Licensing Act 2003: proposed overhaul

The House of Lords Select Committee on the Licensing Act 2003 has produced its report. As some of the proposed changes are administrative, I'm can't be sure how they may affect the ordinary drinker. Here are some of the main findings:

1. The committee, dissatisfied with the operation of licensing committees, proposes abolishing them and passing their functions to planning committees. Licensing appeals should no longer go to magistrates' courts but should, like planning appeals, go to the planning inspectorate.
2. They rejected the principle of Late Night Levies and concluded that in practice they aren't working as intended. Unless amendments that have already been made prove to work, they should be scrapped. They proposed business improvement districts as a more feasible option for tackling problems in the late-night economy. They also propose repealing Early Morning Restriction Orders, which no local authority has yet introduced.
3. Fees for licensing should be set locally, not nationally, although councils should note that they can only charge for the actual cost of processing applications: demanding more could be illegal.
4. The Licensing Act should apply to sales airside at airports.
5. If Minimum Unit Pricing is (a) found lawful by the Supreme Court, (b) introduced in Scotland and (c) successful in reducing excessive drinking, it should also be introduced in England and Wales.
6. Scotland's example should also be followed in helping disabled people to access licensed premises by requiring licence applications to include disabled access statements.

My assessment:

1. I'm not sure whether, for routine applications, this would have much impact on ordinary drinkers. I suspect any difference would be small. However, it could well be another matter if applications go to appeal: the planning inspectorate is not a local body and has form in overturning local decisions. I can't assess how this would affect licensing appeals, but I have some reservations about local decisions being handed to an unaccountable national body.
2. The abolition of late night levies may benefit some establishments that moved their closing times to midnight to avoid paying the levy, and will be a cost all premises open after midnight will no longer have to find. The use of business improvement districts is likely to bring pubs, bars and clubs closer to other businesses in the area, rather than being ostracised as potentially troublesome neighbours, a view I feel the levies can encourage. 
3. As long as councils don't see this as a money-spinner in these times of cutbacks, I don't see too much of a problem with this.
4. I agree; I'm surprised this is not the case already.
5. This is how minimum pricing can be introduced all over Great Britain. I am opposed to minimum pricing because, as I wrote in 2013, "I consider that the phrase 'responsible drinking' means that the drinker is responsible both for the quantity that he or she consumes and his or her behaviour. As responsibility rests with the person, not the product, I oppose both excessive taxation and minimum prices on the product, especially as both measures disproportionately affect the people with least money, while having a diminishing impact the higher you go up the income scale. I don't believe that anti-social behaviour and binge drinking are the preserve of the poor alone." Concerning my last point, I'll just say 'Bullingdon Club'.
6. I can't see any problem with this, although I'd hope there'd be exceptions for historical buildings that would be seriously damaged by having to be made accessible. Having said that, accessibility has to be the norm.

A bit of a mixed bag there, I'd say, with minimum pricing probably being the most contentious. One argument against the measure has been that it contravenes EU law. With the UK heading towards the exit, this obstacle will at some point cease to exist, meaning that, sooner or later, minimum pricing will be imposed across the whole country.

Have you no homes to go to?

I recently had a conversation with a friend in the pub about drinking up time.

We well recalled the time when you had ten minutes to sup up, a rule that often honoured on the breach rather than observance; for instance, some drinkers might buy double rounds at closing: to stay within the law, they'd have to drink two pints in 10 minutes, and obviously they didn't. Then it became 20 minutes of course, which was rather more sensible.

It was even worse was when I visited Glasgow in December 1972. Although I was quite delighted when I walked around a corner and saw the TARDIS - yes, they still had police boxes in Scotland then - there was another, less welcome, outdated relic from another age that I discovered: the pubs stopped serving at 10.00 pm, with no drinking up time whatsoever. I thought then, quite rightly, that that was an incredibly stupid state of affairs. Subsequently, of course, Scotland led the way in liberating licensing laws.

But now? My friend insisted that by law you still had to stop drinking 20 minutes after the bar closed. I told him I was fairly sure that wasn't the case any more, but I'd check. I subsequently learnt that the Licensing Act of 2003, which came into force in November 2005, made no mention of drinking up time, because the consumption of alcohol itself was no longer considered a "licensable activity" under the Act. However, this doesn't give drinkers licence to tell the staff to get stuffed when they ask you to empty your glasses, because a licensee has the absolute right to take your drink off you and ask you to leave at any time without explanation.

