In answer to the above.

You might enjoy this editorial, published last week by the Institute for Licensing:

Licensing News, 12 February 2004


GOVERNMENT LICENSING POLICY QUERIED
The Government has come under fire for its draft guidance to local authorities under the Licensing Act 2003.

Westminster Council has said that the document is not worth the paper that it is written on. This comes after frustratingly long months since the Act received Royal Assent last June without any information from the government on how the new laws will work in practice.

Councillor Audrey Lewis, cabinet member for licensing at the council, said: 'We were told that practical detail would be contained in the guidance but having studied [it], the council discovered that the guidance is meaningless without the regulations to which it constantly refers. Unfortunately the regulations are nowhere to be seen.'

The council is one of many that has now written to the government outlining its concerns and making it clear that local authorities need to be provided with the necessary regulations, including those relating to fees.

It is concerned about numerous grey areas in the government's proposals as to how the Act will operate in principle, in particular about:

- the transition period
- absence of guidance on conditions to be attached to licences
- what application forms will look like and the detail contained in them
- a lack of clarity about the role of local authorities as objectors to licence applications
Councillor Lewis added that even issues that the government tried to address, such as the cumulative impact of licenced premises, are addressed in an incoherent way. The council is particularly concerned about the large number of expected applications during the transition period that the Act says must be determined within two months or else trigger an appeal to the magistrates' courts. The council foresees that the statutory public notices and consultation periods will be difficult to meet within those two months, let alone the adjournment of hearings often sought by applicants.

Concluded Councillor Lewis: 'The guidance is contradictory, full of holes, legally suspect and a virtually useless collection of bland statements that have no practical application.'

'If all the government and all its advisors do not know how this legislation is going to work then what hope do council licensing officers have. Councils will have to decide what conditions should be attached to premises licences with no help from this so-called guidance while dealing with a huge volume of applications during the transition period.'

Practical Effects
Meanwhile Watford Council has written to Secretary of State Tessa Jowell asking how specific issues affecting its Licensing Committee will be dealt with under the Act. Councillors were concerned that rules concerning the political balance of committees, quoracy, substitutions by councillors for others not on the main committee, and the requirement to give applicants and objectors a fair hearing could mean that it would take four years to get through the anticipated number of applications during the transition period - far in excess of the required two months.

In a letter from Minister of State Richard Caborn, the government replied that there are no rules in the Act or in proposed regulations requiring committees to achieve political balance; that existing rules as to the quorum for committees will apply; and that there is nothing to prevent substitutions to the licensing committee from other members of the council.

Guidance to be approved soon
Licensing professionals will be aware that Parliament needs to approve the statutory guidance under section 182 of the Licensing Act 2003 in order to start the process for implementing the transfer of liquor licensing responsibilities to local authorities.

This process has been taking longer than expected. Originally, it seemed the government would have published the draft guidance and detailed regulations in August or September 2003, a timetable that has now dramatically slipped.

In a series of oral answers to the House of Commons, the government has indicated that it hopes the draft guidance will be tabled during January, with approval from both Houses being gained by the end of February.

That should in their view lead to full implementation of the Act by spring 2005. By the last week of January however there was still no sign of the guidance appearing.

Minister Richard Caborn told MPs that as soon as both Houses approve the necessary regulations, the six-month period for consultation and production of statements of licensing policies will begin. The first appointed day in his view will be in July 2004 and the implementation "will end six months after that in the spring of 2005" - which is presumably a typing error in Hansard, a deliberate miscalculation or a calendar malfunction.

West Derbyshire MP Patrick McLoughlin pre-empted the criticism by Westminster Council when he too questioned the value of the guidance. He pointed out that the draft has not yet properly released for the public although it's 165 pages are available on the Culture Department's website - and the system, as the Minister acknowledged last August, should be a "light touch" one.

Watford's MP Claire Ward added to the questioning by asking for some certainty in respect of the timetable for implementation. Her local authority wanted to be certain about the impact that any changes resulting from the legislation would have on its budget-setting process.

Liberal Democrat MP Don Foster asked the Minister how the Act can possibly be implemented, when the guidance has not been published or approved; when the secondary legislation has not been agreed; when no fee structures have been agreed with local authorities; when no draft forms for making applications have been published; when no set-up fees have been agreed; and when there has been no start to a central database for personal licences by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport despite its intention to do so.

Richard Caborn replied that: 'Rather than the picture painted by the Honourable Gentlemen, the reality, according to the Local Government Association, is than many local authorities are already preparing to implement the Act.'

MP for Bromsgrove Julie Kirkbride questioned Ministers about the possible financial consequences of the set-up costs involved in implementing the Act on the part of local councils. She told the House that some councils had estimated it would cost £200,000 to implement, and Maidstone council's deputy chief executive had written to DCMS to complain that the government has totally underestimated the costs involved for local authorities in doing this job properly. The Minister confirmed that the full cost-recovery for local authorities envisaged by the government would include the cost of setting up new procedures and systems.

Outside of the House, the Minister has faced criticism from the trade after failing to talk to the industry, and calling off at the last minute a visit to last year's Publican Conference in order to attend the Rugby World Cup instead. Last year a poll for The Publican.com showed that 41 per cent of licencees were unsure of what they should do to prepare for the Act, and 26 per cent were still waiting to be contacted by their local council.

Lack of clarity
Mark Hastings of the British Beer and Pub Association told The Publican: 'There is a total lack of clarity about the timetable and what we are going to do and when. The industry is in a limbo and everyone is looking for some direction.'

Tony Payne, chief executive of the Federation of Licenced Victuallers' Associations, added: 'We need to get the message across to all licencees but things have been delayed because the guidance is still waiting to go through Parliament.'

END