Executive Summary

Introduction

Consideration of the Bill

Clause-by-Clause Scrutiny of the Bill

Appendix 1

Minutes of Proceedings Relating to the Report

Appendix 2

Minutes of Evidence

Appendix 3

Written Submissions

Appendix 4

DSD Submissions

Appendix 5

Irresponsible Drinks Promotions - Submissions

Appendix 6

Other Papers

Appendix 7

List of Witnesses

List of Abbreviations

BCC Belfast City Council

BRC British Retail Consortium

CAP Community Alcohol Partnerships

DCAL Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure

DETI Department for Enterprise Trade and Industry

DHSSPS Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety

DOE Department of the Environment

DPM Delegated Powers Memorandum

DSD Department for Social Development

GAA Gaelic Athletic Association

GB Great Britain

ID Identification

IT Information Technology

MLA Member of the Legislative Assembly

MP Member of Parliament

NDPB Non –Departmental Public Body

NI Northern Ireland

NIDIG Northern Ireland Drinks Industry Group

NIHF Northern Ireland Housing Federation

NITB Northern Ireland Tourist Board

PASS Proof of Age Standards Scheme

PHA Public Health Agency

PSNI Police Service of Northern Ireland

PWC Price Waterhouse Coopers

QUB Queens University Belfast

RASG Retail of Alcohol Standards Group

RPA Review of Public Administration

SL Subordinate Legislation

SNI Sport Northern Ireland

TV Television

UK United Kingdom

WSTA Wine and Spirits Trade Association

Executive Summary

The Bill contains 14 clauses and 4 Schedules which amend and in some places replace the existing provisions of the Licensing (Northern Ireland) Order 1996 - the Licensing Order and the Registration of Clubs (Northern Ireland) Order 1996 – the Clubs Order.

The Bill includes provisions which introduce additional closure powers, a penalty points scheme and a proof of age scheme for licensed premises and registered clubs.

The Bill also streamlines the accounting and regulatory regime for registered clubs and increases the annual limit on the number of authorisations for special occasions (i.e. so-called late licenses) for registered clubs.

The Committee agreed that it was content with Clauses 1 to 8; Clauses 11-14 and Schedules 1 to 4 as drafted.

The Committee agreed to recommend to the Assembly that the following clause be amended as proposed by the Committee and drafted by the Committee:

Part 2 Registration of Clubs

Clause 9 Authorisations for special occasions

Clause 9, page 18, line 42, leave out ‘120’ and insert ‘104’

The amendment is designed to limit the number of special authorisations (i.e. so-called late licences) available to the licensed premises associated with registered clubs to a maximum of 104 per year.

The Committee also agreed to recommend to the Assembly that the following clause be amended as proposed by the Committee and drafted by the Department:

Part 3 General

Clause 10 Ancillary provision

“Ancillary provision

10. - (1) The Department may by order make such incidental, supplementary, consequential, transitory, transitional or saving provisions as it considers necessary or expedient for the purposes of, in consequence of or for giving full effect to this Act or any provision of it, or in connection with the coming into operation of any provision of this Act.

(2) An order under this section may amend, repeal or modify any statutory provision (including this Act).

(3) The power conferred by this section is not restricted by any other provision of this Act.

(4) An order shall not be made under this section unless a draft of the order has been laid before, and approved by resolution of, the Assembly."

The amendment is designed to change the Assembly procedure, associated with provisions brought forward by the Department to give full effect to the legislation, from negative to affirmative.

Delegated Powers

The Committee noted and accepted the other regulation-making powers associated with the Bill.

Introduction

1. The Licensing and Registration of Clubs (Amendment) Bill (NIA 19/09) (the Bill) was referred to the Committee for consideration in accordance with Standing Order 33(1) on completion of the Second Stage of the Bill on 1 June 2010.

2. The Minister made the following statement under section 9 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998:

“In my view the Licensing and Registration of Clubs (Amendment) Bill would be within the legislative competence of the Northern Ireland Assembly."

3. The Bill contains 14 clauses and 4 Schedules which amend and in some places replace the existing provisions of the Licensing (Northern Ireland) Order 1996 - the Licensing Order and the Registration of Clubs (Northern Ireland) Order 1996 – the Clubs Order.

Part 1 Licensing

Clause 1 Closure of Licensed Premises

Clause 1 introduces a new part to the Licensing Order containing measures in relation to the closure of licensed premises. These provisions:

• empower a magistrates’ court within a district that is experiencing or is likely to experience disorder to make a closure order in respect of licensed premises;
• allow a police officer (of the rank of inspector or above) to make a closure order in relation to identified licensed premises if it is believed that there is public disorder on or near and related to the premises and closure would be in the interests of public safety. Any such closure must not exceed 24 hours;
• allow a police officer to extend a closure order prior to the court hearing if it is believed that this is necessary in the interests of public safety. This extension may not exceed 24 hours. This closure order or its extension may be cancelled if it is believed that there is no longer a threat to public order;
• require a police officer to apply to the relevant magistrates’ court to consider the closure order and any extension of it as soon as possible;
• require a magistrates’ court on receipt of an application from the police officer to hold a hearing as soon as practicable. The court may revoke a closure order and extension or order premises to remain closed for a maximum of 28 days, and revoke licenses under certain conditions. Representations may be made by licensees to the court. A new offence is created of keeping premises open in contravention of a court order which will attract a fine not exceeding £5000 and/or up to 6 months imprisonment;
• allow an appeal against the magistrates’ court to be made within 21 days;
• allow a constable to use all necessary force to close premises subject to a closure order;
• ensure that a police constable or a Chief Constable is not liable for relevant damages awarded in proceedings for judicial review unless the action or lack of action is shown to have been in bad faith or was incompatible with the Human Rights Act 1998; and
• set out the circumstances in which premises are deemed to be open by listing who may legitimately enter the premises so as to help the police determine if premises which should be closed are in fact trading illegally.

The clause also defines certain relevant words and phrases.

Clause 2 Penalty Points

Clause 2 introduces new articles to the Licensing Order in relation to a penalty points system and repeals existing provisions on the suspension of licenses.

Penalty Points will be attributed to certain offences as set out in Schedule 1 of the Bill. Where a licensee is convicted of 2 or more offences committed on the same occasion the court may restrict the points attributable to the highest number due in respect of one of the offences. The Department is also empowered to amend the penalty points attributable by affirmative resolution procedure, by the Assembly.

Provision is also made in this clause for the endorsement of penalty points on a license where the holder in convicted of an offence as set out in Schedule 1:

• Where a Level 3 fine is incurred, the court may elect to not impose penalty points. Where a Level 3 fine is incurred for the same offence within 3 years, the court must impose penalty points.
• Unless there are special reasons, where there is an offence leading to a Level 4 fine, the court must impose penalty points. Where a Level 4 fine is incurred twice within 3 years, the court must impose penalty points.
• Where a Level 5 fine is incurred, penalty points must always be imposed.

Licensees failing to submit their license for endorsement will be liable to a fine of up to £2500 and /or up to 3 months imprisonment.

A magistrates’ court may suspend a license for not less than 1 week or more than 3 months where 10 penalty points are accumulated within a 3 year period.

Clause 3 Proof of Age

Clause 3 introduces a statutory proof-of-age scheme amending the Licensing Order which deals with the prohibition of young people under 18 from certain premises and the sale and delivery of alcohol to them.

The clause allows that in court proceedings relating to underage alcohol offences, “all due diligence" may be demonstrated by the licensee or relevant member of staff being shown certain documents specified for the purpose of proof-of-age by a customer. The documents are: a passport; a photocard driving license; electoral identity card and Proof-of-Age Standards Scheme (PASS) card.

The clause requires all licensed premises to display a notice containing information on underage sales and acceptable documents as proof of age.

Clause 4 Application to Limited Liability Partnerships

Clause 4 inserts new provisions in the Licensing Order clarifying how the Order applies to limited liability partnerships. The new provisions provide that a reference to a director of a body corporate is a reference to a member of a limited liability partnership and a reference to the secretary of a body corporate is a reference to any designated member of a limited liability partnership.

Part 2 Registration of Clubs

Clause 5 Closure of Registered Clubs

Clause 5 introduces a new part to the Clubs Order containing measures relating to the closure of registered clubs. These provisions are identical to the closure provisions for licensed premises in Clause 1. The exception is where a magistrates’ court may only revoke a closure (and any extension to that order) or order a registered club to close (or remain closed) for a maximum of 28 days.

Clause 6 Penalty Points

Clause 6 amends the Clubs Order which currently provides for a system of penalty points for clubs convicted of accounting offences. The system will now encompass many more offences and mirrors the provisions in Clause 2 of the Bill for licensed premises.

Provision is also made in this clause for the endorsement of penalty points on a license where the holder is convicted of an offence as set out in Schedule 2:

• Where a Level 3 fine is incurred, the court may elect to not impose penalty points. Where a Level 3 fine is incurred for the same offence within 3 years, the court must impose penalty points.
• Unless there are special reasons, where there is an offence leading to a Level 4 fine, the court must impose penalty points. Where a Level 4 fine is incurred twice within 3 years, the court must impose penalty points.
• Where a Level 5 fine is incurred, penalty points must always be imposed.

As with licensed premises, a registered club’s registration can be suspended where the club accrues 10 or more penalty points in a 3 year period.

Clause 7 Proof of Age

Clause 7 amends the Clubs Order to introduce a statutory proof-of-age scheme. These mirror provisions set out in Clause 3 of the Bill in relation to licensed premises.

Clause 8 Accounts of Registered Clubs

Clause 8 amends the Clubs Order to pave the way for regulations and guidance which will make the accounting requirements for registered clubs more flexible.

The clause removes requirements to prescribe by regulations the manner in which clubs maintain their “system of control of accounts". It gives small and medium clubs the option to have their accounts audited by an auditor or independent examiner. The clause allows the Department to issue directions regarding the “system of control of accounts" and the selection of an independent examiner.

Clause 9 Authorisations for Special Occasions

Clause 9 amends the Clubs Order to increase the number of occasions on which registered clubs may apply to the police for later opening to 1am (midnight on Sunday) from 52 to 120 in any year. A club must give at least 7 days notice of the event and may at the discretion of the police include a number of occasions on the one application.

Part 3 General

Clause 10 Ancillary Provision

Clause 10 provides a power for the Department to make any orders necessary to give full effect to the Act.

Clause 11 Interpretation

Clause 11 provides for the Interpretation Act (NI) 1954 to apply to the Bill.

Clause 12 Minor and Consequential Amendments and Repeals

Clause 12 introduces Schedules 3 and 4 which set out the provisions to be amended or repealed.

Clause 13 Commencement

Clause 13 empowers the Department to make a commencement order naming the day or days on which the Act will come into operation.

Clause 14 Short Title

Clause 14 gives the Short Title of the Bill.

Schedule 1

Schedule 1 contains tables of offences and penalty points which are to be included in the Licensing Order as Schedule 10A.

Schedule 2

Schedule 2 contains tables of offences and penalty point offences to be included in the Clubs Order as Schedule 6.

Schedule 3

Schedule 3 contains miscellaneous amendments to the Licensing and Clubs Orders.

Schedule 4

Schedule 4 contains the related statutory provisions which are to be repealed.

The Committee wrote to key stakeholders on 2 June 2010. In June 2010 advertisements were inserted in the Belfast Telegraph, News Letter and Irish News seeking written evidence on the Bill. In addition, the Northern Ireland Council for Voluntary Action (NICVA) notified its members that the Committee was seeking written evidence on the Bill.

4. During the period covered by this Report, the Committee considered the Bill and related issues at 8 meetings – on 27 May, 30 September and 7 and 14 October 2010; 4, 9, 16 and 18 November 2010. The relevant extracts from the Minutes of Proceedings for these meetings are included at Appendix 1

5. The Committee had before it the Licensing and Registration of Clubs (Amendment) Bill (NIA 19/09); the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum and the Delegated Powers Memorandum that accompanied the Bill.

6. A total of 24 organisations responded to the request for written evidence and a copy of the submissions received by the Committee is included at Appendix 3.

7. On 30 September 2010, the Committee took oral evidence from Departmental officials on the purpose and main provisions of the Bill. The Committee also took oral evidence from the Police Service of Northern Ireland on 30 September 2010. The Committee received oral briefings from Belfast City Council; the British Retail Consortium and the Wine and Spirit Trade Association on 7 October 2010. The Committee also received oral evidence from the Northern Ireland Federation of Clubs; the Northern Ireland Sports Forum; the Ulster Gaelic Athletic Association; the Golfing Union of Ireland; the Northern Ireland Hotels Federation and Pubs of Ulster on 14 October 2010. The Minutes of Evidence are included at Appendix 2.

8. The Committee undertook its clause-by-clause scrutiny of the Bill on 9, 16 and 18 November 2010 – see Appendix 2.

Irresponsible Drinks Promotions

9. The Department proposed the introduction of amendments to the Bill relating to measures to control so-called irresponsible drinks promotions.

It is understood that the proposed measures will allow the Department to produce and modify a list of irresponsible drinks promotions – subject to affirmative resolution by the Assembly. It is further understood that subject to consultation, the irresponsible drinks promotions regulation may ban the following:

• offers targeted at under 18s;
• promotions where alcohol is provided free or at a cut price or where an unlimited supply of alcohol is offered for a fixed price or where a specific group is offered alcohol at a discount;
• promotions encouraging the purchase of a larger quantity of alcohol;
• promotions based on the strength of alcohol;
• promotions encouraging fast consumption of alcohol or where alcohol is dispensed by one person into the mouth of another; and
• promotions offering alcohol as a prize – the exception being where the alcohol is sealed for consumption off the premises.

Officials advised the Committee that the Department is also consulting with the Office of the Legislative Counsel regarding the viability and legality of banning “happy hours" and differential pricing of alcohol products.

The Committee was advised that although the Department has no plans to introduce minimum alcohol pricing or a ban on below-cost alcohol sales, officials are: developing an evidence base for the introduction of such measures; monitoring the progress of related Scottish and English legislation; and scoping out an approach which is compatible with EU trade and competition laws.

Owing to the late introduction of the proposed amendments, the Committee was unable to undertake detailed scrutiny of these proposals. Written evidence received from a small number of stakeholders is included in Appendix 5.

Extension of Committee Stage of the Bill

10. On 14 June 2010, the Assembly agreed to extend the Committee Stage of the Bill to 17 December 2010.

Consideration of the Bill

11. Following the Second Stage of the Bill, the Committee took further evidence from the Department on 30 September 2010. Departmental officials provided more details on the main provisions of the Bill and on the Department’s proposals in respect of measures to curb Irresponsible Drinks Promotions - see Appendix 2.

Evidence from the Police Service of Northern Ireland (PSNI)

12. On 30 September 2010, the Committee took oral evidence from the PSNI -see Appendix 2.

Evidence from the PSNI may be summarised as follows:

Closure provisions

While the PSNI welcomed the closure powers included in the Bill, it was suggested that the Bill be amended to include additional grounds on which a senior police officer could direct a licensed premises to close. These additional grounds were described as “imminent disorder" and “noise nuisance". The PSNI argued that the additional grounds would bring police powers in this regard into line with those in the rest of the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland.

The PSNI further argued that the absence of closure powers in relation to “imminent disorder" would require police resources to be inefficiently used in the monitoring of premises where there is a potential for disorder. It was also suggested that the absence of closure powers on these grounds would lead to the PSNI to breach its duty of care to the public.

Penalty Points

The PSNI welcomed the penalty points scheme and commented that the current level of fines are ineffective in discouraging e.g. illegal opening by licensed premises.

Proof of Age Scheme

While the PSNI welcomed the proof of age scheme, it commented that the Bill should specify that forms of identification should include a valid passport and other documents that were described as being PASS accredited.

Accounts of Registered Clubs

The PSNI welcomed the provisions which it indicated would streamline accounting practices for clubs.

Authorisations for Special Occasions

The PSNI described the proposed increase in the number of late licenses for private members’ clubs from 52 to 120 per year as “extreme". The PSNI indicated that the measure would strain police resources and that the additional late license provisions should only be brought into effect if the “imminent disorder" and “noise nuisance" closure powers were also available.

Evidence from the British Retail Consortium and the Wine and Spirit Trade Association

13. On 7 October 2010, the Committee took oral evidence in a joint session from the British Retail Consortium (BRC) and the Wine and Spirit Trade Association (WSTA) – see Appendix 2.

The BRC and the WSTA evidence may be summarised as follows:

Closure Provisions / Endorsement of Licenses

Both organisations expressed concerns in respect of how a reliable linkage could be made between an off-sales premises and disorder in a locality. It was suggested that closure provisions may be applied to an off-sales premises following general alcohol-fueled disorder in the locality which may not be actually directly linked to the off-sales premises.

Both organisations argued that the endorsement of licenses leading to a closure of even a single day may lead to significant loss of business for an off-sales premises. It was further suggested that the loss of off-sales in a supermarket may lead to the loss of other non-alcohol-related sales and that this could impact disproportionately on takings and eventually on employment.

WSTA argued that a suspension of a license for 2 instances in 3 years of underage sales is excessive given the volume of alcohol sales in certain supermarkets. WSTA advised that in England and Wales suspension only occurs if there are 2 instances of underage sales in 3 months.

Proof of Age Controls

Both organisations advised that they want to ensure that proof of age measures do not compromise the standard messages that have been communicated to young people by the Challenge 25 initiative. Challenge 25 is a retailing strategy that encourages anyone who is over 18 but looks under 25 to carry acceptable ID (a card bearing the PASS hologram, a photographic driving license or a passport) if they wish to buy alcohol. The Challenge 25 initiative was described as a mechanism for ensuring some headroom for staff above the legal age of 18 to improve problems with age recognition.

WSTA also made reference to Community Alcohol Partnerships which it indicated were developed by the Retail of Alcohol Standards Group and local partners to address underage drinking. Community Alcohol Partnerships aim to tackle the problems caused by underage access to alcohol through co-operation between alcohol retailers and local stakeholders, such as Trading Standards in England and Wales, police, local authorities, schools and health networks.

