In April 2025, the UK government launched a ‘Licensing Taskforce’ to review the Licensing Act (2003). On the surface, the review promised to “modernise” the system and “support growth” in the night-time economy. But behind this reassuring language, public health experts warn the reforms represent a serious case of regulatory capture – where industry interests take control of public policy at the expense of public welfare.
The Taskforce was co-chaired by the Chief Executive of pub chain Greene King and the Department for Business and Trade (DBT) Minister Gareth Thomas. Its members included leading representatives from the hospitality and night-time industries – UKHospitality, the Night Time Industries Association (NTIA), and SixTillSix. No public health bodies were invited to participate, despite their formal status as Responsible Authorities under the Licensing Act, and neither was the Department of Health and Social Care.
When the Taskforce reported during parliamentary recess in July, the government responded within hours, already endorsing most of the recommendations. It has since opened a public call for evidence based on those same proposals – proposals that would, if implemented, profoundly weaken the ability of local authorities to regulate alcohol sales, strip away public scrutiny of licensing applications and decisions, and reframe licensing from a system of public protection into a vehicle for private profit.
In this article we explain the main concerns regarding the government proposals, the public health perspective, why it is inappropriate to use licensing to push for growth, and what should happen next.
What the government is proposing
The most significant change would be the creation of a new National Licensing Policy Framework, a kind of central rulebook for councils. It would allow the government to issue new directions – called licensing circulars – telling local authorities how to make licensing decisions. In practice, this would shift power away from elected councillors in towns and cities, and give much more control to central government officials.
Other key proposals include:
- Giving unelected licensing officers the power to override decisions made by elected councillors.
- Allowing local licensing policy statements to be amended at any time, without public consultation.
- Introducing a fifth licensing objective – to “promote economic growth” – without adding any new objective to protect public health. It’s worth noting that all of the four current licensing objectives aim to improve public safety and reduce harm. The addition of an ‘economic growth’ fifth licensing objective would also create a conflict within the five licensing objectives, risking further appeals and administrative burdens for licensing committees to resolve, and further confusing the system.
- Creating a blanket “amnesty” to remove so-called “outdated” licensing conditions, including mandatory rules on irresponsible promotions.
- Raising the evidential bar for communities and public bodies to object to licence applications.
A lack of understanding
In the government response, Minister Thomas said that: “the growth in drinking in unregulated spaces is a concern” – which public health groups would agree with. And in response to a recent Parliamentary Question, a DBT minister stated that: “The focus of the government’s reforms will be the on-trade… Any changes will be designed to have no, or negligible, impact on the off-trade.”
Yet the proposed reforms would apply to all licensed outlets – including supermarkets, convenience stores, and online retailers, which are responsible for huge levels of alcohol harm. This would also be bad for hospitality, as one of the biggest threats to publicans is cheap supermarket alcohol. Along with mistakes in the call for evidence, this demonstrates either a lack of understanding of the licensing system, or a rushed and poorly thought-through process.
Why is this “regulatory capture”?
In a recent Addiction commentary, Dr James Nicholls and Professor Niamh Fitzgerald described the Taskforce as “a clear case of regulatory capture”. They argue that the reforms “hollow out what limited democratic accountability exists in an already highly permissive licensing system” and “redefine the core purpose of licensing as business promotion rather than public protection”. They go on to say that:
“The foreword, written by the Minister for Services, Small Business and Exports, not only described licensed hospitality as ‘foundational’ to the UK economy, but as ‘sell[ing] happiness, creating lasting memories’, and providing ‘the glue that binds us together as a society’. Language that, if used in alcohol marketing, would possibly breach the industry’s own codes of conduct.”
What’s absent from both the Taskforce report and the government’s response is any serious consideration of alcohol harm. There is no discussion of the record levels of alcohol-specific deaths, the burden on the NHS and emergency services, the role of cheap, high-strength products sold in the off-trade, or alcohol’s role in violence against women and girls. Instead, the reforms treat alcohol retail as an engine of economic growth, rather than a regulated activity that carries real risks for individuals and communities.
The public health perspective
England and Wales already have one of the most permissive licensing regimes in the world – with more 24-hour premises than comparable high-income countries. The number of off-licences has risen by 26% since 2008, and rapid, 24-hour alcohol deliveries have become common.
Meanwhile, alcohol harm is at record levels. In 2023, 8,274 people in England died directly from alcohol-specific causes – up nearly 64% since 2006. Ambulance staff report that alcohol-related callouts are a major contributor to burnout and service delays, and police estimate that half of their time is spent dealing with alcohol-related incidents.
