LIC0086 - Evidence on Licensing Act 2003

Association of Convenience Stores – written evidence (LIC0086)

Executive Summary

The Licensing Act 2003 is currently working well despite significant ongoing changes to Act, mandatory conditions and guidance to local authorities. Local authorities and licensees would both benefit from a pause in further changes to the legislation.
The Licensing Act objectives have helped to deliver a reduction in alcohol-related harm. The current licensing objectives do not need to be revised or added to.
We do not support the introduction of health as a licensing objective. There is no evidence to link alcohol related health harms to an individual premises, which means the licensing system is not an appropriate mechanism to address health issues.
Alcohol consumption and alcohol related harm is in long term decline. The proportion of people who drank in the last week fell from 64% in 2005 to 58% in 2013 [1] and the proportion of young people that had binged in the last week has fallen from 29% in 2005 to 18% in 2013.
There has not been a significant increase in the number off-trade premises since the introduction of the Licensing Act. The number of off-trade premises has remained stable per capita for over twenty years.
The Licensing Act applies equally to on-trade and off-trade premises.
Attempts to link alcohol related harm in the night time economy to the off-trade are unfounded. ‘Pre-loading’ is not as common as it is perceived, with only one third of UK adults having pre-loaded in the past year.
The Licensing Act could be improved by reducing regulatory burdens on licensees such as:

removing the requirement for licensees to display a statutory notice in a local newspaper when applying for an alcohol licence or major variation;
creating a central online platform to manage licensing applications;
ensuring licensing conditions are based on recent, local, relevant evidence;
removing the requirement for forecourt retailers to prove the primary use of their business as retail.

Introduction

1. ACS (the Association of Convenience Stores) is a trade association, representing the 51,524 convenience stores including the Co-Op, Costcutter, Spar UK and thousands of independent stores employing 407,000 people [2]. For more information on ACS, please see Annex A

2. Convenience stores provide a range of products and services, including Post Offices, bill payment services, and ATMs to local communities. Alcohol is an important product category for convenience retailers, with 88%[3] of stores holding an alcohol licence, and an average of 13.8% of store sales represented by alcohol [4].

3. Convenience stores have a role to play in addressing alcohol-related harm and are taking action to reduce underage sales and promote responsible retailing. We acknowledge that there is more work to be done to reduce alcohol-related harm. ACS will continue to work with convenience retailers to promote responsible retailing and encourage retailer engagement with local partnerships.

Are the existing four licensing objectives the right ones for licensing authorities to promote? Should the protection of health and wellbeing be an additional objective?

4. Since the introduction of the Licensing Act in 2005, alcohol harm and consumption statistics have been on a downward trend. While we believe the Licensing Act has played a positive role in encouraging these trends, the main drivers of which are consumer awareness of alcohol health harms, younger people drinking less, and industry action to reduce access to young people accessing alcohol. The following data shows the progress that has been made under the Licensing Act;

The proportion of people who drank in the last week fell from 64% in 2005 to 58% in 2013 [5], while binge drinking has also fallen, with the proportion of young people that had binged in the last week falling from 29 per cent in 2005 to 18 per cent in 2013 [6].
The Home Office Crime Survey for England and Wales has demonstrated that the prevention of public nuisance objective has also been effective. The overall level of perceived anti-social behaviour among adults (including perceptions of drunk and rowdy behaviour in their local area) has fallen from 17% in 2004/05 to 11% in 2014/15 [7].
The effect of the protection of children from harm objective means that now less than one in ten pupils (8%) had consumed alcohol in the last week in 2014. This continues the downward trend since 2003, when a quarter (25%) of pupils had drunk alcohol in the last week [8]. Moreover, the number of penalty notices for disorder issued for the sale of alcohol to a person under 18 fell from 2,058 in 2005 to 568 in 2015 [9].

