« Previous | Contents | Next »
Listen
THE LICENSING (SCOTLAND) BILL: AN ANALYSIS OF CONSULTATION RESPONSES
FOUR: LICENCES
8. Should we seek to maintain high standards in the industry by developing standard national conditions for off-sales and the provision of adult entertainment and either national conditions or guidance for late opening premises?
4.1 A high level of support for this proposal - nine tenths of those who commented - was also reflected indirectly in the varied, numerous suggestions offered in response to Question 10.
4.2 Most who partially agreed with the question singled out late opening as the exception, believing that this should be left to the discretion of boards, based on local circumstances. Those who objected to these proposals felt that experienced boards should have the expertise to handle these matters. Even some of those who agreed pointed out that acceptable standards for 'late opening' would vary by area. However, respondents did not break down the question about late opening to expand upon whether they had a view on whether national conditions or just guidance would be more appropriate.
9. At what point should premises be considered to be 'late opening'?
4.3 Seventy-five respondents made some comment on this issue, including almost all the licensing boards and local authorities. Just under one half appeared to support the retention of the current definition of 'late opening' as after 11 pm, with some suggesting a limit of midnight could be applied for Fridays and/or Saturdays. A third recommended that midnight should be the limit. However, several suggested later limits.
4.4 Many respondents, especially boards and councils, were of the opinion that variation should be allowed to reflect local circumstances - that later limits would be acceptable for city centre locations, for example. A couple thought that guidance should be provided to boards on a national level to help them define 'late opening' appropriate to their area. Most comments related only to on-sales in any explicit way, but some did point to the need for hours to differ for off-sales.
4.5 A couple thought that the question was confusing given that the Nicholson Report had recommended that the concept of permitted hours be removed with the new licensing arrangements and replaced with provisions in the operating plan.
10. We would welcome your views on the types of conditions that might be imposed.
4.6 Recurrent suggestions included:
- a cut-off entry time
- age restrictions
- reduce noise after 11 pm or take necessary noise reduction measures
- to uphold licensing principles
- observe rules on sale of alcohol to people who are inebriated
- on irresponsible promotions
- CCTV coverage of public areas
- non-glass containers
- consideration of door-stewarding (for relevant venue types)
- consultation with independent security advisers to ensure arrangements sufficient
- consideration of capacity
- material promoting safe drinking and discouraging drug misuse to be prominently displayed
- procedures in place for the prevention, detection and handling of drug misuse
- fire safety conditions as appropriate
- off-sales should separate alcohol from displays of soft drinks and sweets, and screen alcohol off when not on sale
- all staff should be appropriately trained
- full relevant risk assessment should be undertaken (including first aid, capacity, fire, CCTV, security)
- assisting dispersal of customers from the premises, especially at closing time
- stewarding of taxi queues or other transport methods as relevant
- no deep discounting
4.7 Three leisure industry representatives provided the same response with specific ideas for their own sector, related to venue definition and safety:
- DJ on every evening
- dance floor to be at least 20% of operating area
- extensive foreground sound system and lighting effects
- fixed capacity
- CCTV
- sufficient levels of trained stewards
- manager with late night venue experience
- drinks should be ancillary to entertainment in advertising or promoting the venue
4.8 In relation to adult entertainment venues, the following were proposed:
- restricted physical contact between clientele and performers
- minimum admission charge
- minimum age for entry
- appropriate building standards (including no private areas, of areas where customers and performers are alone)
- CCTV
- prohibition of paid sexual services, on or off the premises
4.9 It was pointed out that conditions should be intrinsic to the operating plan and suggested some should be voluntary rather than mandatory.
Premises Licences
11. We would welcome your views on whether there should be closer co-operation between the planning and licensing regimes at local level.
4.10 There were sixty separate comments on this matter. Half clearly expressed support for closer co-operation; one sixth was of the opinion that there should a firm separation to avoid any compromise of the independence of either system; just three argued for the status quo.
4.11 With almost a third, however, it was unclear whether they agreed that there should be closer co-operation or whether they were simply voicing approval of the idea of close co-operation and a certain degree of joint working. Some thought that the major overhaul of licence types would mean closer co-operation was not essential, but that there was a specific need for redefinition of planning use classes to take account of changes in liquor law. It was noted that close co-operation was essential also with the fire authorities, building control, environmental health and police.
