MPs have launched a scathing attack on the Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS), accusing it of "reprehensible" behaviour in its handling of the new licensing regime.
The DCMS stands accused of a "completely unacceptable" approach to some aspects of the Licensing Act 2003 - and adding to the red tape surrounding licensees, rather than cutting it.
The Re-licensing report, published by the select committee of the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, claims the DCMS "severely" let down licensees with its lack of preparation and failed to provide a "satisfactory level of support" during the transition.
It claims the government took too long to produce guidance for licensees and councils before the First Appointed Day in February 2005. When the advice was released, it was "confusing and contradictory", say the MPs.
The committee, led by Labour MP Dr Phyllis Starkey (pictured), also stated that the timeframe of two months for councils to turn around licence applications had been "unrealistic". The artificial timeframe meant some applications were passed or rejected without being fully considered.
Dr Starkey said: "We consider the administration of the process by the DCMS to have been lacking to the extent that applicants were disadvantaged and local authorities put under unnecessary strain.
"On top of this, the government took an unacceptable time to produce statutory guidance, which did not appear until nearly two years after the Act was passed. This delay on the part of the DCMS was completely unacceptable and left local authorities open to challenges based on guidance produced after they had been obliged to make decisions."
Nick Bish, chief executive of the Association of Licensed Multiple Retailers, presented evidence to the committee. "This reflects to a great extent what the trade has long been saying," he said. "We welcome it because it has set the agenda for the guidance review."
Cllr Chloe Lambert, deputy chair of the Local Government Association, who also gave evidence, agreed with the criticisms. "The way the transition was handled placed an unnecessary burden on local authorities," she said. "It confused the public and put a strain on the local community."
Patrick Crowley, licensing team manager at Kensington & Chelsea Borough Council, said the MPs had picked up the issues that had concerned all sides of the trade. He said: "They've got the message from the local authorities' point of view, and from the licensees' point of view."
There had been a clear lack of guidance from up high during the transition, he added.
Licensee Rowena Smith at the Old China Hand, in Clerkenwell, London, claimed she had been given wrong advice by her council and was still waiting for her premises licence. "Everything has been a complete headache," she added.
What the MPs concluded
- DCMS errors caused problems during the introduction of the Licensing Act which put stress on licensees
- The regulations and guidance were unacceptably late - and the First Appointed Day should have been put back as a result
- Regulations, including over-prescriptive requirements on pubs looking to vary their hours, added to the burden facing licensees
- Advice issued by the DCMS was contradictory - best
- practice guidelines for local authorities would have
- eradicated many of the inconsistent ways in which councils have implemented the Act
- Councils should not have been set a two-month time limit for deciding on applications
- Residents should be given the right to object to Temporary Event Notices
- It was "reprehensible" that the guidance was only made
- available in other languages late in the transition period
- A mediation process should be implemented to foster better relations between licensees and local residents.
The Department for Culture, Media and Sport responds
"Nearly all licensing applications were submitted in time for the introduction of the new laws.
"Of course, as with any major transition process, there are lessons to be learned and we will consider the committee's report carefully.
"However, we want to reassure people on a number of the points raised. The statutory guidance was not issued 'late' and not two years after the Act was passed.
"The committee says that some applications for conversion were 'deemed to be granted without being examined' but omits to mention that the police would have been notified in all cases and were able to object. And licensing authorities do not face intense renewal periods every July and August, as there is no renewal process."