Health as a Licensing Objective

5. ACS does not agree that health and wellbeing should be an additional licensing objective. There is also no causal link between the availability of alcohol and alcohol-related harm [10]. It would be incredibly challenging for the licensing authority to identify whether an individual premises’ licence or their licensing conditions promote health as a licensing objective. Using local, relevant evidence to consider an individual premises’ licence application or licensing conditions is fundamental to the Licensing Act 2003, and it is not possible to do this in relation to health and wellbeing.

6. Evidence presenting long term alcohol-associated health harms in a community, such as liver cirrhosis, cannot justify preventing a new shop or pub from receiving a licence. The long term alcohol related harms that exist in that area can be attributed to drinking behaviours from many years previous in different locations and are not a reflection of current local circumstances. Similar problems exist in relation to short term health harms such as alcohol related A&E admissions. There is no criteria that health services can use to understand an individual’s drinking habits that directly result in an alcohol related injury and link it back to premises’ where the incident occurred.

7. The Scottish alcohol licensing system includes health as a licensing objective, but its effectiveness has been limited as local authorities do not have evidence to restrict licences based on health harms. Health as a licensing objective in Scotland has resulted in ‘overprovision’ policies where licensing boards can block any new licensing application. Licensing authorities have to present evidence that consumers had purchased the majority of their alcohol from the licensed premises in their area and also show a clear causal link between the number of premises and health harms. The Scottish Government have identified that it is “almost impossible to relate public health data to individual premises.”[11] This challenge is supported by the fact that only 10 local authorities of 32 have implemented overprovision pledges and many of these have be subjected to challenges.

8. Limiting licences only deters new stores from opening and protects businesses which operate irresponsibly. ACS believes that to prevent alcohol-related harm, there must be a focus on the quality and compliance of retailers in the market and not on the volume. For reference, please see Annex C for a video case study of the impact that overprovision policies have on retailers’ investment decisions in Scotland.

Should the policies of licensing authorities do more to facilitate the enjoyment by the public of all licensable activities? Should access to and enjoyment of licensable activities by the public, including community activities, be an additional licensing objective? Should there be any other additional objectives?

9. As stated above, ACS believes the current licensing objectives work to promote to responsible drinking and reduce alcohol-related harm.

Has the Live Music Act 2012 done enough to relax the provisions of the Licensing Act 2003 where they imposed unnecessarily strict requirements? Are the introductions of late night levies and Early Morning Restriction Orders effective, and if not, what alternatives are there? Does the Licensing Act now achieve the right balance between the rights of those who wish to sell alcohol and provide entertainment and the rights of those who wish to object?

10. Early Morning Restriction Orders (EMRO) and late night levies were introduced through more recent legislation which amended the Licensing Act 2003. It is important to note that these powers apply to off-trade and on-trade premises. Both EMROs and levies apply to a specific area which means if a convenience store operates in the affected area, they will also be subject to the EMRO or levy. As such, convenience stores are burdened financially either by paying the levy or having to close their store.

11. EMRO and late night levies have not been effective in addressing alcohol-related harm, which is evident by their limited use by local authorities. As of May 2016, only seven licensing authorities had decided to introduce a late night levy and no local authorities have decided to introduce an EMRO in their area.[12] The Home Office is currently reviewing the late night levy, as confirmed in the Modern Crime Prevention Strategy. The review will aim to make the levy “fairer to business and more transparent” [13].

12. The Licensing Act provides the right balance between business and local authority interests. However, the use of qualitative data is preferred by licensing authorities, which includes the views of the local residents. Licensing authorities place a disproportionate weight on this data compared to quantitative data. We would welcome clarification from the Home Office through the section 182 guidance that representations deemed relevant are equally weighted when local authorities are considering licence applications. For example, a business organisation representing numerous businesses may submit significant amounts of quantitative data to a licensing committee but this is given less weight than a small number of local resident’s objections.

Do all the responsible authorities (such as Planning, and Health & Safety), who all have other regulatory powers, engage effectively in the licensing regime, and if not, what could be done? Do other stakeholders, including local communities, engage effectively in the licensing regime, and if not, what could be done?