Evidence from Belfast City Council

14. On 7 October 2010, the Committee took oral evidence from Belfast City Council (BCC) – see Appendix 2.

Closure Provisions

BCC welcomed the enhanced closure provisions in the Bill but suggested that closure powers should relate to noise and other nuisance originating from a licensed premises. BCC recommended that fines for disregarding a closure order should be increased to £20,000. BCC also supported the extension of police closure powers to include the immanent risk of disorder.

BCC suggested that closure protocols be set out to allow consultation with a local community (e.g. in the holyland area of Belfast) and notification of a local authority who may have licensed entertainment in the premises.

BCC also suggested that the Bill be amended to allow courts to revoke closure orders subject to conditions being met or in the case of certain exceptions.

BCC suggested that the definition of when a premises is open should be extended beyond when premises sell alcohol or food to include when premises provide entertainment.

Penalty Points

BCC welcomed the penalty points scheme and indicated that it may be used by district councils in making a decision in respect of entertainments licenses for premises.

Proof of Age

BCC suggested that the Bill be amended to include provisions which would require patrons of all licensed premises to produce valid identification documents on entry. In the event that a patron is believed to be underage, entry would be denied if identity documentation is not produced.

Authorisations for Special Occasions

BCC opposed the increase in late licenses indicating that this may have resource implications for councils where premises opening later have an entertainments license. BCC indicated that as other current legislation permits entertainment to continue until the latest hour that alcohol is sold, councils should be advised by the PSNI of all special authorisations.

In addition to commenting on the Bill, the Health and Environmental Services Committee of Belfast City Council indicated its support for regulations to allow District Councils to designate public areas where the PSNI could have additional powers to control drinking.

Evidence from the Northern Ireland Federation of Clubs; the Ulster Gaelic Athletic Association; the Golfing Union of Ireland and the Northern Ireland Sports Forum

15. On 14 October 2010, the Committee took oral evidence in a joint session from the Northern Ireland Federation of Clubs; the Ulster Gaelic Athletic Association; the Golfing Union of Ireland and the Northern Ireland Sports Forum – see Appendix 2.

The key points of the oral evidence submissions from these organisations may be summarised as follows:

Penalty Points

The organisations representing clubs argued that the Penalty Points system as proposed is unduly harsh for registered clubs. It was suggested that so-called trivial breaches such as failing to keep certain records can lead to substantial fines for club officers (who are often unpaid volunteers) and mandatory closure periods. It was proposed that the Bill be amended such that: an appeals process for clubs would be introduced; certain so-called trivial offences would be removed from the schedules as currently drafted; the courts would be given a greater degree of discretion in respect of offences relating to record-keeping and the length of time for an automatic suspension of a club’s licence (following 2 transgressions in 3 years) to be reduced. The organisations representing clubs indicated that a different penalty points regime was to be applied to hotels and pubs and that this was unfair.

Proof of Age

Organisations representing clubs argued that the Bill should be amended to allow an extension of the hours when minors (who may be participating in sporting events) are allowed to be on club licensed premises. The current restriction is to 9:00pm – an extension to 10:00pm for all clubs and 11:00pm for sporting clubs was sought.

Accounts of Registered Clubs

The Northern Ireland Federation of Clubs indicated that financial regulation has had onerous and far-reaching consequences for clubs. Since regulations came into force on 1st September 1997, it was argued that clubs have had to recruit persons into finance and administrative functions to comply with the statutory requirements for systems and controls. It was suggested that this has resulted in additional administrative and professional costs to the registered club sector. It was argued that the provisions embodied in regulations could be interpreted as discriminatory as no other corporate entity or business in Northern Ireland is subject to similar wide-ranging statutory constraints.

The Northern Ireland Federation of Clubs suggested that registered clubs with income levels falling below £100k pa could be classified as Small Registered Clubs and should be entitled to claim exemption from audit.

Authorisations for Special Occasions (Late Licenses)

The organisations representing clubs indicated that they had requested an increase in the number of late licenses from 52 to 156 per annum. They argued that this request is reasonable and furthermore was both economically necessary and desirable. It was suggested that the choice of an increase to 120 late licenses appeared entirely arbitrary.

The organisations representing clubs argued that evening functions are their main way of raising funds and any limits imposed on the number of functions would be an unfair limit on the fund-raising ability of the club which could threaten the viability of clubs and undermine their contribution to their local communities.

Other

The NI Federation of Clubs made reference to a number of other possible amendments to the Bill including:

• officials of clubs to be barred from office if they have unspent convictions for sex offences or fraud;
• 4 weeks to be allowed for club officials to provide information to a court in connection with the registration of the club;
• disqualification by a court to apply to the club and not the premises;
• the level of fine for opening a bar outside designated hours to be reduced below level 5;
• general bar opening hours to be established at 9:00am to 1:00am;
• person’s at the upper limit of compulsory school age to be permitted to work in all types of club;
• clubs to be permitted to place notices in the press advertising events;
• notification of rule changes to be made within 1 month and not 14 days;
• constables to be unable to call at will to inspect clubs to ensure compliance with the Clubs Order;
• PSNI; military, naval or air force clubs should not be exempt from the Clubs Order; and
• children’s certificates to be abolished.

Evidence from the Northern Ireland Hotels Federation and Pubs of Ulster

16. On 14 October 2010, the Committee took oral evidence from the Northern Ireland Hotels Federation and Pubs of Ulster in a joint session – see Appendix 2.

The key points of the submissions from these organisations is summarised below.

Both organisations strongly opposed the increase in the number of late licenses for registered clubs. It was argued that clubs and the licensed trade do not have the same cost bases and that this is to the benefit of registered clubs. It was also argued that giving clubs additional late nights will have an adverse impact on the communities in which they operate and will require additional police resources.

It was also suggested that clubs by virtue of their location typically pay a very low level of rates, which do not take account of any social impact of their activities. As pub rates are based on their turnover, it was reported that pubs pay on average 30% higher rates than any other commercial property in the same location. It was argued that this means that pubs pay a substantial social levy within their rates. Pubs of Ulster pointed out that pubs are the only licensed retailers who pay this social levy, despite the fact that pubs only sell around 23% of the alcohol in Northern Ireland. The NI Hotels Federation also pointed out that hotels pay £7.6m of rates and their cost structure reflected that they provided a 24 hour 7 day per week service which favourably affected the tourism industry.

Pubs of Ulster suggested that there were a growing number of clubs that flout the existing regulations, ignoring access restrictions and using loopholes in legislation to run public functions and events which have no connection with the club and that are of no obvious social benefit to club members other than the commercial value of the function. These actions, it was suggested although illegal were often seen as victimless crimes, going unchecked owing to limited police resources and competing priorities.

Pubs of Ulster argued that the majority of clubs do not use the existing 52 late licenses per year and that an additional 68 will only be used by those clubs who are already flouting the regulations and operating outside the law. It was suggested that increasing the number of late licenses for clubs would introduce a level of unnecessary and unfair competition between pubs and clubs, placing additional pressure on the pub trade which it was reported is already struggling for survival.

Pubs of Ulster argued that the proposed increase in the number of occasions on which registered clubs may apply for late licenses be revised downward, until such times as robust measures which clearly regulate the appropriate use of club facilities for licensed events or functions are introduced.

Pubs of Ulster and the Northern Ireland Hotels Federation also commented that the following be considered prior to any further change in legislation:

• the issue of membership of clubs in relation to the holding of functions and usage of facilities for licensed events;
• the type of events being run by clubs which require a late licence;
• the level of events of a social and ticketed nature which are being run by clubs and which are open to the public; and
• the rationale behind the level of late licences being increased from 52 to 120 per year.

Both organisations expressed support for the penalty points scheme and the proof of age scheme.

Further Departmental Evidence

17. On 9 November 2010, the Committee noted evidence from the Department on the guidance issued to the police in England and Wales in respect of closure powers relating to licensed premises.

Irresponsible Drinks Promotions – written evidence from stakeholders

18. On 16 November 2010, the Committee noted the initial responses from a small number of stakeholders in respect of the Department’s proposals relating to curbing irresponsible drinks promotions. All relevant submissions are included at Appendix 5.

WSTA / BRC

The WSTA and BRC in a joint submission based on initial feedback from their members commented on the off-sales aspects of the proposals. They argued that there is no evidence that multi-buy purchases from supermarkets are linked to alcohol misuse. They advised that overall alcohol sales are in decline and that the proposals would limit competition by eliminating product differentiation. It was also suggested that the linear pricing proposals would disproportionately and unfairly affect wine consumption.

PSNI

The PSNI expressed its support for the proposals highlighting the difficulty currently experienced in providing corroborating evidence to effect convictions under the excisting legislation. The PSNI also pointed out concerns relating to the resources required to enforce the proposed bans – the PSNI suggested that enforcement should extend to the advertising of such promotions so as to limit the need for actual PSNI intervention. The PSNI also set out suggestions in respect of the design of legislation so as to limit the need for unnecessary supporting evidence and avoid abuse or evasion of the legislation by unscrupulous retailers.

Public Health Agency

The Public Health Agency indicated its support for the proposals but highlighted the importance of minimum alcohol pricing as a more effective way of controlling binge and under-age drinking.

Queen’s University of Belfast (QUB)

QUB indicated its support for the proposals but also particularly highlighted the impact of off-sales on the “pre-drinking culture". QUB made reference to increased seizure powers; fixed penalty notices for public drinking and Alcohol Disorder Zones.

The Committee also noted an initial response from the Pubs of Ulster.

Clause-by-Clause Scrutiny of the Bill

19. The Committee reviewed the clauses of the Licensing and Registration of Clubs (Amendment) Bill on 9 November 2010 and undertook its formal clause-by-clause scrutiny of the Bill on 16 and 18 November 2010. Related Departmental submissions are included at Appendix 4.

Part 1: Licensing

Clause 1 – Closure of Licensed Premises

20. The Committee considered a wide range of proposed amendments to the clause including changes to the fines and other sanctions associated with disorder that leads to the closure of a licensed premises. The Committee agreed that the fines and sanctions regime in Northern Ireland – including a Level 5 fine and up to 6 month’s imprisonment for disorder leading to a closure - were a sufficient deterrent for licensees and therefore did not require amendment.

The Committee also noted suggestions that the police should be obliged to consult with district councils and local communities in respect of closure orders. The Committee felt that given district councils’ role in providing entertainments licenses to premises serving alcohol, consultation where practicable with these organisations was appropriate. The Committee therefore accepted Departmental assurances that guidance to the PSNI would (like the equivalent guidance in England and Wales) advise the police to consult with district councils where possible in respect of closure orders and so as to inform the review of entertainments licenses.

The Committee noted proposals that the clause be amended so as to alter the definition of when a premises is open to include the provision of entertainment. It was suggested that such a change might lead to better regulation of so-called nightclubs. The Committee accepted Departmental assurances that the guidance to the PSNI will address this issue and therefore agreed that it would not support the relevant amendment to the clause.

The Committee rejected suggestions that the provisions of the clause should apply solely to the on-licensed sector. Members agreed that alcohol-fueled disorder can be linked to off-license sales and that these provisions should therefore apply equally to the whole alcohol retail sector.

The Committee considered suggestions that the clause be amended to include immanent disorder and noise nuisance as additional grounds under which the police could apply a closure order. The Committee noted evidence which suggested that such powers were rarely used in England and Wales. The Committee therefore agreed that the inclusion of these additional powers in the clause were unnecessary and would not appropriately balance the commercial needs of the licensed trade with the PSNI’s duty of care to the public.

The Committee considered the provisions within the clause which permit senior police officers to make closure orders in relation to identified licensed premises in the event of actual disorder at or near the premises.

The Committee noted guidance issued to the police in England and Wales on closure orders. The England and Wales guidance requires the police to apply to the courts for a closure order where there is intelligence relating to expected disorder. The guidance also requires the police to act in co-operation with the owners of premises and to take account of prompt and appropriate actions by premises owners to limit or avoid disorder. The Committee also noted the requirement for police to establish a causal link between disorder near a premises and the premises in question and the obligation that police only apply closure orders where it is in the interests of public safety. The Department advised that the Department of Justice guidance to the PSNI on the closure of licensed premises will largely replicate the equivalent guidance in England and Wales.

Some Members highlighted concerns in respect of the extension to senior police officers of the discretion to apply closure powers to licensed premises. The Committee noted a Departmental assurance that the guidance on closure powers to the PSNI will be subject to review by the Committee for Justice and that this assurance will be confirmed by the Minister for Social Development during the Consideration Stage of the Bill.

Nonetheless and as a consensus could not be reached on this final issue, the Committee divided and agreed that it was content with Clause 1 as drafted.

Clause 2 – Penalty Points

21. The Committee considered a number of suggested amendments to the Bill in respect of the penalty points scheme. The Committee rejected suggestions that the penalty points scheme should apply solely to the on-licensed trade. Members agreed that offences such as underage sales were of great concern, had wide-ranging social ramifications and were the responsibility of all parts of the alcohol retail sector.

The Committee agreed that the level of points associated with offences did not require amendment nor should the “shelf life" associated with penalty points be reduced from 3 years to 3 months as suggested by some stakeholders. In respect of the latter issue, Members strongly felt that retailers had sufficient opportunity to demonstrate due diligence to the courts and that the penalty points system sent an appropriate message to the licensed sector in respect of the seriousness of offences such as underage sales.

The Committee also agreed that the courts did not require additional discretion in respect of the application of penalty points and that the scheme offered the real prospect of persistent offenders having their licenses suspended.

The Committee therefore agreed that it was content with Clause 2 as drafted.

Clause 3 – Proof of Age

22. The Committee considered a wide range of suggested amendments to the Bill in respect of the proof of age scheme. The Committee rejected suggestions in respect of an extension of the scheme which would require all patrons of licensed premises to produce identification if requested on entry. It was suggested that such a scheme would be impractical not the least as it would require all licensed premises to employ door staff at all times.

The Committee noted the Challenge 25 initiative which is promoted by some alcohol retailers. Members felt that this non-statutory initiative complements the statutory proof of age scheme and helps to tackle the problem of underage sales.

The Committee also noted evidence from the PSNI in respect of the reported use of invalid passports as a means of establishing proof of age. The Department advised that the acceptance by a licensed premises of an invalid passport would not be viewed by the courts as a demonstration of due diligence by the licensee. The Department provided assurances to the Committee that guidance to the licensed trade would clearly set this out.

The Committee therefore agreed that it was content with Clause 3 as drafted.

Clause 4 – Application to Limited Liability Partnerships

23. The Committee agreed that it was content with Clause 4 as drafted.

Part 2: Registration of Clubs

Clause 5 – Closure of Registered Clubs

24. Members noted evidence from the PSNI which suggested that alcohol-fuelled disorder, which might require a closure order, is rarely associated with registered clubs.

As with Clause 1, some Members highlighted concerns in respect of the extension to senior police officers of the discretion to apply closure powers to licensed premises operated by registered clubs. The Committee noted a Departmental assurance that the guidance on closure powers to the PSNI will be subject to review by the Committee for Justice and that this assurance will be confirmed by the Minister for Social Development during the Consideration Stage of the Bill.

Nonetheless and as a consensus could not be reached on this issue, the Committee divided and agreed that it was content with Clause 5 as drafted.

Clause 6 – Penalty Points

25. The Committee considered a number of suggested amendments to the Bill in respect of the penalty points scheme for registered clubs. As with Clause 2, the Committee rejected suggestions that the level of points associated with offences required amendment or that the “shelf life" associated with penalty points should be reduced from 3 years to 3 months. The Committee also agreed that the courts did not require additional discretion in respect of the application of penalty points to clubs as there was felt to be sufficient opportunity for registered clubs to show due diligence.

Some Members highlighted concerns in respect of the application of penalty points to registered clubs whose officers are frequently volunteers and who, it was argued, would be sanctioned unfairly and for what were felt to be minor offences. Members noted evidence from the Department which suggested that the number of prosecutions associated with registered clubs in respect of the existing penalty points scheme was small.

As a consensus could not be reached, the Committee divided on this issue and agreed that it was content with Clause 6 as drafted.

Clause 7 – Proof of Age

26. As with Clause 2, the Committee considered suggested amendments to the Bill in respect of the proof of age scheme. The Committee rejected suggestions of an extension of the scheme which would require all patrons of licensed premises in registered clubs to produce identification if requested on entry. The Department advised that as entry to registered clubs is already restricted to members and guests, controls on underage patrons should be more easily applied and that the proposed amendments were therefore unnecessary.

The Committee considered suggestions on the relaxation of controls on the presence of under-age patrons in registered clubs or sporting clubs. Members did not support changes which would allow patrons under the age of 18 to be ordinarily present in licensed premises associated with a registered club after 9:00pm. Members also did not support changes to so-called children’s certificates – which allow children to be present in licensed premises associated with a club until 10:00pm during a private function.

The Committee agreed that it was content with Clause 7 as drafted.

Clause 8 – Accounts of Registered Clubs

27. Members noted evidence from the PSNI which endorsed the aspects of the Bill which streamline the regulation of registered clubs and include the option for small and medium-sized clubs to have their accounts audited by an auditor or independent examiner.

The Committee considered suggested amendments to the Bill in respect of account-keeping by registered clubs. The Department argued that the proposed amendments for a reduction in the regulation of clubs were broadly in-line with the provisions of the Bill as drafted.

The Committee agreed that it was content with Clause 8 as drafted.

Clause 9 – Authorisations for Special Occasions

28. The Committee considered at length the provisions within the Bill associated with late licenses for registered clubs.

Members rejected suggestions that authorisation for late licenses for registered clubs should be subject to public consultation but accepted the Department’s assurance that guidance to the PSNI would require notification of district councils by the PSNI of applications for late licences.

The Committee noted with interest evidence from registered clubs which suggested that additional late licenses were essential for the survival of clubs which have a positive impact on their communities and undertake extensive charity fund-raising activities.

The Committee also noted the concerns of the on-licensed and hotel trade which suggested that additional late opening by registered clubs would have a significantly adverse economic impact on pubs and hotels.

