Abolition of licensing committees "will not serve public interest": IOL

The Institute of Licensing has this week defended the role of licensing committees in the aftermath of a House of Lords select committee report recommending that they be abolished and their responsibilities transferred to planning committees.

In a report last week the House of Lords Select Committee on the Licensing Act 2003 argued that the Government had “made a substantial error” in placing responsibility for licensing with local authority licensing committee.

The report described the evidence received against these committees as “damning”. It claimed that planning committees were much more effective, reliable and well-equipped to make licensing decisions.

The Institute of Licensing has now sprung to the defence of licensing committees.

It said: “The report clearly sets out some of the evidence heard by the select committee in relation to incidents which most would consider to be gross misconduct by councillors at licensing hearings. There are too many examples of this within the report, but we have not heard of any comparative research relating to planning committees, which have their own critics.

“We recognise as well that there are many examples of good practice up and down the country. We are confident that the majority of councillors sitting on licensing committees take their role and responsibilities extremely seriously and conduct themselves professionally. This is reflected in the growing number of councillors who are active members of the IoL.”

The Institute accepted that there was no doubt that improvements were required, “as with any legal and administrative system”.

It said it particularly welcomed the select committee’s recommendations relating to mandatory training, stronger guidance on how licensing hearings should be conducted, and a more managerial approach by licensing committee chairs in actively excluding councillors in appropriate circumstances.

However, the Institute said it did not believe that the abolition of licensing committees and transfer of their functions to planning committees would serve the public interest well.

“Indeed, we believe it will be a retrograde step. The licensing of alcohol, in particular, is a specialist area and this is supported by the observations of the Select Committee which refers (in paragraph 379) to licensing being a ‘specialised and technical area of policing, requiring a distinct and professional body of police licensing specialists.’ The IoL agrees with this statement and considers it equally applicable to licensing authorities and their officers. The expertise of our members built up over many years should not be underestimated.”

The Institute also acknowledged a select committee recommendation that there should be closer integration of the licensing and planning regimes. “There are elements of such integration which make good sense such as better communication between council departments and the importance of a planning decision being viewed as a material factor for a licensing committee to take account of, and vice versa.”

However, it warned that the proposed amalgamation of committees and officers’ functions would be “a major and fundamental change” and if taken forward by the Government, would need more detailed consideration.

The Institute said it had already been in discussion with the Planning Officers’ Society to discuss different aspects integration between licensing and planning regimes that would potentially see a greater role for licensing in such areas as control of use classes and permitted development.