Eat, drink and be merry – for tomorrow Hackney’s taking over.

The Licensing Act 2003 was introduced to bring a profound change to the regulation of licensed premises across England and Wales. The six existing licensing regimes – governing alcohol, public entertainment, theatres, cinemas, late night refreshment premises and night cafes – are about to be combined under a single licence system, administered in Stoke Newington by Hackney Council.

Some of the old, confusing legislation dates back to Henry VIII, via a 1735 Act which licensed the performance of live music (to curb the noise from Westminster alehouses) and the opening-hours restriction of the 1899 Intoxicating Liquor Bill, to alcohol licensing legislation which was enacted by Lloyd George (a teetotaller) to keep the armament workers of Carlisle sober during World War One. Then, in 1964 the ‘two in a bar’ rule was agreed (ie, only two performers and the venue did not need an entertainment licence). Finally, in 1988 the drinking hours were expanded to 11am-11pm.

This was all something of a muddle, so the Blair Government decided on harmonisation. 

There are four objectives set out by the Act:
- The prevention of crime and disorder
- The prevention of public nuisance
- Public safety at licensed premises
- The protection of children from harm

How will these laudable aims be achieved? What is likely to be the impact of this new legislation on Stoke Newington? I spoke to Catherine Boyd, Chair of the Council’s Regulatory Committee, about the changes.

Following a transitional period, which began on 7 February and which will end in November, Hackney Council will become the sole licensing authority for the area. They will be the arbiters of drinking hours, as well as where, when and by whom live music can be promoted in the Borough. The Council will have the power to operate flexible opening hours for licensed releasing the potential for 24-hour opening, seven days a week, subject to the views of local residents, businesses and the police.

Prior to this, local residents had no powers under existing legislation to object to the granting or extensions of licences, but soon objectors will have the right to appeal if they feel their complaints are being overridden. ‘The Council aim to ‘seek a balance between allowing someone to operate a licensed premises and the right of residents to enjoy a peaceful life’, said Catherine. Also, the police will be given tougher powers to close licensed premises for up to 24 hours if they feel that ‘disorder’ is occurring. All existing licence holders now have just under five months to apply for a renewal or change to their licence. At the end of this period, in mid-August, licensees will know their fate.

Why change the existing system? There were ‘lots of pressures from various groups’ and the Government had to harmonise to achieve ‘democratic decision-making and accountability’. Also, some of the decisions from the Magistrate’s Courts, who currently grant liquor licences, were ‘mysterious’ and occasionally difficult to understand.
It was felt that a clean sweep was necessary to regulate the laws.

How about 24-hour drinking? We can forget this in Stoke Newington, according to Catherine. Is this a moral or a practical decision? ‘People don’t want it. Our consultation exercises revealed that people don’t mind more licensed premises or restaurants, or bars open till midnight. But they don’t want any more nightclubs or bars open beyond midnight. Therefore, we will not normally issue a licence after 12pm in residential areas’.
Bars opening in the mornings? This should not be a problem so long as it satisfies the four conditions.

I wondered whether, given the number of bars and restaurants in Stoke Newington, the area may be accorded ‘saturation’ status as has happened to Shoreditch (no new licences will be issued in Shoreditch and existing opening hours may be cut back). No, the Council has ‘no view’ on Stoke Newington, only Shoreditch.

The licences given will be of two kinds: a personal licence, which the licensee has for ten years and is portable, and a premises licence which is indefinite unless circumstances indicate a review is necessary. All existing licences will disappear with the exception of ‘grandfather rights’, which predate existing legislation and to which only the police can object. Is this fair? I thought the idea was to harmonise everything. Christine suggested that interfering with ‘grandfather rights’ could be an infringement of human rights law, although I didn’t find this particularly plausible. There is also the possibility of obtaining a ‘temporary event notice’, which will license up to 500 people for 96 hours.

Who is going to pay for this new bureaucracy? Apparently there is no money coming from central government nor will there be a direct contribution from the Council Tax. The financial burden (‘a costly process’) of the new system ‘should go on licensees. Serving alcohol does have costs to society, with 50% of crime alcohol-related. It is not unreasonable to ask licensees to pay the true cost of their responsibility to society’. So licensees have been getting away with it for years? ‘Most licensees are responsible’, said Catherine.

Everything is now up for grabs and no-one is entirely sure what’s going to happen. Devolution of decision making to local authorities is more democratic, but given Hackney Council’s performance over the last few years, one is not entirely thrilled by the prospect of their controlling our entertainment and drinking habits.

I phoned Keith Ames, Communication Offical at the Musicians Union, to ask him his opinion about the new licensing situation. He seemed upbeat. He explained that under the new system ‘the inconsistencies are wiped away’.

He has urged all licensees and venue owners to apply for the new, single licence as they may well find it easier and cheaper than under the old system. But surely one potential problem for would-be venues is that, under the new Act, local residents can legally object to granting a licence to a venue? Well, the grounds for an objection to a licence have to be ‘reasonable’ and not ‘disproportionate’, and the council has a legal duty ‘to promote the culture of the land’. With over 7 million live gigs a year in the UK, the industry remains an important one. The MU, like most other interested parties, is adopting a ‘wait and see’ attitude. Their website contains a downloadable Live Music kit, which contains advice for music promoters, venues and landlords: visit www.musiciansunion.org.uk.

We asked a local licensee for his views on the new licensing set-up. 

As a licensee for some twenty-six years, and ten years in Stoke Newington, I feel that this licensing reform is well overdue. However, I can also appreciate the immense task which local councils face in implementing this change.

That said, though, I believe this is a great opportunity to allow us to run our business to satisfy the needs of the local community. This would enable us to provide food and entertainment and not be restricted by entertainment or supper licences or having to stop selling alcohol after 11pm or 10.30pm on Sundays. The majority of licensees are responsible operators who respect the local community and their leisure needs but have been greatly restricted in how they operate their premises. 

I also think it is a great opportunity to tighten up on the issuing of licences. Just because an applicant has a certificate to say they have passed an induction exam, this seems to give them the right to be granted a liquor licence. But what experience do they have? Next thing, liquor is being sold to under-age drinkers or being sold as takeaways from 24-hour supermarkets in the early hours of the morning. These are not responsible licensees and this should be stopped. So come on, Hackney Council, use your prevailing powers and get it right for all the community.