In the absence of detailed justifications or outcome analyses, the Committee rejected a number of suggestions relating to significant changes to the licensing hours for clubs. Similarly, the Committee also did not agree to amend the Bill so as to extend licensing hours for sporting clubs.

The Committee was surprised to learn of the apparent disregard of aspects of the legislation which applies to licensed premises associated with registered clubs. Some Members expressed the view that the practices of certain registered clubs in this regard may be viewed as leading to direct and unfair competition with pubs and hotels. The Committee agreed to seek assurances from the Minister at Consideration Stage that he would make appropriate representations to ensure that there would be enforcement of controls: on clubs’ licensed hours and the promotion of functions by clubs for patrons who are not club members.

A significant minority of Members indicated that they supported the clause as drafted. As a consensus could not be reached, the Committee divided on the proposal that the Bill be amended so as to reduce the maximum number of late licenses for registered clubs to 75 rather than 120 per year. The Committee did not support this proposal. The Committee divided again, this time on the proposal that the Bill be amended to reduce the maximum number of late licenses for registered clubs to 104 rather than 120 per year. The Committee supported this proposal.

The Committee agreed that it was content with Clause 9 as amended.

Part 3 General

Clause 10 – Ancillary Provision

29. The Committee supported a proposed amendment suggested by the Examiner of Statutory Rules to alter the Assembly procedure, associated with provisions which the Department may bring forward to give effect to the Bill, from negative to draft affirmative resolution.

The Committee noted and agreed the wording of the amendment as proposed by the Department:

Replace clause 10 with –

“Ancillary provision

10. - (1) The Department may by order make such incidental, supplementary, consequential, transitory, transitional or saving provisions as it considers necessary or expedient for the purposes of, in consequence of or for giving full effect to this Act or any provision of it, or in connection with the coming into operation of any provision of this Act.

(2) An order under this section may amend, repeal or modify any statutory provision (including this Act).

(3) The power conferred by this section is not restricted by any other provision of this Act.

(4) An order shall not be made under this section unless a draft of the order has been laid before, and approved by resolution of, the Assembly."

The Committee agreed that it was content with Clause 10 as amended.

Clause 11 – Interpretation

30. The Committee agreed that it was content with Clause 11 as drafted.

Clause 12 – Minor and consequential amendments and repeals

31. The Committee agreed that it was content with Clause 12 as drafted.

Clause 13 – Commencement

32. The Committee agreed that it was content with Clause 13 as drafted.

Clause 14 – Short title

33. The Committee agreed that it was content with Clause 14 as drafted.

Schedule 1 - Schedule to be inserted in Licensing Order as Schedule 10A

34. The Committee agreed that it was content with Schedule 1 as drafted.

Schedule 2 - Schedule to be substituted in Registration of Clubs Order for Schedule 6

35. The Committee agreed that it was content with Schedule 2 as drafted.

Schedule 3 - Amendments

36. The Committee agreed that it was content with Schedule 3 as drafted.

Schedule 4 - Repeals

37. The Committee agreed that it was content with Schedule 4 as drafted.

Irresponsible Drinks Promotions

38. The Committee noted initial evidence from stakeholders, some of which generally supported the Department’s proposals to curb so-called irresponsible drinks promotions.

The Committee agreed that although it supported in principle the Department’s proposed measures to curb irresponsible drinks promotions, it would not comment at length on them owing to the absence of detailed feedback from key stakeholders and the limited time available for consideration. The Committee further agreed that following Departmental briefings on the results of the consultation on the proposed measures, the Chairperson may reflect a more detailed Committee view on the measures at Consideration Stage.

Additional Amendments

39. The Committee considered a number of other suggested amendments to the Bill.

The Committee noted the Department’s intention to study the issue of minimum alcohol pricing and the outworking of possible legislation in other jurisdictions. The Committee therefore agreed that it would not seek to bring forward amendments related to this issue.

The Committee noted concerns raised in a number of submissions relating to the public consumption of alcohol and disorder. The Committee agreed that the control of alcohol consumption in public places was not within the scope of the Bill and therefore agreed that it would not seek to bring forward amendments related to this issue.

The Committee was interested to learn of proposals to establish an Alcohol Partnership in a district council area in Northern Ireland. The Committee accepted the Department’s advice that such partnerships were non-statutory and were outside the scope of the Bill.

The Committee noted a large number of miscellaneous proposals relating to the regulation of registered clubs. The Committee felt that in the absence of a cogent justification for the proposed changes or information on the possible outworkings of such changes, it would not support related amendments to the Bill.

Delegated Powers

40. The Committee considered the delegated powers associated with the Bill and noted the findings of the Examiner of Statutory Rules.

As indicated above, the Committee agreed that Clause 10 should be amended in line with the recommendations of the Examiner of Statutory Rules. Otherwise, the Committee was content with the delegated powers as set out in the Bill.

Long Title

41. The Committee agreed that it was content with the Long Title of the Licensing and Registration of Clubs (Amendment) Bill.

Report on the Licensing and Registration of Clubs (Amendment) Bill

42. At its meeting of 9 December 2010, the Committee agreed its report on the Bill and agreed that it should be printed.

Appendix 1

Minutes of Proceedings

Content list

Thursday 27th May 2010

Thursday 30th September 2010

Thursday 7th October 2010

Thursday 14th October 2010

Thursday 4th November 2010

Tuesday 9th November 2010

Tuesday 16th November 2010

Thursday 18th November 2010

Thursday 9th December 2010

Thursday 27 May 2010
Centenary Room 6, Slieve Donard Hotel, Newcastle

Present: Mr Simon Hamilton MLA (Chairperson)
Mr Mickey Brady MLA
Mr Jonathan Craig MLA
Mr David Hilditch MLA
Mr Fra McCann MLA

In Attendance: Mr Peter McCallion (Assembly Clerk)
Mrs Clarita Frazer (Assistant Assembly Clerk)
Mr Stewart Kennedy (Clerical Supervisor)
Ms Allison Ferguson (Clerical Officer)

Apologies: Mr Billy Armstrong MLA
Mrs Mary Bradley MLA
Mr Alex Easton MLA
Mr Tommy Gallagher MLA
Ms Anna Lo MLA
Ms Carál Ní Chuilín MLA

16.30pm The meeting began in public session.

7. Licensing and Registration of Clubs (Amendment) Bill - Departmental Briefing

4.43pm The following officials joined the meeting:

Mr Henry Johnston Director, Urban Regeneration Strategy, DSD;

Mr Liam Quinn Social Policy Unit; DSD; and

Mr Tom Bowler Social Policy, DSD.

Mr David Hilditch declared an interest as a member of the Carrick Amateur Social Club and Mr Fra McCann declared an interest as a member of the Irish National Foresters Club.

The officials provided a briefing on the Licensing and Registration of Clubs (Amendment) Bill. This was followed by a question and answer session.

The Chairperson thanked the officials for the briefing.

5.43pm The officials left the meeting.

[EXTRACT]

Thursday, 30 September 2010
Room 29, Parliament Buildings

Present: Mr Simon Hamilton MLA (Chairperson)
Mr Sydney Anderson MLA
Mr Billy Armstrong MLA
Mrs Mary Bradley MLA
Mr Mickey Brady MLA
Mr Jonathan Craig MLA
Mr Alex Easton MLA
Ms Anna Lo MLA
Mr Fra McCann MLA
Ms Carál Ní Chuilín MLA

In Attendance: Mr Peter McCallion (Assembly Clerk)
Mrs Clairita Frazer (Assistant Assembly Clerk)
Mr Stewart Kennedy (Clerical Supervisor)
Ms Allison Ferguson (Clerical Officer)

Apologies: Mr Tommy Gallagher MLA

10.04am The meeting commenced in public session.

Mr Hamilton declared an interest as a member of Comber Recreational Football Club.

Mr McCann declared an interest as a member of the Irish National Foresters Club and Cumann na Meirlach.

6. Licensing and Registration of Clubs (Amendment) Bill – Departmental evidence session

Mr McCann declared an interest as a member of Belfast City Council.

11.10am The following Departmental officials joined the meeting:

• Liam Quinn – Social Policy Unit, Department for Social Development;
• Tom Bowler – Social Policy Unit, Department for Social Development; and
• Caroline Hobson – Social Policy Unit, Department for Social Development.

The officials briefed the Committee on the Licensing and Registration of Clubs (Amendment) Bill.

The Departmental officials remained at table to brief the Members on Irresponsible Drinks Promotions, the next item of business.

The Committee agreed that Agenda Item 9 (Irresponsible Drinks Promotions) would be considered next.

7. Irresponsible Drinks Promotions – Departmental evidence session

The officials briefed the Committee on proposed measures to curb Irresponsible Drinks Promotions.

The Committee noted recent correspondence from the Royal College of Psychiatrists in Northern Ireland.

12.23pm The officials left the meeting.

Agreed: The Committee agreed that the Clerk should write to: the Committee for Health, Social Services and Public Safety; the Committee for Justice and all stakeholders who had responded to the Call for Evidence for the Licensing and Registration of Clubs (Amendment) Bill seeking their views in respect of the proposals relating to the curbing of Irresponsible Drinks Promotions.

Agreed: The Committee further agreed that the Clerk should write to the Committee for Health, Social Services and Public Safety seeking its views on the Licensing and Registration of Clubs (Amendment) Bill.

The Committee agreed that Agenda Item 10 (Licensing and Registration of Clubs (Amendment) Bill- Evidence session by the PSNI) would be considered next.

8. Licensing and Registration of Clubs (Amendment) Bill – Police Service of Northern Ireland evidence session

12.24pm The following representatives of the Police Service of Northern Ireland joined the meeting to brief Members on the Licensing and Registration of Clubs (Amendment) Bill:

• Superintendent Chris Noble, Operations Manager, B District (South & East Belfast);
• Mr John Conner, Head of Social Policy Unit, Strategic Partnerships, Criminal Justice Department; and
• Inspector Gary Atkinson, Social Policy Unit, Strategic Partnerships, Criminal Justice Department.

The Committee noted Ministerial correspondence showing the uptake of late licenses by registered clubs in certain PSNI districts.

1pm The representatives left the meeting.

Agreed: The Committee agreed to forward the proposals for curbing irresponsible drinks promotions to the Police Service of Northern Ireland requesting a formal written comment.

The Committee agreed that Agenda Item 6 (21st Century Welfare) would be considered next.

[EXTRACT]

Thursday, 7 October 2010
Room 29, Parliament Buildings

Present: Mr Simon Hamilton MLA (Chairperson)
Mrs Mary Bradley MLA
Mr Mickey Brady MLA
Mr Jonathan Craig MLA
Mr Alex Easton MLA
Ms Anna Lo MLA
Mr Fra McCann MLA

In Attendance: Mr Peter McCallion (Assembly Clerk)
Mrs Clairita Frazer (Assistant Assembly Clerk)
Mr Stewart Kennedy (Clerical Supervisor)
Ms Allison Ferguson (Clerical Officer)

Apologies: Mr Sydney Anderson MLA
Mr Billy Armstrong MLA
Mr Tommy Gallagher MLA
Ms Carál Ní Chuilín MLA

10.04am The meeting commenced in closed session.

5. Licensing and Registration of Clubs (Amendment) Bill – evidence session with the British Retail Consortium and the Wine and Spirit Trade Association

The following representatives of the British Retail Consortium and the Wine and Spirit Trade Association joined the meeting at 11am to brief Members on the Licensing and Registration of Clubs (Amendment) Bill:

• Jeremy Beadles, Chief Executive, Wine and Spirit Trade Association; and
• Andrew Opie, Food Policy Director, British Retail Consortium.

11.16am Mr McCann left the meeting.

11.47am Mr Eason left the meeting.

11.47am The representatives left the meeting.

Agreed: The Committee agreed that the Clerk should seek written comments from the Wine and Spirit Trade Association and the British Retail Consortium on: the Department for Social Development’s proposals to control irresponsible drink promotions; the Scottish Government’s proposals for minimum alcohol pricing and the number of GB licensed premises which have undergone mandatory closures as a consequence of underage alcohol sales.

6. Licensing and Registration of Clubs (Amendment) Bill – evidence session with Belfast City Council

11.48am The following representatives of Belfast City Council joined the meeting to brief Members on the Licensing and Registration of Clubs (Amendment) Bill:

• Stephen J Hewitt, Building Control Manager, Building Control Service, Belfast City Council; and
• Siobhan Toland, Head of Environmental Health, Belfast City Council.

11.52am Mr Eason rejoined the meeting.

Agreed: The Committee agreed that the Clerk should seek written comments from Belfast City Council on the Department for Social Development’s proposals to control irresponsible drinks promotions.

Agreed: The Committee also agreed that the Clerk should write to NILGA seeking its views on existing and appropriate closure powers for licensed premises where there are noise issues which may not be classified as actual disorder.

12.19pm The representatives left the meeting.

Agreed: The Committee agreed that the Clerk should write to the Department seeking information on:

• existing closure powers relating to actual or immanent disorder in the vicinity of licensed premises;
• existing fines and closure powers relating to proxy purchases;
• existing fines and closure powers relating to sales of alcohol to intoxicated persons;
• the Department’s involvement with Community Alcohol Partnerships in Northern Ireland generally and in Derry City, County Londonderry in particular; and
• the effectiveness of bottle-marking schemes in Great Britain.

Agreed: The Committee agreed that the Clerk should write to the Department seeking clarification in respect of the distinction between noise issues associated with patron dispersal from licensed premises and actual disorder associated with a premises. The Committee further agreed that the Clerk should seek clarification from the Department as to whether the Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Bill will include measures to control noise issues associated with patron dispersal from licensed premises.

[EXTRACT]

Thursday, 14 October 2010
Room 29, Parliament Buildings

Present: Mr Simon Hamilton MLA (Chairperson)
Mr Sydney Anderson MLA
Mr Billy Armstrong MLA
Mrs Mary Bradley MLA
Mr Mickey Brady MLA
Mr Jonathan Craig MLA
Mr Alex Easton MLA
Ms Anna Lo MLA
Mr Fra McCann MLA

In Attendance: Mr Peter McCallion (Assembly Clerk)
Mrs Clairita Frazer (Assistant Assembly Clerk)
Mr Stewart Kennedy (Clerical Supervisor)
Ms Allison Ferguson (Clerical Officer)
Mr Jonathan McMillen (Legal Advisor) (for agenda items 1-6 only)
Ms Patricia Casey (Bill Clerk) (for agenda items 1-6 only)

Apologies: Mr Tommy Gallagher MLA
Ms Carál Ní Chuilín MLA

9.40am The meeting commenced in closed session.

Mr Hamilton declared an interest as a member of Comber Recreational Football Club.

Mr McCann declared an interest as a member of the Irish National Foresters Club and Cumann na Meirlach.

Mr Anderson declared an interest as a member of Craigavon Borough Council.

7. Licensing and Registration of Clubs (Amendment) Bill – evidence session with the Northern Ireland Federation of Clubs, Northern Ireland Sports Forum, Ulster Gaelic Athletic Association and Golfing Union of Ireland.

The following representatives of the Northern Ireland Federation of Clubs, Northern Ireland Sports Forum, Ulster Gaelic Athletic Association and Golfing Union of Ireland joined the meeting at 11.06am to brief Members on the Licensing and Registration of Clubs (Amendment) Bill:

• John Davidson, Chairman, Northern Ireland Federation of Clubs;
• Katie Nixon, Executive Manager, Northern Ireland Sports Forum;
• Danny Murphy, General Secretary, Ulster Gaelic Athletic Association; and
• Kevin Stevens, Secretary, Golfing Union of Ireland.

11.27am Mr Brady left the meeting.

11.29am Mr Armstrong left the meeting.

11.54am The representatives left the meeting.

Agreed: The Committee agreed to forward the submissions from the Northern Ireland Federation of Clubs, Northern Ireland Sports Forum, Ulster Gaelic Athletic Association and Golfing Union of Ireland to the Committee for Culture, Arts and Leisure for information.

8. Licensing and Registration of Clubs (Amendment) Bill – evidence session with Northern Ireland Hotels Federation and Pubs of Ulster.

11.55am The following representatives of Northern Ireland Federation of Hotels and Pubs of Ulster joined the meeting to brief Members on the Licensing and Registration of Clubs (Amendment) Bill:

• Janice Gault, Chief Executive, Northern Ireland Hotels Federation;
• Eugene McKeever, President, Northern Ireland Hotels Federation;
• Colin Neill, Chief Executive, Pubs of Ulster; and
• Eugene Cassidy, Member, Pubs of Ulster.

12.17pm Mr Armstrong rejoined the meeting.

12.34pm Mrs Bradley left the meeting.

12.38pm Mr Craig left the meeting.

Agreed: The Committee agreed that the Clerk should seek information from the Department on:

• the advertising ban relating to events organised by registered clubs;
• the late licensing rules for so-called nightclubs; and
• restrictions on alcohol advertising generally.

12.47pm The representatives left the meeting.

[EXTRACT]

Thursday, 4 November 2010
Room 29, Parliament Buildings

Present: Mr Simon Hamilton MLA (Chairperson)
Mr Sydney Anderson MLA
Mrs Mary Bradley MLA
Mr Mickey Brady MLA
Mr Jonathan Craig MLA
Mr Alex Easton MLA
Mr Tommy Gallagher MLA
Ms Anna Lo MLA
Ms Carál Ní Chuilín MLA
Mr John McCallister MLA
Mr Fra McCann MLA

In Attendance: Mr Peter McCallion (Assembly Clerk)
Mrs Clairita Frazer (Assistant Assembly Clerk)
Mr Stewart Kennedy (Clerical Supervisor)
Ms Allison Ferguson (Clerical Officer)
Ms Patricia Casey (Bill Clerk) Agenda Items 1 – 4 only

Apologies: None

9.35am The meeting began in private session.

Licensing and Registration of Clubs (Amendment) Bill – Informal Review of Clauses and Proposed Amendments

The Committee noted recent correspondence from the Department relating to the Licensing and Registration of Clubs (Amendment) Bill.