My friend was quite surprised that drinking up time is no longer regulated by law, and that it is up to the individual licensee to decide the rules that apply; I suppose after so many years, some things can seem set in stone. My advice if you're in an unfamiliar pub and are wondering how many drinks to get in at last orders is quite simple: ask. Remember that licensees have every right to take your beer off you if you've overstayed your welcome.

Whatever happened to 24 hour opening?

I found this interesting article by Camila Ruz on the BBC news magazine website about the impact of 24 hour opening hours. It was published on 24 November, 10 years to the day since the Licensing Act came fully into force. As the article states:

It was reported that the act would lead to round-the-clock drinking and there were warnings that extended hours would cause chaos. The Royal College of Physicians said it would increase alcohol consumption. Police chiefs complained that their forces would be stretched. One judge said that easy access to alcohol was breeding "urban savages".

The article goes on to show how the anticipated chaos never materialised. As most of us know, alcohol consumption is in decline, as is violent crime, including that attributed to drinking. Teetotalism is on the increase, including among young people.

So how did so many authoritative people get it so badly wrong? Because those people were not speaking objectively, but were applying their own preconceptions, prejudices, preferences and motives. Or, more concisely, they had their own agendas. The consequence of getting things so badly wrong is that future predictions of doom are more likely to face a sceptical eye, which is what happens when you keep on crying 'wolf'.

This scepticism already greets the official guidelines of 14 or 21 units per week. Among my friends and acquaintances, there are people who drink regularly, and others who don't drink much at all, but I don't recall anyone ever suggesting to me that they take the guidelines seriously. If they are mentioned at all, they are usually treated as a joke. Now we find that the prophets of doom have been decisively proved wrong about 24 hour opening which means, as pundits, they are less likely to be taken seriously in future. The irritating thing is that I doubt they realise this.

I don't know anywhere that opens for 24 hours. There was one bar that did so in Southport, but it doesn't any more.

We British prefer 'weaker' beers

According to recent research, we British prefer beer that is nearly half as strong as those on the Continent. The average strength of our favourite beers is apparently 4.4%, as opposed to the 7.9% European drinkers prefer. I'm not very surprised: most of us know that the British brewing tradition is radically different from most of those that can be found in Europe. This is not just a matter of brewing techniques.

The First World War brought serious restrictions on pubs and brewing; at one point it was illegal to buy a round. I've read an account of how a man wanted to buy drinks for himself and his wife and was refused because that constituted a round; his wife had to go to the bar to buy her own. Under the Defence of the Realm Act, licensing hours were introduced, beer was watered down and an extra penny tax put on a pint. The Temperance movement was quite a force in the UK and the brewing industry was not immune to what was, at that time, its increasing impact; these laws gave them a significant boost, although a Temperance appeal to the monarch to declare that a toast to the king could be made just as loyally with a non-alcoholic drink was given short shrift by the Palace. The Temperance movement eventually lost most of its influence when Prohibition was ended in the USA, but the effects of First World War legislation on beer, including upon its strength, continued long after the war ended. In particular, the precedent of gradually but continually cutting beer strengths continued until the 1970s when CAMRA published the strength of all beers: brewers who didn't voluntarily reveal the strength, or weakness, of their products were angry and dismayed when the Campaign had their products analysed and published the sometimes embarrassing results.

Beer drinking was was strongly identified with industrial labour. Workers wanted to slake their thirst after a day's work, especially those in heavy industry: cool pints that didn't have you sliding under the table after just a few were preferred, hence the former popularity of mild in the old industrial heartlands. The decline in mild drinking must be partly due to the ending of much of our industrial base. (There's also another possible factor that I wrote about in May.)

Traditionally, we Britons used to spend long evenings in the pub, often meeting early in the evening and staying until closing time: such long evenings demand a beer that can be drunk in fairly large quantities. Additionally, formerly popular pub games such as darts, dominoes and bar billiards required the players not to be legless.

