Licensing reforms could see alcohol-related disorder "migrate between areas"

The government’s proposed licensing reforms could lead to alcohol-related crime and disorder problems migrating between different local authority areas, a leading law firm has claimed.

In a submission to the House of Commons Public Bills Committee on the provisions of the Police Reform & Social Responsibility Bill, Poppleston Allen said it found it interesting that the government had decided to proceed with the Bill “when the current system appears to be working fairly well”.

The firm pointed to evidence suggesting there had been significant reductions in alcohol related crime where the authorities had all worked together using the current legislation.

It said: “As the Home Office Minster, James Brokenshire, recently reported, Newquay had significantly reduced most of the offences where alcohol was involved. One of our fears is that whilst some local authorities will adopt the same line as Newquay and produce significant improvements, others may be tempted to go down the enforcement route.

“If local authorities exist side by side, then this could clearly lead to migration from one area to another causing noise and disruption when the people return to their home area. There could also be a significant problem where local authorities in the same geographical area treat enforcement in different ways.”

Poppleston Allen’s submission also commented on a number of other specific provisions in the Bill:

• Reducing the burden: The effect on premises licences of changing the word 'necessary' to 'appropriate' is, or could be, massive, the firm warned. “We are not entirely clear how the word 'appropriate' will be defined by the courts. It is defined in the Oxford English Dictionary as 'suitable or proper in the circumstances' whereas 'necessary' is defined as something that is 'needed to be done - essential'. By way of example, it is clearly unnecessary to impose conditions on a licence where they are already contained in other legislation but is it also inappropriate?”
• Representations: Removing the requirement that interested parties must be in the vicinity could make it very difficult for licensing officers to refuse to accept representations. The firm said the government could, instead, adopt a similar provision to section 158 of the Gambling Act 2005 – “this seems to us to capture anyone who as a genuine interest in commenting upon an application”
• Temporary Event Notices: The provisions are “clearly much more acceptable as specified in the Bill than those that were set out in the consultation”. The firm did, however, question the need to serve the Environmental Health Officer with every application. “Some may seek to impose standard requirements on all applications, particularly those where music may be played. Others will not, which raises the possibility of a patchy nationwide response”
• Persistently selling alcohol to children: The firm said it was pleased that the government had significantly changed its original proposals by retaining 48 hours as the lowest period of closure. “In view of the nature of the offence, we would support the BBPA's submission relating to imposing a Training Order upon the premises rather than a fixed period of closure. It also seems to us that this provision will adversely affect the on-trade at a time when children, under the age of 18, can obtain alcohol which has been purchased in the off-trade”
• Early Morning Restriction Orders: “It seems to us that although this proposal is intended to be flexible it has the effect of imposing a blanket ban on premises that may be trading perfectly lawfully.” Poppleston Allen also expressed concern that if an early morning restriction order is imposed in one area – e.g. Derby but not in another e.g. Nottingham – then a significant number of people might move between the two areas for later entertainment. “This would clearly adversely affect the area that had imposed the Early Morning Restriction Order”
• The late night levy: the firm expressed concern that the clause implementing the levy applies to the entire local authority area. Some licensees who pay the proposed levy may never see the police officers it is used to employ, it warned. “Local authorities vary all over the country. Some may only be responsible for one town or city centre. Others may have two or three small towns within them. If a problem exists in one particular town then why should other towns, where no problems arise, have to pay the levy? The same concern applies to country pubs that may wish to trade late but have no problem of crime or disorder.”