10.41am The following Departmental officials joined the meeting:

Liam Quinn – Head of Social Policy Unit, DSD; and

Tom Bowler - Social Policy Unit, DSD.

10.48am Mr McCann declared interests as a member of the Irish National Foresters Club, Cumann na Meirlach and Belfast City Council.

Clause 1: Closure of Licensed Premises

The Committee considered proposed amendments relating to: increased fines associated with closure orders; enhanced closure powers in connection with immanent disorder and noise issues; a requirement for the PSNI to consult with district councils and the local community in respect of closure orders and changes to the definition of when a premises is open.

10.49am Mr McCallister rejoined the meeting.

10.51am Ms Ní Chuilín rejoined the meeting.

10.52am Mr Easton left the meeting.

10.57am Mr Anderson declared an interest as a member of Craigavon Borough Council.

Clause 2: Penalty Points

The Committee considered proposed amendments in relation to: increased discretion for the courts in the endorsement of licenses with penalty points; changes to the level of points for under-age sales; a shorter “shelf life" for penalty points relating to underage sales and a restriction on the application of points to different segments of the alcohol retailing industry.

Clause 3: Proof-of-Age

The Committee considered amendments in relation to: the types of proof-of-age identification that could be required; the extension of the proof-of-age scheme to include enhanced restrictions on entry to licensed premises and changes to the proof-of-age protocols in-line with the Challenge 25 scheme.

11.44am Ms Lo left the meeting.

Clause 4: Application to limited liability partnerships

The Committee considered the provisions which apply to licensed premises and which clarify how the licensing Order applies to limited liability partnerships.

Clauses 5, 6 and 7

The Committee noted that the issues relating to Clauses 5,6 and 7 where largely the same as those which apply to Clauses 1,2 and 3.

Clause 8: Accounts of Registered Clubs

The Committee considered amendments which would further reduce the regulatory obligations of registered clubs.

Clause 9: Authorisations for special occasions

The Committee considered amendments relating to: a requirement for the PSNI to advise local councils in respect of late licenses; increases and decreases to the number of late licenses granted to clubs in a year; additional protections for those living in close proximity to clubs; an extension to the opening hours for sports clubs and more stringent controls in respect of the use of clubs’ licensed premises by non-members.

Other Amendments

The Committee also considered proposed amendments in relation to: curbing irresponsible drinks promotions; minimum alcohol pricing, public drinking control measures; rate relief for social clubs connected to amateur sporting clubs and other wide-ranging changes to the regulations of clubs.

Agreed: The Committee agreed that it had concerns in relation to the reported adherence by clubs to opening hours restrictions. The Committee further agreed that it would urge the Minister to give assurances during Consideration Stage of the Bill in respect of the enforcement of these restrictions.

12.08pm The Departmental officials left the meeting.

[EXTRACT]

Tuesday, 9 November 2010
Senate Chamber, Parliament Buildings

Present: Mr Simon Hamilton MLA (Chairperson)
Mr Sydney Anderson MLA
Mrs Mary Bradley MLA
Mr Mickey Brady MLA
Mr Jonathan Craig MLA
Mr Alex Easton MLA
Ms Anna Lo MLA
Mr John McCallister MLA
Mr Fra McCann MLA

In Attendance: Mr Peter McCallion (Assembly Clerk)
Mr Trevor Allen (Assistant Assembly Clerk)
Mr Stewart Kennedy (Clerical Supervisor)
Ms Allison Ferguson (Clerical Officer)
Apologies: None

2.02pm The meeting began in open session.

Licensing and Registration of Clubs (Amendment) Bill – Clause-by-Clause Scrutiny

2.02pm Mr Tom Bowler of the Department for Social Development’s Social Policy Unit joined the meeting to address questions in relation to the Licensing and Registration of Clubs (Amendment) Bill.

2.04pm Mr McCann declared an interest as a member of the Irish National Foresters Club and Cumann na Meirlach.

2.04pm Mr Anderson, Mrs Bradley, Mr Craig, Mr Easton, Mr Hamilton and Mr McCann declared an interest as councillors.

The Clerk briefed the Committee on guidance to police in England and Wales in respect of powers to close licensed and other premises.

2.05pm Ms Lo joined the meeting.

The Committee considered the clauses of the Licensing and Registration of Clubs (Amendment) Bill.

Clause 1 – Closure of Licensed Premises and Clause 5 – Closure of Registered Clubs

2.13pm Mr McCallister joined the meeting.

The Committee discussed in detail the provisions of these clauses of the Bill.

Noted: The Committee noted a Departmental assurance that the Department of Justice guidance to the PSNI on the closure of licensed premises will be subject to review by the Committee for Justice. The Committee also noted a Departmental assurance that the Minister for Social Development will confirm this during the Consideration Stage of the Bill.

Noted: A number of Members indicated that they believed that police powers should not be extended so as to allow the closure of licensed premises without prior reference to the courts. These Members informally indicated their opposition to Clauses 1 and 5 as drafted.

Noted: Although a Member indicated that they were giving consideration to amendments which would extend police powers to included closure related to immanent disorder and noise nuisance, the majority of Members informally indicated their support for Clauses 1 and 5 as drafted.

2.31pm Mr Easton left the meeting.

Clause 2 – Penalty Points and Clause 6 – Penalty Points

The Committee discussed in detail the provisions of these clauses of the Bill.

Noted: A number of Members suggested that in recognition of the widespread use by registered clubs of volunteers in management roles, consideration might be given to reducing the “shelf life" of penalty points from 3 years to 1 year.

Noted: The majority of Members informally indicated that they were in support of the clauses as drafted.

Clause 3 – Proof of Age and Clause 7 – Proof of Age

The Committees discussed in detail the provisions of these clauses of the Bill.

Noted: The Committee noted that as the Bill is currently drafted, the use of an invalid passport could not be relied upon as a “due diligence" defence by a licensed premises in proceedings relating to under-age drinking.

Agreed: The Committee agreed that Departmental guidance on the Proof of Age Scheme must clearly indicate that invalid passports should not be accepted by licensed premises as Proof of Age identification.

2.54pm Mr McCallister left the meeting.

Clause 4 – Application to limited liability partnerships

No issues of concern were raised in relation to this clause of the Bill.

Clause 8 – Accounts of Registered Clubs

Noted: The majority of Members informally indicated that they were in support of the clause as drafted.

Clause 9 – Authorisations for Special Occasions

The Committee considered the proposed increase from 52 to 120 of the maximum number of late licenses that registered clubs can apply for per year.

Noted: A significant minority of Members informally indicated that they supported the clause as drafted.

Some Members suggested that a 50% increase in the maximum number of late licences that registered clubs can apply for annually was sufficient.

The majority of Members informally indicated that they were in support of amendment to the clause to limit late licenses for registered clubs to 75 per year.

Agreed: The Committee agreed to seek the Minister’s view on this possible amendment.

3.24pm Mrs Bradley left the meeting.

3.25pm Mr Easton rejoined the meeting.

Agreed: The Committee agreed to take forward formal clause-by-clause scrutiny of the Licensing and Registration of Clubs (Amendment) Bill at its meeting of 16 November 2010.

The Chairperson thanked the official for his attendance.

3.31pm The official left the meeting.

[Extract]

Tuesday, 16 November 2010
Senate Chamber, Parliament Buildings

Present: Mr Simon Hamilton MLA (Chairperson)
Mr Sydney Anderson MLA
Mrs Mary Bradley MLA
Mr Mickey Brady MLA
Mr Jonathan Craig MLA
Mr Alex Easton MLA
Mr Tommy Gallagher MLA
Mr John McCallister MLA
Mr Fra McCann MLA

In Attendance: Mr Peter McCallion (Assembly Clerk)
Mr Trevor Allen (Assistant Assembly Clerk)
Mr Stewart Kennedy (Clerical Supervisor)
Ms Allison Ferguson (Clerical Officer)

Apologies: Ms Anna Lo MLA

2.00pm The meeting began in open session.

2.01pm Mr Anderson, Mrs Bradley, Mr Craig, Mr Easton and Mr Hamilton declared an interest as councillors.

Licensing and Registration of Clubs (Amendment) Bill – Clause-by-Clause Scrutiny

Mr Tom Bowler and Mr Liam Quinn of the Department for Social Development’s Social Policy Unit joined the meeting at 2.02pm to address questions in relation to the Licensing and Registration of Clubs (Amendment) Bill.

The Committee continued its clause-by-clause scrutiny of the Licensing and Registration of Clubs (Amendment) Bill.

Clause 1 – Closure of licensed premises

2.04pm Mr Gallagher joined the meeting.

2.05pm Mr McCann joined the meeting.

Some Members highlighted concerns in respect of the extension from the courts to the police of closure powers relating to licensed premises. As a consensus could therefore not be reached on whether to accept Clause 1 as drafted, the Committee divided on this question as follows:

Ayes 6; Noes 2; Abstentions: 0

AYES

Mr Sydney Anderson, Mrs Mary Bradley, Mr Tommy Gallagher, Mr Simon Hamilton,
Mr Jonathan Craig, Mr Alex Easton

NOES

Mr Mickey Brady, Mr Fra McCann

ABSTENTIONS

None

The motion was carried.

“Question: the Committee is content with Clause 1, as drafted, put and agreed to."

Clause 2 – Penalty Points

“Question: That the Committee is content with Clause 2, as drafted, put and agreed to."

Clause 3 – Proof of Age

“Question: That the Committee is content with Clause 3, as drafted, put and agreed to."

Clause 4 – Application to limited liability partnerships

“Question: That the Committee is content with Clause 4, as drafted, put and agreed to."

Clause 5 – Closure of Registered Clubs

2.11pm Mr McCann declared an interest as a member of the Irish National Foresters Club and Cumann na Meirlach.

Some Members again highlighted concerns in respect of the extension from the courts to the police of closure powers relating to licensed premises operated by registered clubs. As a consensus could therefore not be reached on whether to accept Clause 5 as drafted, the Committee divided on this question as follows:

Ayes 6; Noes 2; Abstentions 0

AYES

Mr Sydney Anderson, Mrs Mary Bradley, Mr Tommy Gallagher, Mr Simon Hamilton,
Mr Jonathan Craig, Mr Alex Easton

NOES

Mr Mickey Brady, Mr Fra McCann

ABSTENTIONS

None

The motion was carried.

“Question: that the Committee is content with Clause 5, as drafted, put and agreed to."

Clause 6 – Penalty Points

Some Members highlighted concerns in respect of the application of penalty points to registered clubs whose officers are frequently volunteers and who it was argued should not be sanctioned unfairly. As a consensus could therefore not be reached on whether to accept Clause 6 as drafted, the Committee divided on this question as follows:

Ayes 6; Noes 2; Abstentions 0

AYES

Mr Sydney Anderson, Mrs Mary Bradley, Mr Tommy Gallagher, Mr Simon Hamilton,
Mr Jonathan Craig, Mr Alex Easton

NOES

Mr Mickey Brady, Mr Fra McCann

ABSTENTIONS

None

The motion was carried.

“Question: That the Committee is content with Clause 6, as drafted, put and agreed to."

Clause 7 – Proof of Age

“Question: That the Committee is content with Clause 7, as drafted, put and agreed to."

Clause 8 – Accounts of Registered Clubs

“Question: That the Committee is content with Clause 8, as drafted, put and agreed to."

Clause 9 – Authorisations for Special Occasions

Agreed: The Committee agreed to defer consideration of Clause 9 to its meeting of 18 November 2010.

2.22pm Mr John McCallister joined the meeting.

Clause 10 – Ancillary provision

Agreed: The Committee supported a proposed amendment suggested by the Examiner of Statutory Rules to alter the level of Assembly scrutiny associated with Clause 10(2) from negative to draft affirmative resolution.

“Question: That subject to the text of the proposed amendment, the Committee is content with Clause 10, as amended, put and agreed to."

Clause 11 – Interpretation

“Question: That the Committee is content with Clause 11, as drafted, put and agreed to."

Clause 12 – Minor and consequential amendments and repeals

“Question: That the Committee is content with Clause 12, as drafted, put and agreed to."

Clause 13 – Commencement

“Question: That the Committee is content with Clause 13, as drafted, put and agreed to."

Clause 14 – Short title

“Question: That the Committee is content with Clause 14, as drafted, put and agreed to."

Schedule 1 - Schedule to be inserted in Licensing Order as Schedule 10A

“Question: That the Committee is content with Schedule 1, as drafted, put and agreed to."

Schedule 2 - Schedule to be substituted in Registration of Clubs Order for Schedule 6

“Question: That the Committee is content with Schedule 2, as drafted, put and agreed to."

Schedule 3 - Amendments

“Question: That the Committee is content with Schedule 3, as drafted, put and agreed to."

Schedule 4 - Repeals

“Question: That the Committee is content with Schedule 4, as drafted, put and agreed to."

6. Irresponsible Drinks Promotions

Noted: The Committee noted initial responses from the Wine & Spirit Trade Association and the British Retail Consortium; the PSNI; the Public Health Agency and the Queen’s University of Belfast in respect of the Department’s proposals to curb irresponsible drinks promotions.

Agreed: The Committee gave it supported in principle the introduction of measures to control irresponsible drinks promotions and further agreed that this should be reflected in the Committee’s Bill report.

Agreed: The Committee also agreed that following a Departmental briefing on the responses to the Irresponsible Drinks Promotions consultation, a more detailed Committee view may be determined and articulated by the Chairperson at the Consideration Stage of the Bill.

The Chairperson thanked the officials for their attendance.

2.28pm The officials left the meeting.

[Extract]

Thursday, 18 November 2010
Room 29, Parliament Buildings

Present: Mr Simon Hamilton MLA (Chairperson)
Mr Sydney Anderson MLA
Mrs Mary Bradley MLA
Mr Mickey Brady MLA
Mr Jonathan Craig MLA
Mr Alex Easton MLA
Mr Tommy Gallagher MLA
Ms Anna Lo MLA
Mr John McCallister MLA
Mr Fra McCann MLA
Ms Carál Ní Chuilín MLA

In Attendance: Mr Peter McCallion (Assembly Clerk)
Mrs Hilary Bogle (Assistant Assembly Clerk)
Mr Stewart Kennedy (Clerical Supervisor)
Ms Leanne Johnston (Clerical Supervisor)

Apologies: None

9.45am The meeting began in open session with Ms Carál Ní Chuilín, Deputy Chairperson in the Chair.

10.04am Mr Hamilton, Chairperson joined the meeting and assumed the Chair.

4.6 Licensing and Registration of Clubs (Amendment) Bill – clause-by-clause scrutiny

Clause 9 – Authorisations for Special Occasions

The Committee gave further consideration to Clause 9 of the Bill.

10.09am Mr McCann declared an interest as a member of the Irish National Foresters’ Club and Cumann na Meirlach.

Following discussion and as there was no consensus, the Committee divided as follows on the motion “that Clause 9 be amended to limit the number of special authorisations for late licenses for registered clubs to 75 per year":

Ayes 4; Noes 4; Abstentions: 1

AYES

Mr Sydney Anderson, Mr Simon Hamilton, Mr Jonathan Craig, Mr Alex Easton

NOES

Mrs Mary Bradley, Mr Mickey Brady, Mr Fra McCann, Ms Carál Ní Chuilín

ABSTENTIONS

Ms Anna Lo

The motion was not carried.

Following further discussion and as there was no consensus, the Committee divided as follows on the motion “that Clause 9 be amended to limit the number of special authorisations for late licenses for registered clubs to 104 per year":

Ayes 5; Noes 4; Abstentions: 0

AYES

Mr Sydney Anderson, Mr Simon Hamilton, Mr Jonathan Craig, Mr Alex Easton, Ms Anna Lo

NOES

Mrs Mary Bradley, Mr Mickey Brady, Mr Fra McCann, Ms Carál Ní Chuilín

ABSTENTIONS

Nil

The motion was carried.

“Question: the Committee is content with Clause 9, as amended, put and agreed to."

Agreed: The Committee agreed that the clause-by-clause scrutiny of the Bill is now concluded.

“Question: the Committee is content with the Long Title of the Bill as drafted, put and agreed to."

The Chairperson expressed his thanks to the Committee, Departmental officials and all those who gave evidence during the Committee Stage of the Licensing and Registration of Clubs (Amendment) Bill.

[Extract]

Thursday, 9 December 2010
Room 29, Parliament Buildings

Present: Mr Simon Hamilton MLA (Chairperson)
Mr Sydney Anderson MLA
Mrs Mary Bradley MLA
Mr Mickey Brady MLA
Mr Jonathan Craig MLA
Mr Alex Easton MLA
Ms Anna Lo MLA
Mr John McCallister MLA
Mr Fra McCann MLA
Ms Carál Ní Chuilín MLA

In Attendance: Mr Peter McCallion (Assembly Clerk)
Mrs Sheila Mawhinney (Assistant Assembly Clerk)
Mr Stewart Kennedy (Clerical Supervisor)
Ms Allison Ferguson (Clerical Officer)

Apologies: None

9.42 am The meeting began in open session.

10:40am Carál Ní Chuilín, Mary Bradley and John McCallister left the meeting.

6. Committee Report on the Licensing and Registration of Clubs (Amendment) Bill

The Committee considered a draft Report on the Committee Stage of the Licensing and Registration of Clubs (Amendment) Bill.

Agreed: The Committee agreed the Executive Summary of the report on page 1

Agreed: The Committee read and agreed the Introduction to the Bill on pages 2 to 7

Agreed: The Committee read and agreed the Consideration of the Bill on pages 8 to 13

Agreed: The Committee read and agreed the Clause-by-Clause Scrutiny of the Bill on pages 14 to 20

Agreed: The Committee agreed that it was content for the Report to be printed as the second report of the Social Development Committee for this session of the Assembly

Agreed: The Committee agreed that the relevant extract from the draft minutes of the proceedings of 9 December 2010 be included in the Committee’s Report.