Evidence consistently shows that greater alcohol availability leads to higher levels of consumption, violence, and chronic illness. Studies across the world have demonstrated that restricting off-sales hours reduces alcohol-related hospitalisations and assaults. Yet the government’s proposals move in exactly the opposite direction – expanding access while limiting local powers to deal with the consequences.
The false promise of economic growth
The government insists that licensing reform is about unlocking “growth” in the night-time economy. Yet this narrow focus on commercial expansion ignores a far greater economic reality: alcohol harm is itself a major drag on productivity and prosperity. Over £5 billion a year is lost in England due to people unable to work due to alcohol-related sickness, as well as people less productive at work due to alcohol. This doesn’t even include the loss due to premature death. The cost to the NHS is almost £5 billion, and costs in violence and crime almost £15 billion.
Even within the hospitality sector, deregulation won’t revive struggling pubs or clubs. Consumer demand for late-night drinking has been falling for years, and when opening hours are extended, venues often lose money staying open later or competing with larger chains. As researchers found in Glasgow, many small bars found the extra hour wasn’t worth it economically and simply fuelled more disorder.
So far from boosting growth, increasing alcohol availability is likely to worsen these costs. A thriving economy depends on a healthy, productive population – not on policies that entrench harm and drain public resources.
Licensing is not a tool for economic growth
As IAS’s Dr Katherine Severi recently stated:
“licensing is not a tool for economic growth – it is a public protection mechanism. Using it to deregulate alcohol sales in the name of business growth is misguided and irresponsible, especially when those businesses are contributing to record levels of harm.”
“[The government’s plans] will make it easier for alcohol to be sold in shops and convenience stores – where 75% of all alcohol is now sold – and where cheap, high-strength products are driving chronic health problems, domestic violence, and public nuisance.”
If these reforms proceed, the impacts will be felt most in the communities already bearing the greatest burden of harm. Alcohol-related mortality rates in the most deprived areas are more than double those in the least deprived. Reducing local oversight and accountability will only deepen those inequalities.
Growing concern across sectors
Opposition to the proposals has come from across the board. The Association of Directors of Public Health and numerous public health groups all warned that the reforms would weaken local powers and worsen alcohol harm. Police and Crime Commissioner Joy Allen has raised fears about rising violence and crime. Even journalists’ unions have objected to plans to scrap public notices in local papers, saying it would erode transparency. Concern is shared by many pub landlords, who say deregulation won’t revive the sector but will fuel unfair competition and disorder.
A flawed and opaque process
The way these reforms have been developed has raised serious concerns about transparency and fairness. Health groups were excluded from the Taskforce process, and it was led by groups with clear conflicts of interest. Engagement with other stakeholders only began after the Taskforce report was published, the government had already endorsed it, and the call for evidence had opened – a backwards process that undermines genuine consultation.
The call for evidence itself was rushed, giving just four weeks to respond to highly technical questions, some of which were misleading or contained factual errors.
Officials have shown little understanding of the Licensing Act’s purpose, or of how their proposals could conflict with existing law. There are also fears that ministers intend to press ahead regardless of consultation feedback – prompting questions about whether the process is meaningful at all.
What should happen instead
We agree that the Licensing Act is no longer fit for purpose and needs to be reviewed and updated. Drinking patterns (and places of sale) have changed rapidly in recent years, as have the associated harms. However, these proposed reforms will do nothing to tackle the rising levels of harm, particularly those originating from the off-trade (including online deliveries), while also removing significant additional safeguards and protections in the existing system.
Public health experts and charities are therefore calling for a very different approach. Rather than deregulating, the government should strengthen licensing to better protect communities by:
- Introducing a new public health licensing objective in England and Wales, giving local authorities explicit powers to consider health outcomes in licensing decisions.
- Separating on- and off-trade licensing, as in Scotland, so communities can control hours of sale for shops and online outlets.
- Regulating online and rapid delivery sales, which have expanded dramatically since the pandemic but remain largely unregulated.
- Ensuring transparency and accountability in licensing decisions by maintaining the authority of elected councillors and requiring public consultation.
- Ensuring that the original purpose of the Licensing Act – to protect the public and keep communities safe – is retained and that it remains rightly separate from initiatives to promote and expand business growth.
If the government wants to create safer streets and improve public health, it must reject the Taskforce’s proposals and reaffirm the principle that licensing exists to protect the public – not to promote alcohol sales.
At its heart, the Licensing Act was designed to balance commercial freedoms with public protection. The new proposals turn that principle on its head. Conducted at speed, without transparency or meaningful public input, and dominated by vested interests, the Taskforce review risks reshaping alcohol policy in ways that serve the industry but harm communities.