contribute more to the cost of disorder in some circumstances, as contained in the proposals for alcohol disorder zones. However, we are concerned that these proposals may be difficult to operate in practice. They seem to rest on the premise that individual licensed premises must be at fault for surrounding disorder; however, it is clear to us that problems of disorder can occur even if all the surrounding licensed premises are operating perfectly responsibly.”

The Committee, in its conclusions, makes the obvious point that “the extension of licensing hours works in the industry’s favour and is likely to increase its profits”. It goes on to support unequivocally thr idea that the polluter should pay: “In return, we believe that pubs and clubs in areas designated by local authorities, in conjunction with the police, should pay a mandatory contribution to help solve local problems of alcohol-related disorder. Local authorities should have the discretion to decide whether this should be used to contribute towards the cost of local policing, the cost of late-night transport or other necessary facilities linked to the effects of night-time drinking. We believe that the size of the contribution should vary according to the size of the premise. It should be completely unrelated to issues of fault: the principle should be that licensing mechanisms will be used to maximum effect to require every pub and club in the area to act responsibly, and a mandatory contribution will be taken to help pay for the aggregate effect of largescale drunkenness in public space.”

The fact is that an important committee of the Houser of Commons, chaired by a respected ex-minister with a deep knowledge of the public health issues involved, has come to conclusions totally at variance with the principles on which the Government’s Licensing Act are based. The report adds further to the picture of confusion over this issue and emphasises the dangers inherent in the undiscriminating liberalisation of licensing.