[EXTRACT]

Appendix 2

Minutes of Evidence

Content list

Thursday 27th May 2010

Thursday 30th September 2010

Thursday 7th October 2010

Thursday 14th October 2010

Thursday 4th November 2010

Tuesday 9th November 2010

Tuesday 16th November 2010

Thursday 18th November 2010

27 May 2010

Members present for all or part of the proceedings:
Mr Simon Hamilton (Chairperson)
Mr Mickey Brady
Mr Jonathan Craig
Mr David Hilditch
Mr Fra McCann

Witnesses:

Mr Tom Bowler Mr Henry Johnston Mr Liam Quinn

Department for Social Development

1. The Chairperson (Mr Hamilton): The Licensing and Registration of Clubs (Amendment) Bill was introduced to the Assembly on 17 May 2010, and the Second Stage will take place on 1 June. I welcome the officials from the Department, Henry Johnston, who is the director of urban regeneration strategy directorate, and Liam Quinn and Tom Bowler, who are from the social policy unit.

2. Mr Hilditch: I declare an interest as an honorary member of Carrickfergus Amateur social club, which is a member of the Northern Ireland Federation of Clubs. I have also been a guest of the federation on a number of occasions and have attended its annual dinner.

3. Mr F McCann: I am a member of the Irish National Foresters. However, I have not chopped a tree down yet, so do not worry.

4. The Chairperson: Mr Johnston, the last time you were before the Committee you talked about gambling, and now you are taking about pubs and clubs. You get all the fun stuff. You are all very welcome.

5. Members will have the Department’s briefing paper; a copy of the letter from the Minister that was received on 4 May 2010; the Assembly Research and Library Services briefing paper, which was produced in May 2009; a copy of follow-up information from Assembly Research and Library Services on the use of relevant police powers in England and Wales; a copy of the Licensing and Registration of Clubs (Amendment) Bill and the explanatory and financial memorandum; and a copy of the public notice to be published by the Committee following the Bill’s Second Stage.

6. I invite you to begin by giving a brief outline of the Bill’s proposals. I will then open the meeting up for members to ask questions.

7. Mr Henry Johnston (Department for Social Development): I will begin with a brief overview, and Tom will answer questions on the details, as that is his area of expertise. Liam is new to the subject. Pat McAlister is hoping to retire in a few months’ time, and Liam will take over. His area will be gambling, liquor, cafe society and other issues on trading. This will be Liam’s first time before the Committee in that guise, so you can ask him some hard questions.

8. The Bill goes back to direct rule. The plan, under the previous Minister, was to bring forward relatively quickly this first-phase Bill. It was described as a modest package of reform, and it was meant to be a balanced package. Some of the provisions will allow clubs to open later and some will make it easier for them to compile their accounts. Other provisions are included to introduce a points-based system for pubs.

9. The Bill is designed to be a relatively balanced package, and it has taken the Department a couple of years to achieve the consensus to allow it to bring the Bill forward. The current proposals are a first stage. There are plans to come back later with second-stage proposals, which will be a slightly more far-reaching examination of licensing areas. Those proposals will also address some of the more contentious issues on licensing hours and who has direct responsibility for issuing licences.

10. The Bill is a confined piece of legislation, which provides for a range of modest changes. The plan is to move it forward relatively speedily. We are happy to take any questions that Committee members may have.

11. The Chairperson: Yes; questions may tease out some of the issues.

12. Mr Craig: Henry, I agree that the Bill represents quite a balanced approach. The only issue that I have is with the provision to increase the limit for special occasion licences from 52 to 140 a year. That is slightly puzzling and perhaps not so balanced. Why was there such an enormous jump? What was the justification for that rise, because it has more than doubled? I am struggling to understand how that was well judged and balanced, or indeed “modest"?

13. Mr Johnston: I move back from “modest". However, I think that the figure is 120.

14. Mr Craig: Is there a typing error in the document that I have?

15. Mr Johnston: Hopefully, the Department’s briefing paper to the Committee has the correct figure.

16. Mr Craig: I will not dispute that the correct figure is 120. I was reading from the sheet that I was given.

17. Mr Johnston: That increase in provision was a result of approaches that the Minister received from representatives of a variety of licensed clubs that wanted to open later slightly more often. They found the limit of 52 days a year to be quite restrictive, and 120 days was judged to be a more suitable figure. That limit will allow clubs to open for a number of special occasions and probably a couple of late nights during the week. All those late openings are subject to PSNI approval.

18. Mr Craig: They may be subject to PSNI approval, but the general public who live close to those pubs will react badly to that increase. I struggle with the fact that the Department has more than doubled the number of nights each year that pubs and clubs can open late. The idea that those clubs can potentially open up two or three nights a week might may sound reasonable to the Department, but it is far from reasonable for the residents who live close to those clubs.

19. Mr Johnston: If there are disorder or noise issues, it is at the discretion of the PSNI to restrict.

20. Mr Craig: Henry, the legislation on noise is the most frustrating legislation on the planet, because it is incredibly difficult to prove that someone has breached it. Local authorities have been stuck with trying to enforce it, and it is also very difficult for the police to take action on those grounds. I do not see the provision as being very satisfactory or as part of a reasonable or “modest" package. I do not have any issues with the other provisions in the Bill

21. Mr Johnston: Do you see the increase from 52 to 120 as a bridge too far?

22. Mr Craig: It is way over the top for me.

23. Mr Johnston: At an earlier stage, consideration was given to putting some provisions on noise into the legislation. The Department of the Environment (DOE) is taking forward a piece of legislation on noise, which will extend the remit of its current legislation from domestic to licensed premises. Therefore, I take your point about some of the difficulties with enforcement. However, local councils will have powers of enforcement.

24. Mr Craig: It is actually easier to stop bells ringing in Hillsborough than it is to stop a club from making noise.

25. Mr Johnston: At the minute, the noise legislation does not apply to clubs. That will change when the DOE legislation comes into effect. Tom, do you want to talk about the figure of 120?

26. Mr Tom Bowler (Department for Social Development): We did not use rocket science to arrive at the figure of 120. Basically, we doubled 52 and added extra for special occasions.

27. The crux of the matter was that the Minister was not aware of any particular evidence that clubs had been involved in any disorder, antisocial or noise issues. Margaret Ritchie did not feel that the increase would be significant. Obviously, someone who lives close to a club might disagree, but there is no recent evidence that registered clubs have been involved in particular noise issues. If any have been involved, that will emerge during the Bill’s passage, but there have been none until now.

28. Mr Craig: So, there was no reasonable evidence against the increase. Therefore, why do you not just extend the limit to 365 days a year? I would love to know where the figure of 120 days came from.

29. Mr Bowler: It has long been the tradition that registered clubs are not on a par with licensed premises. It is fair to say that many pubs open late seven nights a week unless there are police objections. In that sense, the Minister felt that it was reasonable for club members to expect a reasonable amount of additional late nights. You would probably argue the opposite, but the increase met an expectation of clubs, and the Minister had talked to a number of people about that.

30. Mr Johnston: It was also about trying to provide a balance; the clubs were keen to have more nights on which they could open late for their members, particularly to run special events and functions, such as weddings. That was a pressure.

31. There was no evidence of any significant problems with disorder, noise or nuisance around the clubs. On the other hand, there was pressure from the licensed trade — hotels and pubs — which was uneasy about clubs being given a particular competitive advantage. The figure of 120 was a compromise between 52 and 365.

32. Mr Bowler: Clubs probably wanted to open late on around 300 nights. Clubs used that figure several times in discussions with us, although they have not referred to it in recent years. Ironically, clubs are probably disappointed with the figure of 120.

33. Mr Craig: They will be a lot more disappointed with me.

34. Mr Hilditch: I am going to fall out with Jonathan. Why increase the limit only to 120? [Laughter.]

35. Mr Johnston: It really was just about trying to provide a compromise. The clubs were coming to us and saying that things had changed and that there was cross-subsidy between some of the income that they were generating from the club side of the business and some of the other parts of the enterprise that they were supporting. However, if they were to open late every night of the week, pubs, which already claim that they are under pressure, would be affected. Hotels would also be affected, because part of the reason why clubs wanted additional late-night opening was that they could run events for members that would otherwise have been held in hotels. Therefore, there would be pressure on both the hotel trade and the pub trade if the number of authorisations went beyond 120.

36. Mr Hilditch: An allowance of 120 nights equates to an extra 35 minutes a week for the clubs. That is the average benefit over the course of a year.

37. Mr Bowler: The benefit is two hours and a quarter a week.

38. Mr Johnston: It should be two hours and a quarter.

39. Mr Hilditch: The research that I have before me says that the benefit is 35 minutes a week. You probably have a document with that figure.

40. Mr Bowler: It equates to 68 extra nights, at two hours a night. That is 136 hours. One can do the sums.

41. Mr Craig: It is ok; he is just trying to minimise the impact.

42. Mr Bowler: I think that the benefit is just over two hours.

43. Mr Hilditch: Clubs see late opening as an opportunity. Clubs are basically in situ to benefit their communities, particularly where sport is concerned. Licensing can provide them with their only chance to have a regular income stream that allows them not only to subsidise but to survive. Therefore, they need something that will bring them on to some sort of level playing field. I know that it is difficult. I have spoken to vintners as well, and I know the difficulties that they are experiencing with the current economic situation. Therefore, the point is to get the balance right. Obviously, there is some disappointment that the Bill will authorise only 120 special occasion licences to any club in a year.

44. Is the proposed new provision, which will allow the police to close a club without going to court, in the Bill, or will it be considered in future?

45. Mr Bowler: No; it is in the Bill. The Bill will allow the police to close a licensed premises or a registered club. For them to do that, a subtle difference needs to be recognised. Disorder must be connected to the registered club before the police can decide to close it. The police must then go to a court as soon as possible after they have made that decision, so that it can be ratified. A court itself can issue an order to close a registered club, or any number of them, in a district that is experiencing disorder that is not necessarily connected to the club in question. That is also the case if there is the prospect of or imminent disorder. If the police want to close a club, disorder must be taking place, and it must be connected to that club. We are not aware of any recent evidence that clubs have any such poor history. Indeed, only one such order has been issued.

46. Mr Hilditch: The situation with clubs has been cleaned up very much since the 1970s and 1980s, and, indeed, the federation is a very responsible organisation. The club that I mentioned is in the middle of a very confined area that is made up of two-up two-down terraced houses, and there are a lot of small streets in the town centre. Expenditure has been made on double glazing and soundproofing and so forth. Many responsible people are actually involved with clubs, and that leads me to ask about the 9.00 pm cut-off point for minors. If I go back to the activities of sports clubs, including fundraising events and trips, I know that a blind eye can sometimes be turned, but that is somewhat difficult to do if legislation exists to stop it. Clubs have a great deal of responsibility nowadays, and those sorts of functions officially have to finish at 9.00 pm. Other events have to be considered, especially with the World Cup coming up and bearing in mind other sporting occasions that communities come together to watch, such as rugby and football matches and test matches.

47. Mr Bowler: You will know John Davidson, and I spoke to him about the matter a week or so ago. He phoned me, and, obviously, he was not a bit happy. As you would expect —

48. Mr Hilditch: Is John ever happy?

49. Mr Bowler: No, I do not think so, to be honest.

50. The Federation of Clubs would like more flexible hours that would start earlier in the day and last until the early hours of the following morning. However, you probably know that the 9.00 pm cut-off point applies to clubs and licensed premises. That is so that young people who are under 18 can be kept out of the bar area or any other area that is used exclusively or primarily for the sale of alcohol. I am sure that you understand that those young people can be in the club and that they can be there until 9.00 pm.

51. Mr Hilditch: That is where the confusion comes in.

52. Mr Bowler: There is an exemption for sporting clubs, which do not need a children’s certificate to allow children to be on the premises until 9.00 pm. I have heard it said often in the past that a very small club might consist of little more than a bar. I do not know whether that is the case any more, but, in that sort of scenario, applying that provision would be difficult. The Minister imagines that most clubs will have facilities for young people away from the bar. The 9.00 pm curfew applies to the bar area only and not to the rest of the club.

53. Mr Johnston: We have heard people complaining about young people being moved to a changing area or to another area. However, a lot of the larger clubs should be able segregate, and that restriction applies only to the bar area.

54. Mr Hilditch: If under-16 or under-17 teams were going to America and wanted to hold a fundraiser, they would be fearful that the legislation might go against them.

55. Mr Bowler: We get the same view from hotels with regard to wedding receptions and from pubs when they run special events. The 9.00 pm curfew is not universally popular. However, in the past, Ministers wished to separate young people from direct contact with alcohol at the bar area. You may remember that a 10.00 pm curfew was proposed some years ago, but that was withdrawn. That, in itself, was controversial, and, if the 9.00 pm rule changed for clubs, we would be under pressure to change it for licensed premises, and the controversy would build.

56. Mr Hilditch: Then again, there are nights when the big match does not kick off until 8.00 pm, which is why 10.00 pm was seen as the better time.

57. Mr Bowler: That is for sure. The curfew does not fit well with such events, because the TV is likely to be in the bar area.

58. Mr Craig: The TV could be moved out of the bar area.

59. Mr Hilditch: Some of the clubs got round the situation very well by creating youth areas. However, there may be a confined space and clubs may not have the opportunity to expand.

60. Mr Bowler: No.

61. Mr Hilditch: Nevertheless, the club side of things has come on, and they are allowed to advertise to a certain degree on various things. I think that that was in the 1996 Order.

62. Mr Bowler: Yes, the 1996 Order.

63. Mr Hilditch: Certain things have moved on, and I hope that they will continue to move on through legislation.

64. Mr Johnston: The issue is that the Bill is meant to be a modest package. We can look at wider issues at the stage 2 review. However, getting consensus in Northern Ireland on some of the wider issues will be hard, and we will get diametrically opposing views. Nevertheless, we will be revisiting some of the issues.

65. Mr Hilditch: Thankfully, the climate is changing in Northern Ireland, hopefully for the better. In the 1970s and 1980s, the local club was the place to go, and people were behind fences with security cameras. I hope that those days are gone and that there is a much more open environment. We are now left with the crux of the clubs which exist to support communities, whether through sport or whatever.

66. Mr Bowler: Yes.

67. Mr F McCann: David has covered most of what I was going to say about the licences. A lot of lobbying is going on by both sides. The vintners are concerned that the clubs will be given an advantage. However, clubs are moving from a level of disadvantage to a level that will allow them to survive. I realise that there are severe survival difficulties for places of entertainment. David made the point that most clubs have made huge investments in their premises to make them better and safer places for people. It will not give them the advantage, but raising the number of late nights to 120 or 140 will help.

68. I have a couple of queries, and one was with regard to identification. The proof of age scheme is one example, and it refers to driving licences. However, not everybody has a driving licence. A lot of people carry their passports, but young people lose their passport and end up filling in forms for another one.

69. Mr Johnston: That is my daughter.

70. Mr F McCann: The two of us should declare an interest. Electoral identity cards are recognised as government documents, but most clubs, pubs and other places that sell alcohol have refused to admit people with those cards. Is there a possibility that clubs could recognise that form of identity, because if young people carried those cards, they would have no need to carry their passports or driving licences?

71. Mr Bowler: That is one of the four accepted forms of identification: passport, driving licence, electoral card or any other proof of age standard scheme (PASS) card. In fact, the Federation of the Retail Licensed Trade, in conjunction with the Electoral Office — specifically, Douglas Bain, the Chief Electoral Officer — and the police, launched the new electoral card with the idea of allowing it to be used as identification by emphasising its benefits for young people. That was a joint campaign, and I think that the Electoral Office and the police are pleased with the take-up of the card by young people. Everybody supports the use of the card. We just hope that it is well taken up. As you said, passports are a nuisance.

72. Mr F McCann: I am glad to hear that there was a joint campaign to make it more recognised. However, quite a lot of premises have been insisting that people bring their passports along. Perhaps the information has not reached certain parts of our constituencies. Nevertheless, so long as it is taken on board —

73. The Chairperson: Nobody will ask us for ID, Fra.

74. Mr F McCann: We are probably too old to get into some places, although I am not saying that that has ever happened to me.

75. With respect to the closure provisions, a happy medium must be found that allows the authorities to deal with problems and difficulties with licensed premises as they arise. However, that can also create difficulties. In some areas, certain senior police officers do not like alcohol and have been putting licensees under pressure, creating serious difficulties for them. Another issue that was dealt with not long ago was that there must not be serious trouble in licensed premises. Late at night, the last thing that you need is a number of police officers going into a pub, because that ends up making the trouble worse. A mechanism must be put in place to allow the police to contact the owner or people who have influence in the area and can deal with trouble. The proper way to deal with such problems is through the courts.

76. Mr Bowler: Are you thinking about the Rebel’s Rest on the Falls Road?

77. Mr F McCann: Yes, but that is not only place where there has been trouble.

78. Mr Bowler: Occasionally, the police go in after hours, and the few instances that I have heard about ended in riots. One would think that, from a personal and, perhaps, a sane point of view, the police could bring pressure to bear on the licence holder, by pointing out that they know what is happening and will take action through the courts. Going into premises at that time of night is not something that the police are in the habit of doing.

79. Mr F McCann: In the instance that I am talking about, the police were met by 50 or 60 drunken people; however, the situation could probably have been sorted out better.

80. Mr Bowler: Absolutely; I am sure that it could have.

81. Mr Johnston: It is a matter of balance. The police have closure powers if there is actual disorder. We will produce guidance to inform senior police officers about how to exercise that power. I know that the police would prefer also to have closure powers to be used at the prospect of disorder. It is a compromise to get something that is broadly acceptable.

82. Mr Hilditch: After today’s news, what about playing ice-cream van music?

83. The Chairperson: Maybe handing out 99s would sort things out. Where will this end? Fra hit on a point that reminded me of a case in which I was involved a year or two ago. You are right to say that the police would like much more power and flexibility, and sometimes particular officers can be overzealous, and, because of a lack of resources, they might wish to deal with establishments in their own way. Must the disorder have taken place on the premises? What if it happens outside in the adjoining street? If something happens outside the establishment’s door, is that it?