Our beer strengths have recovered to some extent since CAMRA's exposure of the scandal of weak beer sold at premium prices. It used to be said that one national brand could have been sold legally during the American Prohibition, and there were frequent rumours that some brewers put chemicals in beer to give you a slight headache so that the next day you thought you had a hangover. I've no idea how true these stories were, but the fact that they circulated shows how some drinkers viewed the beers they were sold with a certain amount of distrust.

All these factors are specific to the UK, and have shaped our preference for beers that are less strong than those on the Continent. Personally, I'd prefer to have more pints in the 4.0% to 5.0% range than fewer at 7.9%, but that's what I've grown up with and what I've become used to. I don't think I'm untypical in this respect.

The research was by academics at Anglia Ruskin University based on 65,000 reviews on the app Pint Please.

Marcus Jones - new pubs minister

I don't put much faith in government pubs ministers. I'm sure I'm not the only person who is sick of politicians declaring their undying love of what they usually describe as that great British institution, the British pub - particularly galling from governments that operated the beer duty escalator.

Marcus Jones was appointed to the role of pubs minister a couple of weeks ago. He was also given the high street brief, and I suppose I can see some logic there. The best town centre streets are those with a varied selection of shops interspersed with cafés, restaurants and pubs, making them lively and safer places from early morning until late at night, unlike some shop-only streets that are sad, deserted places after 6.00 pm, such as Chapel Street here in Southport.

He recently said in a speech: “I want to be a proactive minister who really supports pubs. I want to get around the country, I want to talk to people and listen to their views on what’s needed to save the great British pub. I’m always very keen to get involved in the industry and support events.”

Fine words, but will he be any different?

He worked part-time in a pub for 10 years, so he'll understand that most pub-goers are a cross section of society who generally behave in a perfectly civilised manner. He helped secure a debate on the beer duty escalator in 2013, and said in the Commons: "From my postbag, I know that popping down the local for a pint is becoming more and more expensive and out of reach for many of my constituents. Incomes have been squeezed over the past five years or so, and the cost of a pint has become more and more unaffordable. Beer is fast heading towards being a luxury item."

Titanic Brewery have welcomed his appointment, saying that if they were to ask for one thing, it would be stability because of the number of changes imposed upon the industry - it now just needs the chance to get on with the business of brewing and selling beer.

So it's not sounding too bad, although it is extremely early days. He is of course a Tory, but that shouldn't really make a difference. Traditionally, the big old brewers were staunch supporters of the Conservative Party; more recently it's not political ideology but surrender to the propaganda of the anti-alcohol brigade that has led to governmental attacks upon the pub and brewing industry. The nanny statists of "New" Labour who introduced the escalator were little better, and their ludicrous music licensing laws, scrapped by the Coalition, were a serious impediment to local live music of all kinds.

Breweries and pubs are capitalist companies that provide a lot of employment and it should be natural for a Tory government to support them or, at the very least, not attack them. I'm not holding my breath on that one, not least because of the completely disproportionate hysteria that greeted the three cuts of a penny in beer duty during the last government: those people are not going away. In the real world - as opposed to the microcosm of political dogma - pubs and brewing are not, and should not be, subject to partisan politics.

Politically, Marcus Jones and I are miles apart: for example, his record includes voting against gay equality rights four times and for the repeal of the Human Rights Act. Despite all that, if he does this job well, I'll happily give him the credit that is due.

Ten facts about Marcus Jones.

24 hour drinking hysteria

It was interesting to see a report by the Right-inclined Institute of Economic Affairs called Drinking Fast and Slow: Ten Years of the Licensing Act. I'm sure most people here won't be shocked that it found that binge drinking, public order offences and violent crime have declined in the last decade. Far from leading to a culture of drunkenness, since the Licensing Act was passed alcohol consumption has declined by 17% during the period, with the biggest drop in the 18-24 age group. Among all the findings, it was interesting - encouraging, even - to see that incidents of domestic violence have dropped by 28%. violence.

The reasons for changes in drinking habits are many, but excessive rises in duty and declining living standards must be significant factors. It's possible that the reduction in violence can, at least in part, be attributed to an easier licensing regime: restricting access to alcohol encourages among some drinkers a tendency to neck as much as possible in the limited time available: it's blindingly obvious that the quicker you drink, the stronger the effect. Having said that, in my experience most drunks are not violent, and there's nothing in the chemical make-up of alcohol that encourages violence. But, regrettably, some violent people do drink.