13. ACS believes the responsible authorities are effectively engaging in the licensing regime.

Licensing is only one part of the strategy that local government has to shape its communities. The Government states that the Act “is being used effectively in conjunction with other interventions as part of a coherent national and local strategy.” Do you agree?

14. ACS agrees that the Licensing Act is being used effectively with other interventions. There is an increasing amount of power being devolved to local authorities that empower local authorities to make robust local planning, economic development and public health strategies. Licensing authorities consult with a wide range of responsible authorities including licensing authorities, police, the local fire and rescue authority, relevant enforcing authority under the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974, environmental health offices, the local planning authority, bodies which are responsible for protecting children from harm, health boards, and the local weights and measures authority. These bodies represent various interests across the community.

15. ACS welcomed the focus in the Home Office’s Modern Crime Prevention Strategy on local partnership working in communities to address alcohol related harm through the launch of additional Local Alcohol Action Areas (LAAAs). The new programme of LAAAs will “strengthen the capacity and capability of local areas to build effective partnerships”[14]. ACS is committed to supporting the development of the new LAAAs, which will incorporate the work of Community Alcohol Partnerships (CAP). The alcohol retailing and manufacturing industry funds Community Alcohol Partnerships [15], which are locally based projects that tackle underage sales and anti-social behaviour by bringing retailers, schools, local police and local authorities together.

Should licensing policy and planning policy be integrated more closely to shape local areas and address the proliferation of licensed premises? How could it be done?

16. We do not believe that licensing policy and planning policy should be further integrated. The planning system already supports the aims of the Licensing Act by consulting extensively on the development of local and neighbourhood plans. ACS supports the development of robust evidence led local plans with a clear development strategy for retail and hospitality premises. As such, we do not believe that additional regulatory powers are required to link the Licensing Act and planning powers.

17. We do not support the assertion in the consultation question that there has been a significant proliferation in licensed premises. The number of off-licences per capita has remained incredibly stable: in 1992, there were 0.91 off-licences per 1000 people, and in 2014, there were also 0.91 off-licences per 1000 people [16].

Cumulative Impact Policies

18. The licensing system already has the power to block new licences in a particular area by introducing a cumulative impact policy (CIP). Cumulative impact policies were designed to deal with alcohol related harm in the night time economy as a way to prevent the saturation of people in a single location at closing time, which could contribute to crime and anti-social behaviour.

19. The Home Office’s recently published Modern Crime Prevention Strategy [17] committed to giving CIPs statutory status. This will be achieved through amending the Policing and Crime Bill in the House of Lords. If CIPs are given statutory status, primary legislation must stipulate a robust process for the introduction of a CIP at local level. All evidence that is used to justify a CIP must be the latest information and based on police crime data, sunset clauses should also be applied at a local level to CIPs to ensure that they meet their objectives.

20. We are concerned about the impact that planning restrictions and CIPs may have on investment in local communities. Convenience stores would be disproportionally impacted as alcohol is only one aspect of a store’s sales mix and therefore the restriction of licences also makes it harder for businesses to offer other services including fresh food, banking, Post Offices, and payment services. Limiting the number of off-licences in an area also acts as a disincentive for new store openings and will mean more empty units on the high street and more under invested stores. Currently vacancy rates on UK high streets remain high at 12.4%[18].

21. The effects of restricting the number of alcohol licences is apparent in the areas in Scotland where overprovision has been introduced. Where overprovision has been introduced in an area, small businesses are most affected. Evidence submitted by the Scottish Licensed Trade Association (SLTA) to the Air Weapons and Licensing (Scotland) Act suggests that a two tier licensing system has developed. This is where large operators are less likely to be challenged because of local authorities fear of legal action, while small independent retailers are more likely to be challenged because they are less likely to appeal the refusal. This is a worrying development and a significant barrier to small business’ growth.

Crime, disorder and public safety

Are the subsequent amendments made by policing legislation achieving their objects? Do they give the police the powers they need to prevent crime and disorder and promote the licensing objectives generally? Are police adequately trained to use their powers effectively and appropriately?