84. Mr Johnston: There would need to be a causal link.

85. The Chairperson: That is where the problem lies, because trouble could spill out of a bar and across the street, and it would no longer have anything to do with the establishment. Someone across the road might be fighting, and an overzealous police officer might abuse that power.

86. Mr Bowler: If that officer were to get it wrong, the courts will soon tell him or her. The police have to —

87. The Chairperson: What about the bar? It might be closed down, or it might get a reputation that it does not deserve.

88. Mr Bowler: The subtlety of the provision is that the courts, acting on police intelligence, can make a closure order as a result of disorder in an area that is not necessarily linked to a licensed premises. It could be linked, but it does not have to be. If the police want to close a licensed premises, that premises must be linked to disorder. As you said, the difficulty is that the trouble may begin in the pub and spill out on to the street, and the argument could be made as to whether it is, in fact, linked to the pub. The official advice is that it is a matter for the police in each circumstance.

89. Mr Johnston: Hopefully, the guidance will address some of those issues to give the officer on the scene more clarity on what to do and what the best practice is.

90. Mr Bowler: I do not think that a fight in a bar would trigger a closure order. The disorder would have to be a little worse than that. That power was last used several years ago.

91. The Chairperson: The experience from across the water would show that a very few closure orders have actually been issued.

92. Mr Bowler: The power is a last resort.

93. Mr Johnston: It is a last resort for the closure of individual premises, but the wider closure powers are used quite often across the water, particularly in relation to football matches.

94. The Chairperson: Yes; bars are closed down prior to football matches.

95. Mr Johnston: The provision replaces a power previously held by the Secretary of State, which was only used once.

96. Mr Bowler: Yes; that is correct. In England they have football-related legislation, which means that bars near football grounds must close for the duration of the match. The closure orders here are simply public-order related.

97. The Chairperson: Public disorder can move, and the one thing that is constant about it is alcohol and where that alcohol is consumed. Someone could have too much to drink before they enter a bar, a disturbance could kick off and spill into the street, and the bar could be held responsible for what began hours before in someone’s house. Clarity is required in that area.

98. Mr Bowler: As Henry said, the police will be cautious with the powers at the beginning. The Department does not anticipate that there will by many instances of closure notices being issued. It will be of no help to licensees if the police get it wrong once, but it will not happen again as the courts will put an end to it.

99. The Chairperson: Some licensees will be worried that their reputation will be ruined if that power were to be used incorrectly even once. I have seen that happen even with the current legislation.

100. Mr Bowler: The guidance will take account of that.

101. Mr F McCann: I again refer back to my own experience when the police closed a bar down because it was serving alcohol after hours, even though there had been no trouble. If the police had contacted someone who had responsibility for that bar, the riot that ensued could probably have been avoided.

102. Mr Hilditch: We have just come out of a culture of shebeens and drinking dens, and regional closures could allow that culture to emerge again and become a regular feature in certain areas. We must carefully watch that area. In trying to move the legislation forward, we do not want to return to where we were in 1970s and 1980s.

103. The Chairperson: We may be able to use closures to force people into football matches.

104. Mr Hilditch: That might be an idea.

105. Mr F McCann: It depends which team is playing.

106. Mr Hilditch: Licensed premises can be watched, and police can keep an eye on known troublemakers. If shebeens were to re-emerge those people could be anywhere.

107. Mr Bowler: As Henry said, these provisions will replace the current powers, which lay with the Secretary of State, and which are now held by the Department of Justice. The police closure is a more immediate thing, and we will be careful in how it is used.

108. Mr Brady: I have some sympathy with all the views that have been expressed. When I was growing up in Newry, we lived directly opposite a drinking club. One night, somebody asked the doorman where to sign in. He said, “You do not sign in, you weigh in." It was that sort of club. [Laughter.]

109. Mr F McCann: He has been waiting for half an hour to get that in.

110. Mr Brady: The club was notorious. When I worked in Belfast, I knew people who used to come down to Newry to drink in it because it stayed open all night. That was in the 1960s, before the conflict kicked off, and the police just stayed clear of the club.

111. David is right to say that things have changed. Not that long ago, women were not allowed into a lot of the clubs in Newry, such as the Ancient Order of Hibernians and the foresters club, and I am sure that it was the same in Belfast and other places.

112. Mr Hilditch: Then the trouble started.

113. Mr Brady: The club that I lived opposite was the first in Newry to allow women in. That is not a sexist remark by the way.

114. The majority of registered clubs are well run and experience very little trouble. The main problem in Newry is the nightclubs. One nightclub is in a residential area, and, at the weekend, driving down the streets at 1.30 am is similar to driving into the middle of Michael Jackson’s ‘Thriller’ video. It is frightening. [Laughter.]

115. Even taxi drivers will not go into those streets after 11.30 pm. That nightclub is causing a lot more trouble than any registered club, the majority of which are well run.

116. Is there perhaps room in legislation for the communities in which there are problems to have some sort of forum, so that people can sit down with the licensed vintners, the Federation of Clubs, or those responsible to come to some agreement about clubs that are causing particular problems? I imagine that the clubs that cause problems are in the minority. Such a forum may be a vehicle for progress in the local communities. In fairness, most clubs in my area are not in residential areas. As David mentioned, clubs in residential areas, such as the one in his area, can be very well controlled. Some nightclubs, however, do not close until 1.00 am or 2.00 am, and that can result in people wandering around at 2.00 am in all sorts of conditions. That is the problem.

117. Mr Bowler: When Margaret Ritchie announced her longer-term reforms to transfer responsibility for liquor from the courts to the councils, those were linked to the review of public administration (RPA) timescale. A key element of the reforms was to set up forums, as has been done throughout the UK. Any policy would have to be discussed and debated, and forums would be made up of community interest groups. Forums are tricky to get going at present, because there are probably already a lot of community bodies doing exactly that. However, we need something with more teeth and a statutory basis.

118. Mr Brady: That is what I mean.

119. Mr Johnston: That is something that we want to return to.

120. The other issue that has been highlighted is the mismatch between the entertainment licence and the liquor licence. It is obvious that people are not drinking orange juice after the entertainment venue in a club closes and another venue opens. There is an issue as to the alignment of those licences.

121. Mr Hilditch: By way of information, Derry/Londonderry has a very good nightlife management scheme in its city centre. There is also a pilot scheme in Coleraine. Looking at those schemes would be a good way forward.

122. Mr F McCann: In Belfast, problems are tied in with the entertainment licence. If owners are challenged about noise or trouble coming from pubs, it is usually down to a local councillor to arrange a meeting between local residents, the council and the owner of the premises to try to get some agreement. If pubs do not abide by that, the local council goes after their entertainment licences.

123. Mr Brady: It is also about clubs taking responsibility. In my area, some clubs in which there has been trouble take the attitude that, as soon as someone leaves the premises, it is not their problem. The trouble may happen within two feet of the club, but owners wash their hands of the matter, despite having been serving drink to the person involved for three or four hours beforehand.

124. Mr Bowler: I think that the law in England and Wales was reviewed and changed four or five years ago. I recall something similar to that, which meant that, within a specified proximity of the place where police were pretty sure that a person got the alcohol, the pubs or clubs involved had a responsibility. That is an enormously tricky problem to legislate for. However, you are right, Mr Brady, that is the key to the problem, and, all too often, the police are left to pick up the pieces because the pubs will not do so. It is awfully difficult.

125. Mr Brady: We cannot legislate for people to take responsibility for a situation that they have created. Responsible management is required.

126. Mr Bowler: Perhaps pressure must be brought to bear by the forums that you mentioned, but that may, unfortunately, be too far down the line.

127. Mr Brady: So is RPA, by the sound of it.

128. Mr Bowler: Well, absolutely; it will probably come first.

129. It is obviously an offence to breach the law, but the one being discussed is tricky. It must be clear who has caused the offence and who has created it. However, trying to nail licensed premises with responsibility for rowdiness outside the premises is, and always will be, tricky.

130. The Chairperson: I want to raise a couple of points before we draw the session to an end. Let us jump forward, hypothetically, to where the legislation as gone through, the Bill has become law and there is a modest 110% increase in the number of nights on which clubs can open late. That does not automatically translate into every club opening late on an additional nearly 60 nights a year. Only yesterday, I made it my business to speak to a man who runs the bar in a sports club in my hometown. I mentioned that the Committee was to have this briefing and asked whether he thought that his club would avail itself of the extra nights. He said that it did not fully avail itself of the 50 late nights currently available. It is difficult to provide precise details, but has the Department discussed with registered clubs how many of them are interested in opening for additional hours and the way in which that might equate to the overall number of extra opening nights?

131. Mr Bowler: No. I am sorry to disappoint you, Chairperson. The clubs’ main focus appears to have been to get more late nights. I do not think that there has been any meaningful dialogue about the logic of Minister Ritchie’s proposal. I believe that clubs felt that they should be on a par with licensed premises, so the debate was not that broad, to be honest.

132. The Chairperson: Yes. As I said, the increase from 52 to 120 is not modest, in the sense that it is more than double. If we were to extrapolate that across the overall number of clubs in Northern Ireland, it may be possible to characterise it as modest, but that is difficult to know. How could we know how many clubs would —

133. Mr Bowler: It is Sod’s Law that the clubs that are in neighbourhoods where people are concerned about noise or disruption may be ones that will take advantage of the change. We understand that. However, the difficulty is that a rule cannot be passed that affects one club and not another.

134. Mr Johnston: One would suspect that the bigger clubs with greater membership and greater ability to run larger events would avail themselves of it more than some of the smaller clubs, which would find it difficult to get enough members in to make opening the bar worthwhile.

135. The Chairperson: Finally, heaven forbid that the Social Development Committee should pose a question about social policy, but, I will. Without necessarily expressing my personal view, I raise what may be regarded as a contradiction in the Bill, which is that its objectives include, according to the paper, dealing with the misuse of alcohol and tackling the wider societal problems that are caused by such misuse.

136. That is the very noble objective of the Bill, and I think that everybody would ascribe to that. However, there is an increase of more than 100% in the number of nights that clubs are able to open late. I am not stating a personal view, but I am making the point that some could argue that there is a contradiction in that, in trying to tackle misuse or overconsumption of alcohol, the legislation will lead to greater opportunity for the consumption of alcohol and the attendant problems that we are talking about. I know that the Bill is intended to tackle some of those attendant problems, such as violence, but, as a matter of social policy, how do you tally that contradiction?

137. Mr Johnston: There is indeed an apparent contradiction. The argument from the licence trade concerns the problem, to which you alluded earlier, about people coming pre-loaded to pubs. The licensed trade would argue that a lot of the problems related to excessive consumption are fuelled by the retail sales of alcohol, promotions and sales below cost price. That is an area that we are looking at.

138. The Chairperson: I will go off on a tangent. If one were to stop 100 people in the street and ask them about problems with alcohol, more people would probably say that there is a greater problem with alcohol consumption in society rather than the measures in this Bill. Do you intend to look at that in the second Bill?

139. Mr Johnston: We intend to look at that in advance of the second Bill, and we are doing some work with the Health Department, as obviously health is the big agenda. We are looking very closely at some work that has been done in the Republic on banning promotions. In Scotland some actions are being taken on minimum pricing. There was a recent court judgement, where the Republic and Austria were taken to the European Court and failed in defence of what they were doing on the minimum pricing of cigarettes.

140. It will be interesting to see whether the Scottish Parliament will be able to drive forward the minimum-pricing agenda for alcohol or whether it will come a cropper too. The Scotch Whisky Association is fundamentally opposed to it and will almost certainly take the Government to court. They are not so much worried about the consumption of whisky in Scotland but about the message that would go around the world from Scotland about Scotch whisky if there was an issue. I doubt that Glenfiddich will be affected by minimum pricing.

141. The Chairperson: It is too dear.

142. Mr Johnston: That is an area that we will be looking at. There has recently been some movement on a revalorisation of the duty rates. Some work has been done on that, particularly in relation to some of the cheaper alcohols. That was one of the problems in Scotland; the two-litre bottles of White Lightning-type cider were a major problem. The other thing that we have learned from Scotland is that, although the perception is that it is all about binge-drinking teenagers, in Scotland, although there is a problem with binge drinking by teenagers, and perhaps too much of our attention has been on that, there is actually a problem with people of my age — late middle age — drinking.

143. The Chairperson: Do not be hard on yourself.

144. Mr Johnston: I will go home and have a glass of wine. [Laughter.]

145. Mr F McCann: Or a glass of White Lightning. [Laughter.]

146. Mr Johnston: That problem exists, particularly in Scotland. There is a huge health problem relating to higher than recommended consumption of alcohol daily and, more worryingly, weekly. That is something that we are looking at again.

147. The Chairperson: So we should not look at the Bill and assume that that whole agenda is dead?

148. Mr Johnston: No.

149. The Chairperson: That is still going on a parallel track. Sorry, I cut you off when you were speaking about the fact that there is an apparent contradiction.

150. Mr Johnston: There is an apparent contradiction, because we are saying that there is a problem with excessive consumption of alcohol. The contention is that we are providing some choice and availability for drinking in licensed premises. Although there is some problem with drunkenness in that context, a greater problem appears to be a consumption of large amounts of alcohol in people’s homes before they go out, or if they are just staying in.

151. The Chairperson: In that respect, the Bill might have been enhanced had that other piece of work been completed. You would have had both Bills at the one time.

152. Mr Johnston: We are choosing to see how to see how Scotland gets on with the introduction of minimum pricing. If it is successful, we would be keen to push that forward. If it fails because of a legal challenge, that could be a problem.

153. The Chairperson: There is no point in two regions failing.

154. Mr Brady: What has been said about off-licences is absolutely true. Sainsbury’s in Newry, for example, by its own admission, sells more alcohol every weekend than any of that supermarket chain’s other stores in Britain or Ireland.

155. The Chairperson: It probably sells more alcohol than food.

156. Mr Brady: It does actually. Obviously, a big proportion of those sales are to people from the South. However, the drinking problem in the North is no less serious than it is in the South. Therefore, proportionately, the store sells as much alcohol to customers from the North. The fact is that young people get overloaded with alcohol before they go out. We have all seen that. It happened with some of my older children.

157. Another point that I want to make about electoral identity cards is that when our youngest child was voting for the first time at 18 years of age, his school printed ID cards. That is another avenue to explore. He had his ID card a couple of months before the election.

158. Mr Bowler: I think that the Electoral Office went into schools. We met Douglas Bain to discuss that. He said that the office would rigorously pursue Challenge 21 and would line young people up and force them to get ID cards. We hoped that that would be of additional benefit to young people.

159. Mr Brady: Most kids I know who are the same age as my son already have ID cards.

160. Mr Bowler: That is good.

161. Mr Brady: Therefore, if they need to produce ID to show that they are 18 years old, they can do so.

162. Mr Bowler: Absolutely.

163. Mr Johnston: It is useful to inform us of premises that do not accept ID cards, and we can chase that up. I am sure that the Electoral Office will have another blast at promoting them in the autumn.

164. Mr Bowler: As you are probably aware, if those premises are members of the Federation of the Retail Licensed Trade, they have no reason not to accept those ID cards. It is hard to believe. Some door staff just will not accept them, but they must be acting under the pub’s management.

165. Mr F McCann: Perhaps, it is just the case that door staff are unfamiliar with the cards.

166. Mr Bowler: It could simply be bad training. The matter is certainly worth pursuing.

167. Mr F McCann: I want to make another point that relates to the general debate on alcohol. During the past 10 or 15 years, people’s drinking habits have changed. It is a fact of life that young people do not go out until 11.00 pm or midnight. They gather in houses and other places to drink.

168. One big problem is the sale of alcohol in supermarkets, where a tin of beer is cheaper than a tin of Coke. That in itself poses problems. We have learnt from other briefings that, because large supermarkets buy alcohol in huge quantities, they can practically give it away in order to encourage people to come through their doors to buy other items. Advertisement of cheap alcohol is also a problem.

169. We talk about clubs getting an extra 60 or 70 late nights each year. That pales into insignificance in comparison with the huge amount of alcohol that is sold in supermarkets’ off-licences and the problems that that poses. We need to look at how to deal with that. In previous briefings, we have learnt that people in the South have realised that there is a specific problem with regard to the sale and advertisement of alcohol in supermarkets and the special offers to bring people in. We need to look at that also.

170. Mr Johnston: Again, that is one of the other pieces of work that we are running in parallel at present. We are looking at promotions control, cross-selling and cross-marketing in supermarkets.

171. Mr F McCann: I may have lost a few thousand votes with those comments. [Laughter.]

172. The Chairperson: Surely you have enough that you can afford to lose them.

173. I think that we have covered everything on the Bill. Thank you.

30 September 2010

Members present for all or part of the proceedings:

Mr Simon Hamilton (Chairperson)
Ms Carál Ní Chuilín (Deputy Chairperson)
Mr Sydney Anderson
Mr Billy Armstrong
Mrs Mary Bradley
Mr Mickey Brady
Mr Jonathan Craig
Mr Alex Easton
Ms Anna Lo
Mr Fra McCann

Witnesses:

Mr Tom Bowler Ms Caroline Hobson Mr Liam Quinn

Department for Social Development

174. The Chairperson (Mr Hamilton): I welcome Liam Quinn, Tom Bowler and Caroline Hobson from the Department for Social Development. Members have been provided with a cover note on the background and key points of the Department’s briefing on irresponsible drinks promotions. The Assembly Research and Library Service’s paper on recent correspondence with the Royal College of Psychiatrists in Northern Ireland has also been provided. The session will be reported by Hansard. Perhaps you will give a brief introduction and then I will open up the floor for questions.

175. Mr Liam Quinn (Department for Social Development): Thank you. I will give a bit of background and then my colleague Caroline Hobson will go through the detail.

176. For some time, Ministers have been concerned about irresponsible drinks promotions and the abuse of alcohol. In May, a joint committee of DHSSPS and DSD officials reported to the Health Minister, Mr McGimpsey, and the Social Development Minister, Ms Ritchie. Officials recognised that there was a weight of evidence on the harmful effects of excessive alcohol consumption and that irresponsible promotions and the low price of alcohol were contributing to the problem. They recommended that action be taken on irresponsible promotions, and that further investigations take place into minimum pricing, which had been raised in Scotland and was making its way through the Scottish Parliament at that time.

