The end of the personal licence?

Andy Woods comments on the Home Office consultation document in which the Government set out its proposals to scrap personal licences.

It seems to me that there is one thing guaranteed when you come across consultation documents on changes to the licensing law, namely, that we will all get the feeling that we have been here before and that we are going over old ground. There is also a fair chance that any consultation document will seek to change legislation previously enacted, despite the fact that at the time the legislation came into force, people in the industry were speaking out against the changes. Those were my initial thoughts when I read that the Home Office was issuing a consultation document proposing to scrap personal licences.

Those of you who are as old as me will recall the pre Licensing Act 2003 days and the monthly sessions at Magistrates’ Courts when individuals who wanted to take over the management of pubs and bars would have to stand up before the Magistrates, give their experience and explain how they were suitable to run the bar in question. Whilst this process could be quite laboured, it at least gave the Police and the Magistrates an opportunity to assess whether an individual was appropriate for a particular public house.

During the consultation period which led up to the Licensing Act 2003, I remember speaking at conferences about the proposals for these new “personal licences”. I remember arguing against personal licences in principle because all that was required for an individual to obtain a personal licence was for the individual to sit and pass an exam and relevant experience was not a consideration. I also remember arguing that it would be a tiresome task, if not an impossible task, to manage the actual process.

The Government is now arguing that scrapping personal licences will save businesses around £10m each year and surprise, surprise the (now former) Home Office Minister, Jeremy Browne, has said that the personal licence system may “not always be the most targeted and proportionate way to ensure alcohol is sold responsibly”.

I am sure that everybody reading this article will be aware that currently all alcohol sales must be authorised by a personal licence holder who should have been trained on the licensing objectives and that a personal licence is required for any person to become a Designated Premises Supervisor. The pub trade is not happy with the Government proposals, as it feels that the credibility and reputation of the industry is at stake and that we should not be getting rid of a personal licence qualification.

The Home Office consultation document suggests local alternatives to personal licences through locally applied conditions to premises licences. The proposals also change the requirement for authorisation for the sales of alcohol, which are now to be authorised by the DPS, rather than the personal licence holder and the proposals allow the Police to object to a new DPS based on the crime prevention objective in general, rather than “exceptional circumstances”.

The Government sees the weakness of the current system as being that the only person required to hold a personal licence is the DPS, although the DPS does not have to be present on site at all times and although all alcohol sales must be authorised by a personal licence holder it is not always the case in practice that the personal licence holder is present on the premises at all times. The Government also makes the point that the system is not targeted – it is a national blanket requirement.

It seems to me that logic would suggest that there is a sensible argument that a minimum qualification should be obtained for those who want to hold some sort of management role in bars and pubs and there is some benefit, therefore, to the personal licence being a recognition that a qualification has been obtained. I also think that as a great deal of money has been spent setting up the system that it seems ridiculous that we now scrap it and write off the money that the Government has spent on the system itself.

I do agree, however, and have always thought that it is inappropriate to have a tick box system for applicants to become Designated Premises Supervisors and for the Police only to be able to object in “exceptional circumstances”. The role of a Designated Premises Supervisor comes with significant responsibilities and the responsibilities in being the DPS of a local café bar as opposed to a major High Street pub or nightclub are completely different. I am in agreement, therefore, with the proposal that more discretion is given to the Police and local authorities to raise objections to applications to Designated Premises Supervisors and to also allow the Police to deal with concerns through the imposition of conditions.

I cannot see any advantage in requiring all alcohol sales to be made or authorised by the DPS, as opposed to a personal licence holder, because the DPS will simply sign a form authorising all staff to serve alcohol and in any event ultimately the Designated Premises Supervisor is responsible for the premises licence.

Andy Woods is a partner at Woods Whur. He can be contacted on 0113 234 3055 or by This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it..