22. We believe that the police have the powers they need to promote the prevention of crime and disorder licensing objective in the Licensing Act. The chief of police is a responsible authority, which means that they must be fully notified of applications and are entitled to make representations to the licensing authority in relation to the application for the grant, variation of review of a premise licence. The police can make an application for summary review of an alcohol licence if they are found in breach of their prevention of crime and disorder objective. The police also have the power to enter and search a premise where they have reason to believe that an offence under the Licensing Act has been or is about to be committed [19].

23. The Home Office’s Modern Crime Prevention Strategy outlines a number of new powers which will equip “local authorities and the police with the right powers to take action when partnership working breaks down and problems escalate”[20]. The Home Office plans to consult on these powers, which include putting cumulative impact policies on a statutory footing and consulting on group review intervention powers (GRIPs). GRIPs would enable licensing authorities to consider the licensing conditions of a group of premises to address problems in a specific location. The development of GRIPs powers demonstrates how the Licensing Act can be amended to address challenges as they emerge.

Tackling Alcohol Duty Fraud

24. We believe the police and other enforcement bodies, including trading standards, should focus on tackling the non-duty paid and illicit alcohol trade. The Licensing Act 2003 provides licensing authorities with powers to remove alcohol licences from retailers who participate in the sale of non-duty paid alcohol, however this power is not often used. Research from Portsmouth Council has shown a strong correlation between retail premises selling non-duty paid alcohol at low costs and breaching other licensing conditions. Therefore, tackling the illicit alcohol market will not only reduce alcohol-related harm caused by counterfeit and non-duty paid alcohol but also reduce associated alcohol-related harm, for example, underage sales.

25. Since figures were recorded (2008-09), there has been a steady increase in the tax gaps rate for alcohol. In 2008-09, the alcohol tax gap cost the Exchequer was an estimated £830m and this has since increased by 31% to £1.2 billion by 2013-14 [21]. Illicit alcohol undercuts legitimate retailers and drives footfall away from their stores. In a survey of independent convenience retailers, 67% agreed that retailers that are found selling illicit alcohol or tobacco should have their alcohol licence removed [22]. ACS supports the introduction of tougher penalties for retailers that engage in the illicit market and greater funding for police, HMRC and trading standards to tackle this issue.

Should sales of alcohol airside at international airports continue to be exempt from the application of the Act? Should sales on other forms of transport continue to be exempt?

26. Convenience stores are not typically located in airports, however, of those that are, they tend to be located landside. As such, this question does not apply.

Licensing procedure

The Act was intended to simplify licensing procedure; instead it has become increasingly complex. What could be done to simplify the procedure?

27. ACS has listed recommendations below which would simplify the licensing procedure:

Alcohol Licensing: Advertising in Local Newspapers

28. Section 182 guidance which supports the Licensing Act 2003, states that all licensees must display a statutory notice in local newspapers when they apply for an alcohol licence or a significant variation to their existing licence [23]. The reason for this is to ensure that the local community is informed about a new licensing application and have the opportunity to either object or endorse the application.

29. We completely support the need to communicate licensing applications to the local community, however, we have consistently called on the Government remove the requirement for licences to be advertised in local papers. This is because retailers must pay for the statutory notices to go into the local paper. This represents a significant cost for individual retailers, with a typical alcohol licence advertisement costing £183 [24].

Licensing Applications

30. Licensing applications for new premises have become increasingly difficult for retailers to manage. Many retailers now seek professional support from licensing lawyers or consultants to make these applications. Applications are often difficult for retailers that trade across different local authority boundaries as each local authority takes a slightly different approach to their application process. For instance, some local authorities will not accept electronic copies of licensing applications and others will only accept online applications. Online versions of applications will also differ from the postal version, featuring additional questions, which can be confusing as well as more time consuming. Where applications prove difficult, it is often hard to find a single point of contact at the council to discuss issues with the application.

