The façade of consultation

The Home Office is hosting consultation roadshows as part of its plan to overhaul licensing — but is the Government in listening mood? Ewan Turney finds out

It was not a great way to start a consultation: "These discussions are to advise how these changes can be done and not if. These are party manifesto commitments." With these words we knew it would be almost impossible to change the Government's mind on its proposed overhaul of the Licensing Act.

Among its proposals are a late-night levy, giving communities more power to object and including health as a licensing objective. The Morning Advertiser went under cover at one consultation workshop in London (journalists weren't allowed). Here are the highlights:

Consultation length​

Joe O'Riordan, 1066 Licensed Victuallers Association secretary, launched an immediate attack on the length of the consultation. He quoted the Government's own terms of consultation back at officials — consultation should be at least 12 weeks. This one is scheduled for only six. Officials said it was short to allow it to be included in the Police and Crime Bill. "Are we going to end up with bad legislation because it is rushed?" asked O'Riordan.

Others complained of many people being away on holiday and unable to attend workshops and fill in consultation documents. There were also complaints that questions submitted on the consultation and proposed changes were not getting answered quickly enough.

Another attendee took issue with the language of the consultation for being too anti-pub.

Minimum pricing​

The Government has committed to ban cheap alcohol deals, but is not sure how this can be done. The official from the Home Office admitted that they believed a minimum price would fall foul of European Competition rules. As a result, a ban on below-cost sales seems more likely, but the definition is likely to be duty plus VAT because of its ease. The Government is considering including the cost on the invoice, but officials feared supermarkets could find a way around this.

One group came up with a novel suggestion: forcing supermarkets to pay a percentage of alcohol sales to a fund to help deal with alcohol-related problems, thus forcing the price up.

Increasing community influence on licensing​

Crucially, questions were not asked about whether the community should have more influence or not, but how this should happen. The point was made that the powers to raise objections already exist, but the discussions centred on how to involve the community more. Greater use of partnerships was the most popular response — licensees holding meetings with residents to explain their intentions, and even a "hotline" to licensees so residents can express concerns.

Health​

Adding health as a licensing objective was the most contentious issue. Hardly anyone in the room objected to its inclusion in some form — but it was the extent of that involvement that provoked the most discussion.

Arguments were made for giving health bodies a say on licence applications, reviews and cumulative impact zones. But opponents highlighted the difficulty in linking health problems to particular premises. And how would you include people drinking cheap supermarket alcohol at home?

Some said health bodies may have limited knowledge of licensing and giving them the new responsibility could be a burden. It would also add to bureaucracy for operators, at a time when Government had promised to free up red tape.

Officials noted the concerns and said any inclusion of a health objective would be "tightly prescribed".

Late-night hours​

O'Riordan stressed that the licensed trade had never asked for 24-hour licensing in the first place — just the flexibility to trade a few extra hours at weekends. It was suggested that a terminal hour of around midnight for pubs and 3am for clubs would be a good idea. Another working group said that there should be a central cap on any late-night levy.

Ideas were also floated for a sliding scale of differential drinks prices — with prices increasing the later it gets to deter drinkers.

Under-age drinking​

Most people voted in favour of an extension of the voluntary closure period from 48 hours to two weeks or more for persistent under-age sales. There was also some support for keeping the limit as it is.

One attendee asked for the definition of "persistent" to be clarified. If it meant two under-age sales in three months, then it would be unfair, she said, adding that a busy bar could carry out a million transactions in a year. The case was also made that police have to be tougher on those using fake or borrowed ID. Officials took note that tighter guidelines for test purchasing were required.

Final thoughts​

While it was clear the officials listened to the points raised with some interest, it was also clear that plans were set out and would be going ahead. The consultation is to find out how, rather than if, these changes should be made.

So, it seems the deal is done in terms of a late-night levy and more power for residents. Less clear is the involvement of health in licensing and the terms of a below-cost ban. These are the issues the trade should aim to get a favourable response on.

• Consultations on the Home Office plans must be in by 8 September.