A heady new brew
To coincide with the millennium celebrations, the Government is expected to draft legislation to reform the 1964 Licensing Act for England and Wales, and to have a new licensing act in existence by late 2000 or early 2001.
With more than 40 different types of liquor licence available between "on-licence" premises and "off-licence" retailing operations, and with procedures that vary depending on the type of licence, changes to the act have long been overdue.
Both the Government and the pub industry believe two key issues need to be resolved by Parliament. The first is the question of who will actually grant licences: the licensing justices, who issue licences now; local authorities; or a third option such as a combination of the two.
Dual licences
The second is to consider whether a single licence to an individual for a named premises is overly bureaucratic. The favoured option is to issue dual licences: a personal licence, not related to a specific outlet, granted to individuals in possession of an accredited qualification; and a premises licence, which would impose conditions suitable to the location and nature of the site and its operation.
The pub industry has held its own consultations, and with its proposals expected to be presented to the Home Office before the end of this month along with the separate findings of the All-Party Parliamentary Beer Group, it is hoped the Home Office will bypass its discussion (Green Paper) stage to speed up the process of reform.
On the first issue, the pub industry, while critical of inconsistencies within the current system, believes that magistrates should continue to grant licences, but improve their procedures. There is also recognition of the need for greater involvement by local authorities.
The view of the Brewers and Licensed Retailers' Association (BLRA), after consultation with members and the British Institute of Innkeeping (BII), is that it does not matter who handles it as long as it is done efficiently.
Unsurprisingly, the status quo is also the favoured option of the Magistrates' Association (MA), which is totally opposed to local authorities controlling liquor licensing.
The MA has taken criticism of inconsistency on the chin and produced a good-practice guide for magistrates to follow, which is already producing positive results.
Reform opportunity
However, the influential Government "red tape-busting" agency, the Better Regulation Task Force (BRTF), believes reform provides an opportunity for local authorities to take on the responsibility for issuing both liquor and public entertainment licences (PELs) - a structure which exists in Scotland.
The BRTF says it wants to remove responsibility for licensing administration from what it sees as "the bureaucracy and strictures of the criminal justice system" to local authorities, who would be "encouraged to view licensing as a planning and zoning matter".
This has the added advantage, says the BRTF, of being in line with Government thinking reflected in the Crime and Disorder Bill which will place statutory responsibility for community safety upon local authorities in the interests of accountability.
The BRTF has a powerful ally in Jane Griffiths, Labour MP for Reading East and vice-president of the All-Party Parliamentary Beer Group. She firmly favours handing licensing control to local authorities, saying that councillors are more accountable, as they are elected and can be questioned.
But practical experience by individual licensees and national pub chains suggests that New Labour's faith in the efficiency, objectivity and transparency of local authorities is seriously misplaced.
To prove its case, the industry points to PELs, which since 1982 have been dealt with by local authority licensing committees. A hard-hitting report by Business in Sport and Leisure, which represents major leisure companies, condemns local authorities' handling of PELs: "There is total inconsistency around the country with fees ranging from £50 to more than £30,000… with some PELs containing 76 pages of conditions of which 39 pages apply to all premises… with different approaches to procedures… contested cases being heard until the early hours of the morning and some decisions being so poor or unfair that operators have to appeal to a higher court of law."
Another report, by the Parliamentary Beer Group, found flaws with the Scottish system in which local authorities control licensing. In this report secretary Robert Humphreys says: "We found evidence of partiality. It is by no means a complete solution." But he adds: "The vital matter is the framework surrounding licensing. If that's right then who runs it becomes less important."
Tony Payne, chairman of the Federation of Licensed Victuallers' Association (FLVA), says: "The situation with PELs has been one of total inconsistency while administered by local authorities - we're seeing it again as we approach Millennium Eve. The ideal solution, especially in light of the recently published guidelines from the Magistrates' Association on licensing, would be to have local authority representatives on licensing boards with all licences, including PELs, issued by that board.
"To remove magistrates from the process would mean throwing away years of their experience and handing over to untrained local authority personnel."
This combined approach is also suggested by the BLRA, which concedes the inevitability of local authorities becoming involved.
"People are fearful of the bureaucracy and expense involved if local authorities have a greater part to play. It will be up to local authorities to soothe industry fears," says BLRA spokesman Tim Hampson.
On the second issue, there is a broad consensus for simplifying individual licences. Along with the BLRA, most interested parties, including the BRTF, consider the current system to be overly bureaucratic. It is time-consuming and expensive for the courts to approve a licence for a specific premises each time a perfectly sound individual wants to move to another premises.
The industry's agenda
Automatic right to open between 9am and midnight, subject to safeguards for local residents and police.
Extensions to be granted beyond those hours unless there are valid concerns about public nuisance, public order and safety.
Separate licences for licensees and pubs.
Children's certificates, allowing under-14s into bars, awarded automatically unless premises are considered unsuitable based on past record.
Licensing bodies to be consistent and transparent in their activities and subject to a fair appeals system.
Professional qualification
The BRTF favours replacing the current procedure with dual licences. It proposes that a personal licence (not related to a specific outlet) be granted to individuals in possession of an accredited qualification gained by training, examination and/or experience. This licence may be for life, or a set period, and could be revoked.
This deregulation would be possible thanks in part to the success of a nationally accepted professional qualification for licensees - the National Licensee's Certificate (NLC). Launched in 1995 by the BII, the NLC is now carried by more than 105,000 people. Its success is due to the consensual approach taken by the BII, which sought agreement from magistrates, police, the Home Office, local authorities and other interested organisations.
About half of all licensing justices in England and Wales recommend that applicants have the NLC, which is now being introduced to Scotland. An NLC is also available for restaurants.
The BRTF also proposes that a premises licence be issued, imposing conditions suitable to the location and nature of the site and its operation. It would specify trading hours, thereby negating the need for the operator to apply for special hours certificates and extensions.
This article first appeared in the July issue of the New Innkeeper, the official journal of the British Institute of Innkeeping.