4.12 Councils were of the opinion that it would need to be clear who imposed operating conditions on premises and that this should be the licensing board. One board recommended that there could at least be a specific statutory provision clearly defining which body would have the final say over late opening hours. The role of planning in addressing issues of over-provision was highlighted. A number of responses made it clear that they thought that change would be needed to facilitate greater harmony between the two systems, referring, in the main, to deficiencies in the planning system. Existing problems in the interface between the two systems were noted.
Occasional Permissions
12. Do you agree that we should seek to impose some controls on occasional permissions for voluntary organisations?
4.13 More than half of all respondents submitted comments on this, with nine tenths of these in favour of the proposal. A few themes recurred strongly in the comments supplied by supporters of the proposal, although no individual ideas were expressed by anything approaching a majority: 'voluntary organisation' would need definition, but not in a way that would prohibit ad hoc and fund-raising groups from applying for a licence; 'occasional' would have to be defined; a fifth thought that at least one person, often an office bearer, should have undergone mandatory, perhaps nationally certified, training; and of fourteen who referred to the current limit of four applications per annum, ten felt this should be retained, others thought this needed to be reframed. It was also suggested that one office bearer should be a licence holder and that a simplified version of the personal and premises licences could be adapted for use by voluntary organisations. It was pointed out that any regulations should not be unduly onerous.
4.14 Opposition was based on the following points: there was no perceived problem in current practice; if the limit of four applications a year were retained this would minimise potential for abuse; and training requirements on applicants would be impractical.
13. What would be the best way to do that?
4.15 About half of all consultation respondents answered this question and many comments on Question 12 suggested ways to impose such controls and were reiterated in Question 13 submissions. The vast majority of comments underlined the importance of training, whether to a national certified standard or not, and extending from just the applicant to all serving staff. Limiting the number of occasional licences a body could apply for in a year was also a popular option. Other suggestions were less widespread: making it necessary to clear events with the Chief Constable or a nominated police officer; refusing licences where standards had not been satisfactory in the past; and demanding that a personal licence holder should be the applicant - at least for events over a certain size.
Overprovision
14. Do you agree that Licensing Boards should be required to actively assess overprovision within their area with the results reflected in their policy statement?
4.16 Just under two thirds of all consultation submissions included a response to this question. A small majority (three fifths) who agreed with the idea provided relatively few comments which expanded upon the topic. The point was made in a number of submissions that provision would have to be assessed in collaboration with the police, health agencies and trade to collate data, and consideration would need to include people coming into an area to use premises, and services such as transport, the police and A and E facilities.
4.17 Six who agreed partially qualified their support thus: 'their area' would need to be defined, especially for rural areas and island communities (where provision could be dense in pockets, non-existent in other places); the concept of overprovision is 'elusive'; concerns about how to translate the idea into practice; and concerns that the special nature of student clubs should be taken into account (providing a range of specific services, including welfare ones) to a specific population, so they would not be hit if applying in an area where there was already a high level of other venue type provision. A fair and consistent approach would be needed with clear guidance from the National Licensing Forum.
4.18 Diverse consultees rejected this proposal, including eight boards and four councils, as well as nine representatives of alcohol sales and the entertainment industry. Themes that recurred included in the varied reasons given for dissent included: a single policy would be unworkable across different types of locale across the country; boards should be aware of provision in their area, so they should not need to make a definitive statement about provision and should assess each application on its merits; operating plans should state the premises' maximum capacity which should provide a guide; and that the new single type of licence for a wide diversity of facilities would make it very hard to compare like with like.
4.19 Several thought that the concept of overprovision should be dispensed with altogether: its application could prevent new entrants to the market (including retailers who could help the maintenance or regeneration of the locality), causing stagnation and a lack of competition (and no or little incentive to improve existing facilities); boards can abuse the concept when they do not like an application for whatever reason; and decisions made on overprovision ground have been virtually impossible to appeal and explanations of refusals are almost impossible to understand. Other opponents noted that this would have to be considered by the National Licensing Forum and could be part of the remit of LLSOs.
« Previous | Contents | Next »