« Previous | Contents | Next »
Listen
THE LICENSING (SCOTLAND) BILL: AN ANALYSIS OF CONSULTATION RESPONSES
TWO: THE NATIONAL POLICY FRAMEWORK
1. Should we seek to ensure a measure of national consistency by balancing Board discretion with an emphasis on a set of standard national licence conditions supported by detailed statutory guidance?
2.1 Three quarters of respondents commented. In principle, there was strong support for this idea, across the range of consultee types. Few, however, broke the question down very far, focussing instead on national conditions without specific attention to the issue of statutory guidance. The vast majority of supporters qualified their responses with a plea for flexibility.
2.2 Those in partial agreement drew attention to the particular needs of rural communities, the difficulties that would inhere in attempting to devise a set of national conditions suitable for rural and urban locales, and that licensing boards should be able to add conditions they deemed necessary. It was also noted that any conditions should be free of jargon and as clear as possible. Several respondents thought that boards would require technical guidance (for instance, on assessing venue capacity).
2.3 Those who rejected the proposal (including three licensing boards and one local authority) largely did so with the expectation that the result would be boards which were 'caged in'. Reservations about this approach centred on the extent to which the conditions would encompass boards' activity and which areas would be left to their discretion.
2. Do you agree with the issues identified so far for those standard national conditions:
2a. no-proof no-sale
2.4 Again, almost three quarters of consultees commented, almost all being in favour. Support for having national conditions in this area is also clearly evident in responses to Question 33 which proposed the extension of 'no-proof no-sale' to all licensed premises. Many, however, qualified their agreement with references to related issues and conditions that they considered should be attached to the no-proof no-sale provision. The following were the most frequently mentioned: that a national proof of age identity card scheme should be introduced; that conditions should be national and must be tightly drafted; that if cards were not introduced there should be clear guidance on what forms of ID would be acceptable; and that staff and licence holders would need appropriate training. A few thought that no-proof no-sale could encourage licensees to encourage and be involved in campaigns to promote responsible consumption.
2.5 Two 'maybes' felt that there needed to be greater clarity about any scheme and that it would have to be supported with staff training and an easily accessible, national proof of age scheme. One commercial respondent, representing businesses where the sale of alcohol is subsidiary to their main business, rejected the proposal on the basis that it was unclear which kinds of premises would have to come under these provisions and what the effect could be on their sector.
2b. irresponsible promotions
It was agreed, across the board, that this should be tackled at a national level. Eighty-five consultees passed some comment on this.
2.6 Three licensing boards and a students' organisation pointed out that the conditions should apply equally to off-sales, given the way habits have developed so that more drinking takes place in the home and prior to going out in an evening. Two dissenters represented the off-sales sector and did not see this as an issue for them. The generally positive reaction to this proposal is borne out also by recognition of the need to tackle this subject at a national level in response to Question 30.
2.7 Many comments highlighted the need for a definition of 'irresponsible behaviour', some noting how difficult this would be to achieve. One respondent made the important point that broader factors should be considered such as the use of loud music to make conversation difficult, encouraging faster drinking, and the effect of national advertising campaigns on people's attraction to a product.
2c. access by children
2.8 Two thirds of all consultees provided a response, with almost all in assent. Two who were in partial agreement came from off-sales which believed that there should be a provision for easy opt-in by their sector. Dissenters did not provide reasons for disagreement except for one licensing board feeling that this should be a matter for local interpretation. This was echoed in comments by some of those in agreement with the proposed conditions who thought that there should have to be flexibility for local variation and a move away from the current restriction on children being unable to eat in premises after 8 pm, especially in areas with a reliance on tourism. Conditions relating to the suitability of the premises for children, in relation to eating, play and no-smoking areas were suggested.
2.9 Responses to Question 32, on the issue of establishing an opt-in system for children's access, are relevant to this as they also highlighted the need for flexibility in relation to the type of establishment and local conditions.
