From these words alone, it is relatively clear why Philip Kolvin QC was named as the chairman of Best Bar None (BBN) earlier this year.
Taking over from the outgoing Lord Redesdale, Kolvin’s background in planning law and subsequent ascent to become one of the United Kingdom’s leading licensing barristers appear to make him the perfect fit for the job.
Add this to the fact that the new role supplements his chairmanship of town-centre accreditation scheme Purple Flag, and you can generally ascertain what it is that gets Kolvin out of bed in the morning — a passion for making Britain’s towns and pubs safe and attractive places for people to visit, and spend money in.
However, as laudable a passion as that may sound, it is much easier said than done, and the task has been made all the more challenging by recent changes to the licensing landscape in the UK.
The recent passage of the Government’s Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act brought with it, in Kolvin’s words, “a whole battery of measures” that were based on “assumptions that everything was shocking on the high street”.
Local licensing authorities have now become responsible authorities in their own right and can take enforcement action against pubs when it is deemed “appropriate” to do so, as opposed to “necessary”, as was previously the case.
“As if it could ever be appropriate to close down a pub if it is not necessary,” suggests Kolvin. “Why would one do it?”
Nevertheless, Kolvin is encouraged by the delegation of power to local licensing authorities.
“I think that it will mean one of the primary relationships for publicans will be a licensing officer in a suit, rather than a police officer in a uniform,” he says.
“I think it has been crucial over the past few years that we walk away from the very adversarial atmosphere of the courtroom setting where licensing business was conducted, so that there is a much greater sense of dialogue and partnership between regulators and the UK’s publicans.”
It is other parts of the Act that are of concern to Kolvin, most notably a pair of late-night enforcement measures, which, if implemented by local councils next year, could pose the biggest threat to his much-cherished ‘self-regulation’ approach to safer night-time economies.
The late-night levy and early morning restriction orders (EMROs) come into force in October and will give local councils control over how to police the hours between midnight and 6am.
Whereas the levy will collect a fee from premises that are authorised to sell alcohol between those hours, EMROs will put a ban on the sale of alcohol in premises within a certain area for a period of time after midnight, as determined by the council.
Kolvin recently said he has “very great worries” about the measures and revealed he feels the same about these sorts of measures as he does about putting surface-to-air missiles on the 17th floor of a tower block in east London for the Olympics.
While this analogy may sound a bit extreme (“I am not suggesting that surface-to-air missiles could be used in an ill-considered way,” Kolvin is quick to clarify), it begins to make sense when you consider the potential knock-on effect of putting a “curfew” of midnight on a town centre.
As reported in the Publican’s Morning Advertiser, Kolvin has explained that such a curfew could see jobs lost across all those businesses that rely on the night-time economy, such as pubs and taxi companies, as well as indirect services such as plumbing and food and drink suppliers. It would effectively “close down the town centre,” he said.
So, what of those towns and cities that have an established and respected BBN (or Purple Flag) scheme in place, which is funded by pubs and other licensed premises?
Well, the Government has handed local councils the power to offer a partial late-night levy exemption of up to 30% to those premises that are part of a BBN scheme.
Inconsistencies
However, Kolvin believes that the failure of Government to allow councils to grant a full exemption to such premises does not make sense, and poses a threat to best-practice schemes such as BBN.
“It seems to me to be completely inconsistent,” says Kolvin. “If you have got a BBN scheme that does everything it says on the tin, why should that participant have to pay the levy at all if the authority doesn’t think that is necessary?
“And there is another danger as well,” he adds. “There are an awful lot of struggling pubs out there and for them to devote time and money to a BID (business improvement district), BBN or whatever it may be, is a big deal, on top of trying to scratch out a living.
“Many of them are happy to do that, to work in partnership with the police and a local authority, and with their local communities, and that is commendable; there should be more of it, and it should go deeper.
“The moment the local authority says ‘regardless of all your efforts, here is a levy’ then I can hear publicans saying ‘so why should I contribute to the grass-roots schemes? Well, I will just write the cheque and pay it into the levy.’
“And so I do see that there is potential for these levies and EMROs to do a lot of damage to the good grass-roots action that is already happening, which has happened spontaneously and that we should be fostering, not squashing.”
Grounds for optimism
Nevertheless, Kolvin is careful not to let such concerns cloud his optimism over Best Bar None, which currently boasts 100 individual schemes across the UK.
“I hope in the time that I am chair of BBN we can really drive forward enthusiasm in the industry for these schemes,” says Kolvin.
“We need to create the right conditions to allow this scheme to grow, and to ensure we have got the staffing, governance and infrastructure to make sure that the thing develops and progresses appropriately.
“I can think of all sorts of places that don’t have BBN schemes that I think ought to have, but I am not going to tie myself to a number.”
Indeed, Kolvin stresses that it is not about “empire building”, but about highlighting how responsible pub management can contribute to a safer night-time economy.
“There is absolutely no point having 1,000 paper-thin schemes across the country that nobody respects or admires, but what I don’t want is to have any artificial constraints placed on the growth of the schemes.”
So what can the Government do to help the growth of such schemes, and the pub industry in general? Kolvin thinks that it is all about education.
“Perhaps one of the biggest favours the Government can do for the industry now is to do something it didn’t do when it passed the Licensing Act, which is to ensure that those who are making policy and sitting in judgement on the industry are trained to do it.
“A lot of my work is involved in educating councillors. I would like to think that we can continue to build the competence and expertise of councillors so that they make the right judgements when making the big policy decisions about whether there should be a curfew in a town centre, whether there should be a cumulative impact policy and what the threshold is before a pub is brought to review.
"Also, so that they have a better understanding of how the pub trade works and what voluntary measures can be put in place so that pubs can play a full role in driving forward the agenda of the town centre.
“So if there is one intervention I would like to see, it would be a ‘skilling up’ of the decision-makers.”