31. It would be extremely beneficial if the Government considered the introduction of one online platform to manage alcohol licensing applications or a pro forma application form that all local authorities could use. It would also be beneficial if licensing authorities accepted postal applications in email form. This would put businesses and local authorities on a level playing field, with a clear understanding of the evidence required, the format of the information and the timeframes to work to.

Licensing Conditions

32. Licensing conditions are added to premises licence applications to account for unique local circumstances and ensure that the licensing objectives are upheld. For example, a licensing condition could be added to restrict trading hours at a premises or dictate the level of training or number of designated supervisors that must be in the store. The Licensing Act 2003 permits licensing conditions to be local, relevant, evidence based, business specific, and not standardised. However, retailers often report highly restrictive licensing conditions being applied to their licence. In a survey of independent retailers, 40% believed alcohol licensing conditions had become more restrictive over the last five years [25]. Local authorities attempt to apply conditions across all premises in a formulaic way which does not match individual circumstances of the business or the local area.

33. A recent licensing application for a convenience stores in London was requested to include 32 licensing conditions. The conditions would restrict the licensing hours of the business significantly, impacting on the size, strength, packaging and location of alcohol products being sold. The convenience store decided to challenge the application of these conditions and found that the police and local authority had little evidence to support the application of the conditions. This is an all too familiar story across the country and either indicates a lack of understanding of the Licensing Act at local authority and police force level, or an intentional attempt to restrict businesses trading by overloading them with licensing conditions.

Fuel Retailers and Alcohol Licensing

34. It is more expensive and time consuming for petrol forecourt retailers to secure alcohol licences because they have to prove the primacy of their business is a convenience store rather than ‘petrol retailing’[26]. To secure the licence, forecourt retailers have to invest in producing an argument to show their primary use and include this as part of their licensing application.

35. 38% of customers [27] currently drive to convenience stores and a much higher proportion of shoppers drive to supermarkets. Therefore, it is strange that there is an additional burden placed on forecourt retailers to determine the purpose of their business based on the mode of transport the customer uses to visit their store. This is an outdated part of the legislation that should be reviewed and removed to reduce the premium licensing cost for forecourt retailers.

What could be done to improve the appeal procedure, including listing and costs? Should appeal decisions be reported to promote consistency? Is there a case for a further appeal to the Crown Court? Is there a role for formal mediation in the appeal process?

36. ACS would welcome clarity around the service of the Notice of Decision (sometimes referred to as the Notice of Determination). Currently, there is no regulated process, which can lead to confusion to when licensing conditions or suspensions apply, especially so if the licensee contends that the notice was not received. Notices of Decision could be sent to the licensee, Solicitor, premises, or the correspondence address of the registered office. We would welcome clarity around the process of the issue of Notices of Decision to prevent confusion.

37. Appeal costs place financial burdens on retailers. While £400 is an expensive fee to register an appeal, it is especially so for a small independent business. Moreover, licensees do not have the right of audience before the Magistrates’ Court unless their agent that they use to represent them is a Solicitor or Barrister. As such, licensees are required to hire a Solicitor or Barrister to represent them, which increases the financial burden on the business. Smaller retailers anecdotally report that there are few appeals made now as the costs are so high.

38. We believe there is a case for further appeal to the Crown Court. Currently, the appeals process only allows appeals to proceed to the Crown Court on a point of law, not on the basis of a decision. The option should be available for licensees to use if their appeal has been rejected at Magistrate’s court.

39. Formal mediation does have a role in the appeals process. Some licensing authorities have been open to informal mediation and as such some appeals have been avoided by the licensee agreeing to changes to conditions with the Responsible Authorities. However, many licensing authorities do not conduct mediation, believing that the only way to change the decision of a hearing is by way of appeal. If licensing authorities were required to mediate or allow mediation to occur, this would create a fairer process.

Given the increase in off-trade sales, including online sales, is there a case for reform of the licensing regime applying to the off-trade? How effectively does the regime control supermarkets and large retailers, under-age sales, and delivery services? Should the law be amended to allow licensing authorities more specific control over off-trade sales of “super-strength” alcohol?