3. What other issues would be suitable for national standard conditions?
2.10 A wide variety of issues (some fairly vague) were suggested, from across the range of consultees, sometimes with recognition that the matter would or could be dealt with under separate legislation. Many touched on areas covered in other sections of the consultation document. The topics that recurred most frequently were:
- minimum national standards for training of licence holders and serving staff;
- noise levels, especially late at night;
- public disorder;
- minimum standards for the training of stewards and a possible registration scheme;
- minimum standards for and monitoring of health and safety, hygiene and food safety;
- and guidance on how to deal with illegal drugs, including rules on entry, seizure and disposal.
2.11 Less common suggestions were:
- minimum requirements for stewarding;
- prohibition on 24-hour opening and requirements that premises be closed for a set period each day;
- maximum premises capacities to be set, to be monitored and enforced by LLSOs;
- consistent smoking policies;
- the extent to which premises may be altered before the operating plan must be changed or a new licence required;
- minimum standards for the supervision of premises;
- betting and gambling on licensed premises;
- litter and waste management standards;
- CCTV for clubs over a certain capacity;
? secure cloakroom facilities in clubs.
2.12 Others topics occurred just once or twice in responses, for example, separate conditions for registered clubs, including ones to curtail abuse of registered club status and the requirement for all premises to provide reasonably priced soft and low alcohol drinks.
4a. Do you think that on some of these issues the formulation of national conditions should remove the need for additional local conditions?
2.13 Just over one half of consultees commented on this issue and just over half of these agreed with the question. Having national standard conditions for certain things was accepted and would remove the need for local formulation of conditions but the importance of flexibility and freedom to set local conditions in respect of other topics was underlined. No one group of respondent types dominated either the positive or negative camp on this and very few who were supportive of the proposal provided any substantive additional comment. Licensing boards themselves were split, as were on-sales, although representatives of the latter who commented on this agreed that national conditions should remove the need for additional local ones.
2.14 Both the sizeable proportion of respondents who disagreed and partial supporters emphasised the importance of local knowledge and local needs, while accepting the need for there to be certain national conditions (including health and safety, 'no-proof no-sale', or irresponsible promotions).
4b. If so, on what issues would this apply?
2.15 It should be noted that although people may have expressed a particular stance on question 4a, their additional comments sometimes suggest that opinions were not so easily separable or definable. For instance, some who supported the proposal then identified particular issues where there should be national conditions and might mention the need for some local flexibility; while some who rejected the idea, then identified areas where they thought national conditions should apply.
2.16 Almost one fifth of those responding to this question mentioned no-proof no-sale as being an area where national conditions should prevail, and about one seventh mentioned irresponsible promotions.
5a. In the interests of best use of Board resources and offering certainty on policy for the licensed trade and local communities, should Board Policy Statements remain current for 2 years?
2.17 Opinion on this question, which was commented on by around eighty respondents, was divided across the range of consultee types. Three fifths disagreed with the proposal. Licensing boards were almost evenly split on this, representing approximately one third of the supporters and the same proportion of dissenters. Few of the clear majority who disagreed with this proposal provided reasons for their stance. The main one was that policy should be constantly evolving, so there would need to be flexibility for statements to be reviewed in reaction to local change and new legislation.
2.18 Supporters agreed that two years would be a reasonable period to assess a policy in operation and whether it should be reviewed.
5b. If not, what period would you propose?
2.19 Many consultees suggested alternative periods for review. Eighteen favoured three years. Most did not give a specific reason apart from that this would better allow boards to assess whether stated policy was working as intended, and a couple made the point that this would bring practice into line with England and Wales.
2.20 Twelve proposed that board policy statements should be reviewed every four years to last the duration of the life of a board. Five years was also thought by some to preferable and it was pointed out that this would bring the system into line with policy review in planning. A small proportion thought that there should be no period stipulated or that review should be as frequent as annually.
« Previous | Contents | Next »