177. The Minister for Social Development was keen to take action on the issue without delaying the Licensing and Registration of Clubs (Amendment) Bill, which we discussed in a previous session. To that end, he considered using the Department of Justice Bill as a possible vehicle for bringing in legislation limiting irresponsible promotions. However, having discussed the matter with OFMDFM’s machinery of government unit and the Office of the Legislative Counsel (OLC), that was not deemed to be practical.

178. We now propose to seek approval from the Executive to consult on our proposals, and, following the consultation and consideration of responses received, the Minister may then decide to introduce an amendment to the Licensing Bill at Consideration Stage. We hope to have help from the Committee in bringing that forward following the consultation if that is the route he wishes to take. Caroline will now speak to you about what we consider to be irresponsible drinks promotions.

179. Ms Caroline Hobson (Department for Social Development): It is proposed that a provision in the Licensing Bill will amend the Licensing Order and the Clubs Order to include the power to allow the Department to make regulations, which will be subject to affirmative resolution, to restrict or prohibit irresponsible alcohol promotions and other specified promotional activity to tackle concerns about the over-consumption of alcohol.

180. It is intended that the new provision in the primary legislation will define what it meant by a drinks promotion and specify what is considered to be irresponsible. It will provide the Department with the power to set out in detail, in regulations, the type and scope of the restrictions to be put in place to prohibit or restrict promotions in both on- and off-sales premises licensed under the Licensing Order and the Clubs Order.

181. The provision will also provide that the regulations will also add or modify the list of activities to be counted as irresponsible and that it will be an offence for licensed premises and clubs to hold an irresponsible alcohol promotion.

182. Other specified promotions may be provided for in the legislation, including the supply of alcohol on licensed premises at a reduced price during a limited period of any day — happy hours — or other bans on the differential pricing of alcohol products. Legislation could also provide for the minimum price of a package containing two or more alcoholic products. In effect, that would mean that the price of such products must be equal to, or greater than, the sum of the prices at which each product is for sale. For example, if a bottle of wine costs £4, a retailer would not be able to sell a package of two bottles for less than £8. Similarly, a case of 24 cans of beer may not be sold at a price that is less than the cost of 24 individual cans, provided they are for sale individually in the premises.

183. However, officials are continuing to liaise with the OLC regarding the viability and legality of including those measures.

184. It is envisaged that, subject to the consultation, the following types of alcohol promotions will be deemed to be irresponsible: those relating to an alcoholic drink that is likely to appeal largely to under-18s; those that provide an alcohol drink for free, or cut-price, on purchase of one or more drinks, alcoholic or not; offers, such as two-for-one, where an alcoholic drink, or drinks, is provided free or cut price on the purchase of that drink; offers, such as ‘All you can drink for £10’; a promotion in which a person is encouraged to buy, or drink, a larger measure of alcohol that he or she would have otherwise intended; any promotion based on the strength of any alcohol; drinking games that promote, reward or encourage the drinking of alcohol quickly; a promotion that offers alcohol as a reward or prize, unless the alcohol is in a sealed container and is consumed off the premises; a promotion in which alcohol is dispensed directly by one person into the mouth of another; and promotions that encourage specific groups to drink for free or at a reduced price, such as ‘Women drink for free’, or student nights.

185. Officials are continuing to work up the details of what constitute irresponsible drinks promotions, and we will continue to consider the list after consultation and our discussions with the OLC. There will then be a further consultation on the details of the regulations, which will be undertaken as soon as possible.

186. The Chairperson: Largely, I am happy with the way that the proposals are going. If there is a list of irresponsible promotions, is there not a risk that those who do the promoting will always stay a couple of steps ahead of the rest of us? Ultimately, they are running businesses and will try to get around the list by inventing new, and perhaps increasingly irresponsible, activities. This is not an argument against the list.

187. You have mentioned about a dozen types of activities that the Department is putting on the banned list. Will another half dozen activities be added in a year’s time and then again the year after? As the situation develops, and as there are changes and tensions start to rise, will you be continually banning promotions? It might get to the stage where that work peters out, because the other side has given up, et cetera. But, will you get to the stage where you will be adding new irresponsible promotions to the list all the time?

188. Mr Quinn: You are right, Chairperson. We could reach that stage. Undoubtedly, irresponsible licensees will attempt to get round any legislation. However, we are framing it so that the primary legislation will not require to be amended. When we want to add new irresponsible promotions to the list; that will be done through regulation, which will be an awful lot quicker.

189. Ms Hobson: Including examples of irresponsible promotions in the primary legislation shows the type of territory in which we are working. We will be able to add to the list through the regulations, which will allow us the flexibility to deal with people who try to work around the provisions in the primary legislation, as you said, Chairperson.

190. The Chairperson: I want to ask about the restriction on alcohol being given as a reward or prize unless it is in a sealed container and consumed off the premises. If a club is running an evening event, and there is a raffle, and one of the prizes is a bottle of whisky; will that be banned?

191. Mr Quinn: No; as long as it is in a sealed container.

192. Mr Craig: I have been in the embarrassing situation of winning the odd one and having to give it away.

193. The Chairperson: I won a bottle of sherry one time.

194. Mr Craig: The Royal College of Psychiatrists in Northern Ireland is very supportive of the issue, and I looked in particular at what Dr McGarry had to say. He is very clear that evidence shows that banning advertising, limiting the number of retailers and introducing minimum pricing works. I am going to be absolutely facetious here because we have just discussed a bit of legislation that will free up some sale of alcohol. I have heard the Department make all the arguments for a 150% increase in late night openings, which, unquestionably, will increase the level of drinking because, let us face it, that is their business, and they have to sell it. Yet, now we are discussing measures to try to limit the drinking of alcohol. Do we know what we are doing here, because we are simply not being consistent?

195. The Chairperson: The only reason why we are discussing this matter now is that the point that Mr Craig is making was made during Second Stage, which was that there was an apparent contradiction in the Bill. One cannot free up at one end and not tighten at the other. There are some elements of tightening up in the Bill, but this is more what members wanted to see; that, at least, it is tackled at this stage and not delayed until later.

196. Mr Quinn: I hear what the member is saying. Alcohol is part of our society, and members of the public enjoy drinking it. However, we are trying to ensure that irresponsible drinks promotions are not taking place. The Minister was of the view that social clubs are generally well run. There are golf clubs, bowling clubs, cricket clubs, and Fra mentioned GAA clubs. Those clubs provide a service to their members and to their local communities. The Minister was convinced that allowing clubs to open additional hours during the year, or to apply to the police for permission to open during those additional hours, was the way to go.

197. Mr Armstrong: When there is an element of fun brought into it, people become irresponsible. Sometimes, fun gets out of hand. In fact, someone said earlier that people even use dentists’ chairs. As long as people are responsible, everything is OK, but in clubs, there is more of an element of fun and being less responsible.

198. The Chairperson: A lot of irresponsibility also comes out of responsible licensing.

199. Mr Quinn: I am not sure that registered clubs would be irresponsible.

200. Mr Armstrong: Not all of them.

201. Mr F McCann: There is a difference between registered clubs and some of the nightclubs that operate.

202. The Chairperson: There is a slight difference.

203. Mr F McCann: When we had our previous discussion on this issue in May, questions were asked about drinks promotions and the sale of alcohol in supermarkets. At that stage, we were told that the findings of a review being carried out in Scotland were being awaited. In the intervening period, the Ministers released two statements outlining most of the stuff that I thought we would have been discussing here, and that pre-empted what we were going to discuss. That was obviously for publicity value. However, I noticed that when the officials talk about drinks promotions, supermarkets are not mentioned. I said in an earlier meeting that people’s drinking habits have changed over the years. There are huge drinks promotions in Sainsbury’s or Tesco, who almost sell drink at a loss to encourage people to come through the doors to buy other things. Yet, that poses as big a problem, or maybe even a bigger problem, than some of the drinks promotions. I fully agree with, and endorse, all the stuff that is in here about trying to curtail the activities of some drinking establishments.

204. However, in dealing with this, you have to look at some of the drinks promotions, especially coming up to Christmas. I see people coming out of supermarkets with trolley loads of drink that they have got at a cheap price. The common saying now is that a bottle of beer is cheaper than a tin of coke.

205. Mr Quinn: To clarify, the proposals that Caroline outlined would apply to all licensed premises, including off-sales, public houses, registered clubs, hotels and supermarkets. It would apply across the board.

206. Mr S Anderson: As one who was in the pub trade some 10 years ago — my family ran a rural country pub — I know that the people in my pub were very responsible. I do not want to see such pubs pushed down the road of closure, which is an opinion that I am sure is shared by many.

207. Again, Fra has stolen my thunder, because I want to talk about supermarkets. They have loss leaders, and pubs cannot buy drink from their suppliers at the prices that supermarkets are selling it for. That is still the case.

208. Our young people are living in a drinks culture, and it is more of an off-sales culture. Sometimes, they are buying as much drink as they can wheel out of a supermarket in a trolley. This is business, and Tesco and Sainsbury’s can offer milk, for example, at their price. How can we pin the supermarkets back so that they have to sell alcohol at a certain price? If they can sell other products cheaply, is there anything in law that prevents supermarkets selling alcohol so cheaply? Something has to be done.

209. Ms Hobson: We definitely acknowledge that. There are other pricing options, such as banning below-cost sales, minimum pricing or taxation. We are giving further consideration to all those options.

210. You mentioned banning below-cost sales. The coalition Government are undertaking a consultation, part of which is looking at banning below-cost sales. They are trying to find specific simple and effective ways of determining the cost of drink, which is one of the issues. They are also looking at ways of introducing and enforcing such a ban effectively. We are continuing to monitor that.

211. We are continuing to look at minimum pricing. Scotland tried to introduce minimum pricing in its Alcohol etc. (Scotland) Bill, which is going through the legislative process. However, so far, that has been defeated. We are aware that Scotland will try to reintroduce minimum pricing during the final stage of the Bill, and we will watch to see what happens over there. Obviously, we will then consider the implications that that will have for us. We acknowledge that something has to be done. However, at the moment, we do not have the legislative competence to do it.

212. Mr Quinn: Taxation is a reserved matter. Therefore, any increase in duty would affect an attempt to introduce minimum pricing. There are also concerns as to whether trying to set a minimum price for alcohol would be within European competition regulations. We also need to take account of the cross-border element. If we were to push up the price of alcohol north of the border, we would end up losing business across the border. We saw the reverse of that in recent times, when the price of alcohol in the South was much higher than in the North. We could end up costing jobs in Northern Ireland.

213. Mr S Anderson: What we find now is that young people tend to go to off-sales and cheap drinks outlets and sit at home and party until perhaps 10.00 pm, at which stage, they then decide to go out to the local pub or club, because they do not want to pay the higher prices all night. It will be difficult to stop that.

214. Ms Lo: A lot of young people do that. They go to the supermarket to buy cheap drinks, tank themselves up and then, at 10.00 pm, go to the pub to meet their friends.

215. I just want to ask one different question. A lot of the clubs sell alcohol quite cheaply and a lot of people join clubs. They are not playing golf or hockey, but they join the local sports club so that they can get cheap drinks. Will there be some regulations on clubs selling alcohol at the minimum price?

216. Mr Bowler: It is a little known fact that club membership should be at a ratio of three full members to one less-than-full member. In law and in theory clubs should not allow any more than a ratio of 3 to 1 between full members and those who simply stand at the bar. That is one element of the answer. Policing that could be a bit tricky. The whole purpose of that particular rule is to stop people joining clubs for drinking purposes, but I do appreciate your point.

217. Ms Lo: There are so many associate members.

218. The Chairperson: Clubs tend to keep their prices down because their business model is different. Their overheads are low, and staff work for little or nothing. They do not have the same costs.

219. Ms Lo: But that also encourages drinking to excess, because people know that it is a lot cheaper than they will pay in the pub down the road.

220. Mr F McCann: I thought the whole purpose of the legislation was not to be anti-drink, but to be anti-abuse of drink.

221. Ms Lo: Absolutely; it has huge economic and social costs to society.

222. The Chairperson: We will await developments on this matter. As regards the route that officials have outlined, about progressing this matter during Consideration Stage of the Licensing Bill, which we previously discussed, it might be useful to share your paper with the various other stakeholders so that we can start that process more quickly. I share some of the concerns expressed by members about the fact that it must be a full package; it cannot be one third or two thirds, and leaving out the important element of what we do about supermarkets and their behaviour. I appreciate that there are a lot of difficulties in achieving that, but we encourage you to continue with that work and an analysis of how that might be achieved. In many ways that is actually the key aspect. Thank you very much.

223. Mrs M Bradley: What other Committees will consider the Bill, or is it just this one?

224. Mr Quinn: Just this one; the measures will be included in the Licensing Bill, which will be considered by this Committee.

225. Mrs M Bradley: I just wanted to know about that, because, in relation to some of the banning we are looking to do, we would need to go to another Committee to stop the advertising.

226. Mr Quinn: We know that. Minister McGimpsey has just written to our Minister to say that he is fully supportive of the proposals because of the health benefits.

227. The Chairperson: We might be able to send it to some other Committees for their views on it. Thank you very much.

30 September 2010

Members present for all or part of the proceedings:

Mr Simon Hamilton (Chairperson)
Ms Carál Ní Chuilín (Deputy Chairperson)
Mr Sydney Anderson
Mr Billy Armstrong
Mrs Mary Bradley
Mr Mickey Brady
Mr Jonathan Craig
Mr Alex Easton
Ms Anna Lo
Mr Fra McCann

Witnesses:

Inspector Gary Atkinson Mr John Conner Superintendent Chris Noble

Police Service of Northern Ireland

228. The Chairperson (Mr Hamilton): Joining us today are Superintendent Chris Noble, operations manager for B district, which is south and east Belfast; John Conner, head of the social policy unit, strategic partnerships, criminal justice department; and Inspector Gary Atkinson from social policy unit, strategic partnerships, criminal justice department.

229. You are all very welcome; and apologies for the delay in getting to this session. We have been talking about drinks; and it has been like a session this morning. I remind everyone that the meeting is being reported by Hansard. Please begin with a brief introduction, after which we will open up the meeting for questions.

230. Mr John Conner (Police Service of Northern Ireland): I am John Conner, and I am from the social policy unit in the criminal justice department.

231. Superintendent Chris Noble (Police Service of Northern Ireland): I am Superintendent Chris Noble, the deputy district commander for south and east Belfast and, indeed, central Belfast.

232. Inspector Gary Atkinson (Police Service of Northern Ireland): I am Inspector Gary Atkinson, from the social policy, strategic partnerships and criminal justice department.

233. Superintendent Noble: Thank you for your welcome, Chairperson. We will try to give you a blend of information today. I come from an operational background. Professionally, I have been involved in the night-time economy for a large part of my life, so I can bring you the central Belfast perspective, which will, in turn, reflect that in the rest of the Province. For their sins, and on a daily basis, John and Gary are embedded in policy matters, so they will be able to give you an organisational perspective on policy issues.

234. For the purposes of time and to maintain the flow of the debate, if members are content, I shall reinforce the key points in our submission. I shall start with the closure provisions. In some ways, that is an unfortunate term. For me, it should read “public safety provisions", which would reflect more accurately where we see the benefit. With respect to the grounds on which a senior police officer, which is defined as inspector or above, can close specified licensed premises, we have significant concerns about the absence of two grounds that were in previous drafts of the Bill. In September 2008, when we were consulted on and supported fully the draft legislation, the specified grounds for closure included imminent disorder and noise nuisance, as well actual disorder, which has been retained.

235. Before I talk about the reasons why we feel that all three grounds should be present in the Bill, I will put our concerns in context. First, the vast majority of licensed premises are responsible and cause the police no difficulties or very few difficulties. For example, there are 411 licensed premises in Belfast, and, at the moment, we have a challenging engagement with just eight of them. Indeed, there is a sliding scale of issues, so it would be unfair to paint the situation as a broad issue involving all licensed premises. It is clearly not. Secondly, we see the role of such powers, particularly the three grounds for closure, not from a punitive perspective but from a public safety and preventative perspective. I shall touch on that subject in a moment.

236. Our first concern about the absence of all three grounds is that waiting for disorder to take place is akin to closing the proverbial stable door. If, as an inspector, I am dealing with disorder at a pub, which can quickly move to violence, my first concerns are to protect the victims, stop further offences from taking place, and arrest perpetrators, as opposed to finding the licensee in order to engage in a discussion about closing the premises. That involves considerable amounts of police time and risk, not only at the scene but subsequently, further down the criminal justice process. If disorder cannot be dealt with at an early stage or, preferably, prevented, there are costs to the courts, the prisons and the probation service.

237. Secondly, the Bill, as it stands, will place us in a weaker position than comparable jurisdictions. My understanding is that the Licensing Act 2003 and the Intoxicating Liquor Act 2003 provide safeguards, powers and options beyond those that we currently have here. From my perspective, it could be argued that I am tying one arm behind the police’s back, but we could also be creating a less safe environment than would otherwise be the case. Again, for me, it comes down to public safety.

238. Thirdly, and this connects with my view that the vast majority of licensed premises and licensees are responsible: on a daily basis, we work consistently and well with the trade and its representatives. The common refrain from them, and one of their biggest concerns, which, because I do not have statistics, is anecdotal, is that rogue elements in the trade abuse the system and are able to operate outside the rules, thereby putting the legitimate trade at a commercial disadvantage. I do not believe that any law-abiding licensee would have anything to fear from the inclusion in the legislation of the two additional grounds for closure.

239. The guidelines will be critical to ensuring that there is good law and a common sense application of it. My understanding is that the guidelines in England and Wales refer to a collaborative effort. Rather than resorting to the exercise of legal powers, the first thing that a police officer should do is to express concerns to the licensee. In fact, on many occasions, the licensee will have contacted the police to ask for a discussion about the matter. It is not an adversarial but a collaborative process. Indeed, on some occasions, licensees voluntarily close their premises.