Number of Off-Licences

40. The number of off-licences has not increased dramatically over recent years, but has only followed the rise in population. This stability is evident when looking specifically at the off-trade: in 1992, there were 0.91 off-licences per 1000 people, and in 2014, there were also 0.91 off-licences per 1000 people [28].

(Source: ONS Population Estimates cross referenced with Home Office Alcohol and Late Night Refreshment Licensing reports and Department for Culture, Media and Sport Alcohol, Entertainment and Late Night Refreshment Licensing Statistical Bulletins – Please note that the dotted line represents data not available)

41. According to the most recent ‘Alcohol and Late Night Refreshment Licensing’ report in 2014, the number of off-licences fell from 2013 to 2014 by 3%[29], and we await the publication of future statistics on the number of premises licences from the Home Office.

42. Over recent years there has been a change in the make-up of the off-trade, with the number of specialist off-licences falling by 11% between 2008 and 2016 [30]. Consumers have shifted away from shopping in traditional off-licences, which typically only sell alcohol products, to convenience stores, which provide a wider range of products and services.

43. House of Lords Licensing Act 2003 Committee members have raised concerns about the increase in off-trade premises and pre-loading during oral evidence [31]. Polling conducted by YouGov in 2015 [32] suggests that pre-loading is not as common as it is often perceived, with only 35% of 2,000 UK adults stating that they have pre-loaded in the past year. The majority of those who pre-load do so less than once a month. It is important to note that while respondents found pre-loading cheaper than the night time economy, 42% said that the alcohol they consumed before a night out was only a minority of the alcohol they drank that same night.

24 Hour Licensing

44. Prior to the introduction of the Licensing Act 2003, there was concern that the Act would create a 24-hour drinking culture as premises would be allowed to apply for 24-hour alcohol licences. However, this concern has not materialised, with only a minority of premises (4%) holding a 24-hour licence.

45. The majority of the 7,438 premises which hold a 24-hour licence are hotel bars (48%), while only 13% of 24-hour licences being held by convenience stores [33]. It is important to note these statistics only represent the number of premises who successfully applied for a 24-hour licence, and not the number of premises that sell alcohol 24-hours.

46. According to the ACS Local Shop Report 2016, 3.5% of independent retailers are open 24-hours in England and Wales, this falls to 2.4% when calculating the number of independent retailers who are open 24-hours also hold an alcohol licence. The majority of 24-hour licences are found in urban areas [34].

Licensing Act 2003 and the Off-Trade

47. The Licensing Act does not take two different approaches to regulation based on whether the licensee is selling alcohol for consumption on the premises or if they are selling alcohol for consumption off the premises. The Licensing Act 2003 applies equally to off-trade and on-trade premises. As such, the penalties and enforcement action also apply equally to both on-trade and off-trade premises.

48. It is evident that the Licensing Act has kept pace with changes both in the on-trade and off-trade market. Of the 27 major changes to the Act since 2005, identified in Annex A, only one does not apply to the off-trade. For example, changes included introducing a new mandatory condition which bans the sale of alcohol below the cost of duty plus VAT, the introduction of late night levies, and strengthening the fine for selling alcohol to children. It is important to note that the most recent mandatory condition mainly affects the off-trade.

49. The Licensing Act allows licensing authorities to impose specific licensing conditions on premises as long as they are appropriate to promoting the licensing objectives. This allows licensing authorities, in principle, to tailor additional licensing conditions to the individual premise based on local evidence. For example, if there was a high level of crime in a town centre, the licensing authority may impose a condition on a licensee located in the town centre to ensure that there is CCTV operating in-store. It is licensing authorities’ discretion whether to further regulate a premise through licensing conditions.

50. In practice, licensing authorities take a formulaic approach to licensing conditions, applying a selection of conditions to all of the off trade premises in the area. This goes against one of the key principles of the Act which requires conditions to be tailored to individual premises. This can often lead to off-trade premises having to challenge the application of licensing conditions. A recent licensing application [35] for a convenience stores in London was requested to include 32 licensing conditions. The conditions would restrict the licensing hours of the business significantly, impacting on the size, strength, packaging and location of alcohol products being sold. The convenience store decided to challenge the application of these conditions and found that the police and local authority had little evidence to support the application of the conditions.