I've little doubt that the anti-alcohol brigade will take little notice of this report, as it does not fit the booze-sodden apocalypse they prefer to predict. The nonsense peddled by groups such as Alcohol Concern wouldn't bother me too much, except that nearly all of their funding comes from public funds.

As for 24 hour drinking, I don't know anywhere that stays open round the clock.

Extensions and stay-behinds

This being a Bank Holiday weekend, I'm reminded of the licensing regime that used to exist until comparatively recently. Before all-day opening was brought in, normal Sunday hours (midday to 2.00pm and 7.00pm to 10.30pm) applied on Good Fridays and Easter Sundays for religious reasons. As most people didn't have work the next morning on either day, this was ludicrous, especially as extensions were granted wholesale for Easter Monday, which is followed by a working day.

When I moved to Southport in the late 70s, pubs closed every night at 10.30pm, which seems quite odd nowadays. It crept up to 11.00pm, first on Friday and Saturday, and then throughout the rest of the week except Sunday. Liverpool introduced 11.00pm closing before Sefton, our local borough, and at the point where Bootle, the south end of Sefton, and Liverpool meet, you'd get an exodus of people from Sefton pubs into cars to drive into Liverpool for the extra 30 minutes drinking time. Not to be recommended really.

August 1988 saw the beginning of all-day opening, except on Sunday, and at first it seemed odd to be drinking quite openly at 4.30pm in the afternoon without the doors being locked. I was at Whitby Folk Week when all-day opening began, and two friends and I went on an all-day pub crawl to celebrate; I seem to recall that the first pint the following day took me 2 or 3 hours to finish. While all-day opening wasn't of any use while you were in work, it was certainly welcome on holiday. All-day opening on Sunday appeared a few years later in the mid-1990s.

The reforms that brought in the much-misrepresented 24-hour opening in 2005 gave pubs the chance to choose their hours and my local, the Guest House, chose a closing time of midnight, but in fact stuck to 11.00pm. Our licensee told me that she could now have an extension whenever she wanted without the hassle of applying. Since then, she has extended her Friday and Saturday hours until 11.30pm, and more recently midnight, without having to apply to anyone, and on the understanding that she would revert if it proved uneconomic to do so, which is fair enough. Granting licensees such flexibility within reason is eminently sensible. In addition, as opening hours are no longer fixed uniformly everywhere by the local council, there is little reason for people to drive from one borough to another in search of longer hours, although I suppose it could still happen from one pub to another.

As a consequence, the stay-behind, or lock-in, has become much less common. Obviously all-day opening killed off the afternoon ones. As for the evening ones, here in Southport there are quite a few pubs, such as the Sir Henry Segrave (our Spoons), where you can just walk in and have a drink up to midnight, or much later in the case of the Willow Grove, our Lloyds No 1 bar. In the days of stay-behinds, whenever one was likely, the licensee would discreetly suggest that you hang around until the last customer whom they didn't want to invite had left. The doors would be shut, the curtains drawn, and it was business as usual. In pubs with tills that recorded the time of the transactions, the sales would be noted down and were all entered the next morning. If you were invited to stay, this meant you were seen as belonging to that pub: you regarded it as your local, and they viewed you as a valued regular. You felt as though you were more than just another customer.

My view is that opening hours are nowadays much more sensible than they have ever been during my drinking career. The loss of the illicit pleasure of a stay-behind is more than compensated for by the fact that you can usually have a late drink legally whenever you want. As for 24-hour opening, there was only one bar that applied for it in Southport, and that's gone as far as I know. I'd imagine that in cities there may be a few, but the true 24-hour licence is quite rare. But never mind the truth of the matter, the imaginary mayhem caused by 24-hour opening is a good stick with which to beat those politicians who introduced it. The reality is quite different: both Labour and Tory governments have progressively eased licensing laws, partly as a burning of excessive regulations, easing the "burdens on business" and "freeing up the market for innovation", and partly because it makes sense to treat drinkers like adults who should make their own decisions on drinking, as indeed the vast majority can. It's a pity the nanny-statists seem to be gaining ground again, but that's another story.

Happy Easter, and cheers!