Political haste cost dearly

Legal experts say reform has been a disaster, largely because the Government tried to create a one-size-fits-all regime

Peter Coulson, morning advertiser legal editor

Overall impression: It was created in haste to meet a political agenda and because of this it has a number of flaws that make it less easy to use for all participants. Trying to provide a one-size-fits-all regime is always difficult, but for an area as complicated and complex as alcohol and entertainment, it is a near-impossibility.

Greatest hope: My hope was that the Government would meet its promise to create a system that was less complicated, cheaper and more consistent for users.

Due to excessive paperwork, much of which could have been avoided, the system is costly and time-consuming for all concerned. The lack of consistency, with each licensing authority having its own policies and procedures, is a fundamental weakness.

Greatest fear: Bureaucracy and inefficiency. The transfer to local councils, lack of resources and lack of expertise has made the whole issue far more complicated.

No wonder many licensees wish for a return to the old system, where at least the Justices knew what they were doing and did it quickly.

Can you imagine a Justices' licence taking 12 months to turn up in the post?

Main benefits: Flexibility of hours, although bought at a price. But the key opportunity for the trade was the relaxation in permitted hours which proved to be successful. No-one is opening for 24 hours, but the removal of pressure points with universal closing times in the late evening has been an unqualified success.

Issues to be addressed: The statutory guidance is woefully inadequate in several key areas. There is still considerable fall-out from the so-called "embedded conditions" carried over from the old licensing law, which have not been resolved. Licences are being written with great chunks of the (now-repealed) 1964 Act quoted in them.

The requirement to embark on a full-scale variation procedure for minor changes to the premises layout is a scandal and has to be addressed. There is still no central register of licences. The opportunity for electronic lodging of applications has been missed and could easily be allowed. The notes on application forms are a disgrace and are in some cases unhelpful.

The list is long, but I am not optimistic that changes will be made. I think the DCMS has lost interest.

Implementation: A real mess. The licensed trade deserved better..

Jeremy Allen, Poppleston Allen

Overall impression: After a chaotic start, I think the new licensing regime is working fairly well. There are still some councils that haven't been able to produce the licences required under the system. We have also noticed that about three-quarters of the licences we receive have to be returned because of errors on them. In fairness to local authorities, it has to be said that it's not surprising there are mistakes on the licences because the system is so complicated.

Greatest hope: Local authorities would ignore some of the shortcomings of the legislation and be prepared to look at the total picture. In other words, try to make it work. Most local authorities have done this and well done to them.

Greatest fear: Nearly 400 councils would interpret the law in so many diverse ways that achieving any form of consistency would be impossible. It hasn't happened yet. There are worrying signs that it might and there's ample scope for local authorities to be difficult.

Main benefits: I think it's sensible to divorce the individual personal licence holder from the premises. He may be put in an impossible position by the owner of the premises and at least this way he has an independence that he didn't previously have. I think it was sensible to give licensing to councils as well.

Issues to be addressed: I have a list that's too long to be included in an article of this nature. I'll give you one example: the present rules regarding making an application for a change to the premises are frankly ludicrous. We need a simple system where the local authority, on an application for minor alterations, can simply choose to consult one authority and then approve the application.

Implementation: It was not a good job. It was perhaps unfortunate that the Government moved the responsibility for licensing from the Home Office (which was used to it) to the Department for Culture, Media & Sport (which wasn't). We had clients who were determined to have all their applications ready for the start of the six month conversion period but we were unable to get their applications ready because the regulations, particularly relating to the plans, weren't available. It was chaos. Perhaps the most obvious mistake made was over the fee for the new licences. If you want to encourage people to make an early application, give a discount. The Government did the opposite.