Preventing Underage Sales

51. There are extensive sanctions for selling to underage persons in the Licensing Act 2003 which apply equally to the off-trade as well as the on-trade. Selling alcohol to someone under 18 can lead to an on the spot fine of £90, a caution that appears on their criminal record or formal prosecution including an unlimited fine. If a retailer or an on-trade premise has been found to be persistently selling alcohol to under 18s, they face an immediate closure order for between 48 hours and 336 hours (14 days), or an unlimited fine. Their alcohol licence is also at risk.

52. The industry has taken proactive action to prevent young people from accessing alcohol. The off-trade has led the way in the introduction of age verification schemes such as ‘Challenge 25’ and partnership schemes including Community Alcohol Partnerships. This has helped to significantly reduce the number of underage people purchasing alcohol. HSCIC data suggests that now the most common way pupils (11-15 year olds) obtained alcohol was from parents (17%), friends (15%) or taking it from home with permission (11%) rather than a shop or supermarket [36]. The number of pupils who had obtained (or tried to obtain) alcohol declined from 49% in 2004 to 28% in 2014 [37].

53. As outlined above, retailers have been heavily engaged with a number of age verification schemes including ‘Challenge 25’[38] which has reduced underage access to alcohol. Polling of ACS members in 2012 showed that 70% of retailers had an age verification policy in store and it was found that more than a quarter of retailers refused age restricted sales more than ten times a week [39]. Serve Legal, an independent test purchasing company, found in 2015 that convenience stores had an 83% pass rate [40], an increase of 18% since 2008.

54. The industry has also taken proactive action to promote responsible retailing amongst the off-trade. Most notably, the industry set up the Retail of Alcohol Standards Group (RASG)[41], Proof of Age Standards Scheme (PASS)[42], and Community Alcohol Partnerships (CAP).

“Super Strength” Alcohol

55. We recognise concerns about the problem of street drinkers and the high strength alcohol products associated with this. Convenience stores have a role to play in preventing this form of alcohol harm, and almost half (41%) of convenience stores do not stock high strength lager and ciders in their stores [43].

56. Local initiatives to tackle street drinking have the potential to make the local area safer, and to reduce alcohol harm, however, there has been great variance between the quality and approach of different schemes. The most effective schemes work with a range of partners including; retailers, police, local charities and health agencies to tackle the problem. Ipswich and Portsmouth are excellent examples of best practice of these schemes. However, schemes also have the potential to place retailers at risk of breaching competition law, and if conducted in the wrong way, they can be burdensome for retailers without tackling the problems they were designed to address.

57. ACS has produced guidance for retailers in consultation with the Competition and Markets Authority, which sets out the competition risks associated with engaging with an initiative and provides retailers with a framework to assess the quality and effectiveness of an initiative before deciding whether to engage. ACS’ guidance on ‘Reducing the Strength’ schemes can be found in Annex D. We have advised our members to assess each individual scheme on its merits and be mindful of certain practices that put them in breach of competition law, or because they are unconvinced that the schemes are tackling street drinking in an effective and holistic way supported by strong evidence.

Pricing

Should alcohol pricing and taxation be used as a form of control, and if so, how? Should the Government introduce minimum unit pricing in England? Does the evidence that MUP would be effective need to be “conclusive” before MUP could be introduced, or can the effect of MUP be gauged only after its introduction?

58. ACS is not convinced that the introduction of Minimum Unit Pricing (MUP) will have a significant impact on alcohol related harm. We believe that tackling alcohol related harm is more complex than the introduction of an increase in price. Instead, tackling alcohol-related harm must be done in partnership with all stakeholders to instigate long term change in drinking behaviours.

Fees and costs associated with the Licensing Act 2003

Do licence fees need to be set at national level? Should London, and the other major cities to which the Government proposes to devolve greater powers, have the power to set their own licence fees?

