Tangled web of licensing law

These two measures proved the most controversial and unpopular aspects of the Home Office licensing reforms, and no wonder.

The first gives the local council the power to impose an area curfew (from midnight) on pubs and clubs — something that the original Act was designed to avoid.

The second creates a charging system, in reality very similar to the notorious alcohol disorder zones, for premises that stay open beyond midnight. Just 30% of the money collected will go to the council.

The majority is earmarked for the police to pay for what is claimed to be the additional work involved in dealing with the exodus from licensed premises in the early hours, and the subsequent possible street disturbance.

Both of these measures, of course, are based on the assumption that licensed premises generally are responsible for public nuisance and disorder and to some extent they are part of the general anti-pub campaign being waged by the Home Office.

However, they appear to be so impervious to the strongly expressed views of many people that they take a sledgehammer approach to these issues instead of being targeted and proportional, which is what legislation is meant to be.

The Government response is that they are providing tools for local authorities to use as and when they are required. It is likely that a number of councils will not entertain either measure and those that do will limit it to problem areas rather than set a global curfew or charge everyone a levy.

But the most noteworthy aspect of the current consultation document is the number and range of exemptions that are proposed for each.

The first reaction on reading this is: why group A and not group B? There are literally thousands of premises that can open after midnight, never cause any trouble and have late licences to cater for specific types of user.

People who want a quiet drink after an evening’s work, for example, or those on shift patterns, which means they can’t get away earlier. Many of these will be directly affected, because there is no exemption proposed for them.

Similarly with clubs. Community premises (such as village halls) with no designated premises supervisor (DPS) are exempt, but not social clubs and community centres that do have a DPS. It is very strange.

When one comes to the levy, the list of exemptions grows longer and so creates even more of a ‘them and us’ feel to the venture. Restaurants are exempt, but not pubs that serve food in the bar.

We appear to be back to the ‘supper hour’ — such a wonderful feature of the 1964 Act provisions! Community amateur sports clubs are exempt, but not community-based social cubs.

Village pubs will be exempt but only in settlements with a population of fewer than 3,000. So a harmless pub in a village on the edge of a town that has spread will have to pay the levy, even though there has never been a hint of trouble there.

The range of criteria for exemption and reductions in payment has reached dizzying heights, some of it due to lobbying by interest groups and the trade. Business improvement districts can be exempted, but members’ clubs will have to fight to be included.

Regarding levy reduction, Best Bar None comes out of it well, as do Pubwatch, Clubwatch and Shopwatch schemes and community alcohol partnerships.

The consultation lasts until 10 April and both schemes are due to be introduced (in final form) in October.