59. ACS supports licensing fees being set at national level. Fees as set out in the 2003 Licensing Act were designed to recover licensing authorities' costs of administrating, inspecting and enforcing the new regime. This principle has remained consistent throughout licensing, and ACS supports its continuation.

60. The restructure of Licensing fees proposed by the Home Office in 2014 [44] would lead to a significant change in the burden of fees in particular shifting costs burdens from big to small premises, and from existing businesses to new businesses. This has the potential to impose significant harm on small businesses in particular and will create barriers to entry into the market.

61. Our proposal is for the Home Office to consider far less disruptive options, in particular, to consider the retention of the existing centrally prescribed fee structures based on National Non-Domestic Rateable value (NNDR) bands. We accept that fee income for licensing authorities has to be reviewed to reflect real-term increases in cost and local authority efficiencies in the licensing administration.

International comparisons

Is there a correlation between the strictness of the regulatory regime in other countries and the level of alcohol abuse? Are there aspects of the licensing laws of other countries, and other UK jurisdictions, that might usefully be considered for England and Wales?

62. Scotland has led a stricter licensing regime, implementing a number of changes to the Licensing Act (Scotland) 2005 since its introduction, most notably the Alcohol (etc) (Scotland) Act 2010, which imposed a minimum price for packages containing more than one alcoholic product, restricted drinks promotions which encouraged consumers to buy larger quantities, and restricted the location of alcohol to one area in-store. These legislative controls burdened retailers operationally. Convenience retailers have very limited space in-store to promote, place, and advertise the products they sell regardless of any restrictions. Despite additional licensing controls in Scotland, 20% more alcohol was sold per adult in Scotland than England and Wales in 2015 [45].

ANNEX A

ANNEX B

Amendment to Licensing Act

Impact on Off-Trade

A licence holder would be guilty of an offence if, on 3 or more different occasions within a period of 3 consecutive months, alcohol is unlawfully sold on the same premises to an individual under the age of 18.

Violent Crime Reduction Act 2006

The premises licence holder, guilty of this offence would be liable to a fine not exceeding £10,000.

In addition, the court may order the licence to be suspended for a period not exceeding 48 hours.

Local authorities would have the power to designate an area as an alcohol disorder zone. The local authority may then impose charges on licensed premised in the zone.

There was an exemption for premises which the principal use was not the sale of alcohol.

This provisions have been repealed in the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act.

Violent Crime Reduction Act 2006

This provision would have further burdened retailers by imposing additional charges on off-trade premises in certain areas.

Mandatory licensing conditions to be implemented.

Policing and Crime Act 2009

Licensed premises had to abide by mandatory conditions including:

banned irresponsible promotions
customers to have access to free tap water
required an age verification policy to be in place to prevent underage sales
ensure customers have the opportunity to choose small measures of beers, ciders, spirits and wine.

Of those conditions, only the requirement for an age verification policy applies to the off-trade.

Tightens selling alcohol to children provisions in the Violent Crime Reduction Act 2006.

A licence holder would be guilty of an offence if, on 2 or more different occasions within a period of 3 consecutive months, alcohol is unlawfully sold on the same premises to an individual under the age of 18.

Policing and Crime Act 2009

The premises licence holder, guilty of this offence would be liable to a fine not exceeding £10,000.

In addition, the court may order the licence to be suspended for a period not exceeding 3 months.

Introduction of Early Morning Restriction Orders (EMRO). EMROs enable licensing authorities to restrict the sale of alcohol in the whole or part of an area for any specified period between 3am and 6am, if they consider this is appropriate for the promotion of licensing objectives.

Crime and Security Act 2010

If a licensing authority introduces an EMRO, it will apply to premises licences, club premises certificates and temporary event notices that operate within the specified EMRO period.

Off-trade premises would be affected as well as on-trade premises.

The late night levy would enable licensing authorities to raise a contribution from late-opening alcohol suppliers towards policing the night time economy.