240. My understanding of closure of premises does not automatically mean closure for 24 hours; it could mean for a period of time. In fact, it may affect only the licensed part of the premises. Therefore, the measure is not a draconian 24-hour closure with no discussion with the licensee. The approach is very much a collaborative attempt to try to keep people safe and to maintain the integrity of the business in question. A business where a serious assault, or, God forbid, worse, has taken place in or around the premises has various challenges with its brand and reputation just as much as a business that has been closed.

241. I assure members that, as a matter of course, police officers do not seek out additional paperwork or attendance at courts. An element of necessity will be involved, not just because human rights legislation obliges us to have it but because it is one of the practicalities of policing. We much prefer to prevent crime than to have to deal with its consequences.

242. In summary, the grounds that are absent for me are to do with dealing with imminent disorder and noise nuisance, and those cover some of the key elements of tackling alcohol-related disorder. The issue with imminent disorder is the fact that police officers with genuine powers and sanctions can effectively influence and work with licensees to tackle disorder before it turns into violence.

243. With noise nuisance, I believe that we can address the quality-of-life issues and complaints that we receive from a lot of people who live around licensed premises or who are impacted significantly by having such premises in their area.

244. We are very supportive of penalty points. I believe that they are more effective in acting as a deterrent and as a form of enforcement than the current system. I support the clause on the accounts of registered clubs, because it would mean a drop in bureaucracy for police officers. You will see in our submission that we have some concerns with proof of age schemes and the efficacy of particular forms of identification under the proof of age standards scheme (PASS).

245. If I may talk about authorisations for special occasions, I will probably just alter slightly the perception of the police view on this that came out earlier. An increase in the number of special occasions that may be available does not necessarily equate with x amount more violence per se. However, it is probably fair to say that the more alcohol that is consumed, the greater the increase in some of the risk factors. Allied to the fact that we do not believe that the proper span of powers would be available to us, the risk to public safety would exponentially increase if people had more opportunities to drink. However, we would not be against an increase in the number of special occasions per se. The issue is just about having the proper controls to manage them.

246. Inspector Atkinson: We anticipate that if any clubs were to use the increase in the special occasion authorisation for clubs on Thursday, Friday or Saturday night, our resources would be stretched, because they are being reduced across all organisations. Obviously, we are dealing with licensed premises, and our having reduced closure powers to deal with that situation would link into our having to deal with the clubs at the weekends.

247. The Chairperson: Your argument about the closure provision if there is imminent disorder is persuasive. I can understand that it is incredibly difficult for you operationally to go into a scene where actual violence is occurring. It makes closure, which is the whole purpose of the provision, that bit more difficult. However, imminent disorder creates a level of what was described earlier as subjectivity. That can be a fine line. In most cases, dealing with that involves appropriate care and attention, but there could be occasions when the provision could be used inappropriately. It may even bring about an escalation in the situation, which is what you wanted to avoid in the first instance. How do you see that working out if the Committee were minded to support an amendment to include imminent disorder? I think there is a persuasive case to examine it very carefully, but how do you argue against the point about subjectivity and the provision’s being abused? I would not say that I have seen it abused, but I have seen circumstances in which I would be concerned if certain circumstances were replicated. I have seen that in the past, and others have expressed a similar view.

248. Superintendent Noble: I will ask my colleagues to respond in a moment. However, I share those concerns, in the sense that police officers have a range of powers that covers dealing with criminals and enforcing road traffic legislation. Discretion and subjective professional judgement are required all the time in the use of those powers.

249. The inspectors will be the people who exercise the power. To give you a flavour of what they do at any point in time, they run neighbourhood and public protection units in which they have to manage sex offenders, domestic abusers and investigate child abuse, and they run our public order units. Therefore, they are professionals with a huge amount of power. At times, through case law and statute, that power turns on concepts such as reasonableness. By their very nature, such concepts are subjective until they are interpreted by the courts. Therefore, there is an issue about the level at which the measure is pitched. For example, we have to consider whether it is being pitched at an appropriate level in the investigation process, alongside some of the quite grave issues that inspectors have to deal with.

250. For me, the devil is in the detail of the guidelines. I can guarantee that police inspectors will take significant cognisance of the detail of a guideline, because they know about the triple lock involving their organisation’s guidelines, the Department’s guidelines and scrutiny by the court. All that will put them under significant pressure to justify what they have done. Therefore, this will not be taken lightly.

251. Mr Conner: As we outlined in our written submission, sufficiently robust control measures are in place to ensure that police actions are necessary, proportionate and justified. Chris spoke about inspectors, and action that resulted in closure would be only a last resort. In addition, police officers would have to go to court to justify the action taken. The Department of Justice will also be issuing guidelines on how the police have to use the powers. Therefore, we feel that sufficiently robust measures are in place to satisfy those conditions.

252. Inspector Atkinson: I have researched the guidelines in detail with the Home Office alcohol strategy unit. There are very robust guidelines for our colleagues in England and Wales, and ours broadly reflect those and those of the Department of Justice.

253. It is not just a matter of filling in the form; officers have to meet detailed guidance and criteria before a premises is closed. As Superintendent Noble outlined, most licensed premises in England want to co-operate with police and show that they are responsible, because any closure power automatically generates a review of their licence, as well as a court appearance. That does not happen here. Therefore, I cannot see use of the power requiring just a form to be filled in; its use will have to be justified in detail to the court.

254. Mr F McCann: Of the 411 premises in Belfast, eight are causing a problem. How many of those eight are registered clubs?

255. Superintendent Noble: I am focusing primarily on licensed premises, not registered clubs.

256. Mr F McCann: You are putting the case that, with the increase in licences, there may be problems with registered clubs. However, in Belfast, there are 411 premises, including registered clubs, and eight of those premises are causing problems. If there are no registered clubs among those eight premises, the clubs must be well run and have very little violence occurring or few problems emanating from them.

257. Superintendent Noble: Yes, although sometimes they are clever enough not to come to our attention. However, you cannot prove what does not exist. Generally, we do not have the same issues with registered clubs that we do with the classic night-time economy licensed premises. That is a fair point.

258. Mr F McCann: You may have heard me ask the departmental officials about this, but what you were saying does not always reflect reality, and I know that that is the case in my constituency. The heavy-handed attitude of the police towards some of the pubs in my constituency is probably down to a few individuals. People in the constituency have raised that issue on a number of occasions. A common sense approach from the police, involving mediation and their not going into pubs at certain times, especially when they know that people are going to be overloaded with drink, could settle a situation far quicker than if they were to walk in and say that they were closing the premises. That in itself could lead to trouble. If the onus is put on the owner of the bar or premises, or, if they are not available, whoever is there on the night, such as a sensible person in control, in 99% of the cases, you could mediate a position in which the bars are emptied and any trouble is taken away.

259. Superintendent Noble: The difficulty is that I assume that we cannot implement the provision on a regional or a case-by-case basis. We need to provide safeguards across the North and across the Province. There are obviously community contacts that have an influence on the community’s concerns about police action and decision-making. My focus is not anti-business at all. I do not believe that what we are proposing will actually have to be implemented all that regularly. I think that the deterrent effect will be huge, and that, if anything, it will arguably bring more prosperity to the trade in the sense that there will be a level playing field and absolute clarity and certainty about what will happen if people step out of line.

260. There is perhaps a distinction to be made between licensed premises in urban and rural environments, but the safeguards will be in place across the board. For me, the primary focus has to be on keeping people safe, and we know the huge impact of alcohol on people’s safety, not just in the public realm but in the domestic realm.

261. Mr Conner: To add to what Chris is saying, a constable or a sergeant does not close a place; an inspector does that. Chris has outlined the powers that they already have. Only someone at the grade of inspector or above can actually decide to close premises.

262. Mr F McCann: If we look again at the reality of any given situation, the inspector will react to what the sergeant or the individual policeman has told him. As I said, I have had some experiences of that. I have to go back to the figures; there are 411 licensed premises, and only eight of them are causing problems. I take it that most of the premises involved are based in the city centre.

263. Superintendent Noble: The city centre now has a fairly broad footprint that stretches all the way up the Lisburn Road and out towards the Odyssey Complex, so it is quite extensive. My concern is that, if, at some point in the future, police actions are found to be lacking, the proposed power could have been a key tool. We may not see the need for it now, but a lot of issues relating to licensed premises are foreseeable for us. If police have to wait until there is actual disorder to have what, on occasions, will be an effective sanction not just for those licensed premises, the potential to increase the risk for the night-time economy is created in circumstances where we have seen real progress being made over the past few years.

264. Ms Lo: Is there not already a law dealing with public disorder, enabling you to close premises?

265. Superintendent Noble: Under common law, if there is a breach of the peace, for example, we can take pre-emptive actions. However, that primarily involves arresting an individual or moving an individual from A to B to try to prevent a breach of the peace. There is nothing comparable to the proposed legislation.

266. Ms Lo: Does that mean that you are closing the premises?

267. Inspector Atkinson: The Department of Justice, in consultation with us, has an existing power to close licensed premises. We make a submission and present evidence, and the Department can close the premises. However, that will be repealed if the proposed legislation goes ahead.

268. Ms Lo: Will you let me know the difference between actual disorder, that is, fights and people thumping each other, and imminent disorder? How do you define that?

269. Superintendent Noble: Thankfully, the guidelines will hopefully give us some steers on that. The current environment, and my perceptions of actual disorder, require the act to be in place. A blow may not necessarily have landed, but it normally has to have commenced. Therefore, we are essentially dealing with a scenario in which police have to intervene to protect somebody’s life or to arrest an offender. A whole range of situations could be defined as imminent disorder.

270. If it helps, I will tell you how I see the powers working in Belfast city centre. Through police officers’ observations or the licensee’s contact with police, the police will get a sense that there is a particular crowd, particular concerns or particular individuals who have drunk a lot of alcohol. I think that licensees will pick a vibe up about that very quickly. It is often up to the door staff to try to handle such situations, and that can add another element to the mix. On occasions, police will have information that there will be disorder at particular premises.

271. Ms Lo: That information could come from neighbours, the owner of the pub and so on.

272. Inspector Atkinson: Perhaps I can outline what happens from an operational perspective. A few years ago, I worked throughout the city centre in the public order unit and had to attend a number of premises in which problems had upscaled to the stage at which local police could not deal with them. A level 2 public order unit had to attend a number of licensed premises — I will not name them — and, because of wide-scale disorder that went to the level of almost being a riot, it was necessary to clear those premises out. That is a situation that we do not want to get into again. If we have information from a licensee or a member of the public that disorder is about to take place, we want to be able to do something about it. That protects the police, members of the public and those who are involved in the disorder.

273. Superintendent Noble: Perhaps I could briefly comment on the concept of reputation, which, I appreciate, is critical for the trade. If I were in a licensee’s shoes, I would much prefer to have an agreed two-hour closure, even of only the licensed elements of the premises, to try to deal with any potential or actual disorder, than to have a public order unit wade into the middle of things. That could result in injury and, no doubt, in bad word of mouth spreading across a particular community. I fully accept licensees’ and communities’ concerns about how that power is going to be used. However, in 2008 and 2009, under the Licensing Act 2003, around 250,000 licences or certificates were in force, with only 54 exercises of power. Therefore, on a pro rata basis in Northern Ireland, the instances of the use of the power would easily be in single figures, if, indeed, we ever needed to exercise it.

274. Inspector Atkinson: Closure orders appear to be seen as negative. However, they can be a positive thing for a licensee, because they will usually have consulted the police and will be happy for the premises to be closed rather than for disorder to take place. Again, premises would not be closed for 24 hours; that could be reduced to only five or eight hours, and it would be reopened the next day. Although a closure order generates an appearance in court, the police can report that the licensee co-operated fully to ensure public safety. We have an action plan in place that, working in partnership with licensees, ensures that disorder does not take place again. We would not, then, object to a club’s late hours being reduced or revoked. Therefore, this can be a positive thing for licensees; it is not always negative.

275. Ms Lo: We will be hearing from Pubs of Ulster, and perhaps we should consult with the Department of Justice on this matter.

276. Mr Craig: I was interested to hear your comments on manpower levels. What would be a sensible increase in the late opening of clubs? At present, clubs can open late one day a week. However, under the proposals, that would come closer to two and a half days a week, which is, potentially, an entire weekend.

277. The nature of most clubs is that they are connected with sport of some description. Therefore, the biggest reason for late opening would probably be a sporting event, such as a major cup final. However, not all such events occur at weekends; a lot occur throughout the week. What implications does that have for manpower levels? I am not an expert on policing, but I certainly know how other emergency services plan their work levels, which are usually reduced during the week and then peak at weekends. Are your resources similar? Would the late opening of clubs during the week cause a major resource issue?

278. Superintendent Noble: In some ways, policing and health services differ in the issues that they deal with where alcohol is concerned. Indeed, we obviously sympathise with the emergency health services. For us, the key issue is not the sheer amount of alcohol that is drunk but the compression of time in which that happens. Therefore, giving people more opportunity to drink does not necessarily equate with more disorder. However, you are right to say that, in policing, there is no flatline when our officers are out on the ground. There will be peaks and troughs. For example, in my area, we try to have more officers on at key times of the night-time economy. If, in another district with a similar profile, clubs started opening late during the week, that would have to be monitored very carefully.

279. All I can say is that, if there is an issue with a particular club, it will be picked up, and police will then have to decide how to address it. However, if that issue snowballs, you are right to say that, because of the 120 late night openings, there would be significant challenges in trying to spread resources to meet demand. I can speak only from experience in my district, but perhaps my colleagues can talk more broadly. To go back to earlier comments, we do not have a significant issue with registered clubs. However, that is not to say that one will not develop.

280. The Chairperson: Jonathan?

281. Mr Craig: I am just fascinated by this.

282. Mr Armstrong: When will you bring in penalty points for disorder? Would penalty points be for disorder inside or outside the building? What would warrant penalty points?

283. Mr Conner: A range of situations is covered in the legislation.

284. Inspector Atkinson: There is a list of offences, on conviction, for which penalty points would be received. DSD may wish to comment on that. For example, a licensee would get five penalty points for selling alcohol to a person under the age of 18.

285. Mr Armstrong: A lot of disorder occurring outside a club would be no reason for the licensee to get penalty points. That would create a lot of extra duties for the police.

286. Inspector Atkinson: Under the intended new legislation, penalty points would be given for certain prescribed offences.

287. Mr Conner: That would include, for example, selling alcohol to underage people and opening after hours.

288. Mr Armstrong: Therefore, the issue is to do with the publican and not the people in the pub.

289. Inspector Atkinson: It comes down to public safety. In presenting a case to the court, it would be highlighted if various people had committed a number of offences, whether they are the licensee or other people creating disorder. An ongoing police investigation would look into any offences that had taken place, whether that was public disorder, assaults or any more serious offences. Those would be dealt with as a separate matter but referred to in the initial court appearance.

290. Mr Armstrong: Could it be taken into consideration that what happened in the street was to do with what happened inside the club?

291. Inspector Atkinson: Yes. We could apply for the suspension of a club’s licence if necessary. However, we would work with licensees, most of whom are responsible and generally happy to work with the police.

292. Mr Conner: We should also see licensees focusing more on complying with the legislation. The sanction of closure for between one week and three months is a greater deterrent than a fine, the amount of which clubs can make in a night.

293. Mr Armstrong: I totally agree with the penalty points system, because it is more of a deterrent, which we need. It is also easier to manage, because there would be fewer court cases, fewer problems and less time wasted.

294. Inspector Atkinson: Similar to our colleagues in DSD, we work in very close partnership with Pubs of Ulster and the Northern Ireland Hotels Federation. We have provided those organisations with reassurances that we will produce very detailed guidance on closure orders and consult them on the concerns that they have to ensure that there are safeguards for their members. We did that with the test purchase of alcohol legislation. That had a lot of positive outcomes, including our detailed policy and procedures for licensed premises.

295. Mr Armstrong: I hope that penalty points would save police time and result in fewer court cases and fewer problems.

296. Mr S Anderson: Chris, you referred to noise nuisance, which I took to mean high-level disco music — it would happen in the sort of place that I would attend, Chairman. Obviously, those premises will have received their entertainments licence. Therefore, do you propose to liaise with the licensing council or officer on the ground before you close any premises? Alternatively, would you ask a club to turn the decibels down and try to reach a compromise?

297. Superintendent Noble: Obviously, as the word suggests, the guidelines will give operational guidance to police officers on what is appropriate. For me, the first port of call will always be to engage with the licensee, as we currently do and, indeed, as do various agencies, particularly where noise nuisance is concerned. Therefore, the approach will be very much collaborative and persuasive. The issues with closure are set well back in the options that police will consider. However, on occasions, some premises are persistent offenders with noise nuisance, and they have a significant impact on the quality of life of the residents who live around them.

298. Mr S Anderson: I am sure that you realise that local authorities have difficulty in gathering information with their monitors. Do you see this as a provision for your inspector or someone more senior to step in to close a place because they believe that it contravenes the legislation? After that, how would it work? Would you still work with the local authority?

299. Inspector Atkinson: Our guidance, which will probably mirror and go beyond that in England and Wales, is very detailed. Several criteria have to be satisfied before implementing a closure order is resorted to. I emphasise that, on the mainland, issuing a closure order is an absolute last resort. It was quoted that, out of all the premises in England and Wales, 54 were closed. We anticipate that even fewer will be closed here.

300. Superintendent Noble: Contrary to public opinion, we are not in this to try to stop people having fun, and we are definitely not trying to restrict trade or business in any way. The approach will be persuasive and collaborative, as opposed to having an adversarial element.

301. Mrs M Bradley: I looked at the number of extra nights that could be granted for clubs. It gives me good confidence that it is the police that will have the opportunity to decide on who will get the extra nights. Surely you will be able to work with all the clubs on that. Clubs that have a record of good behaviour will not want that to be blemished if they were to have an extra night. I hope that you can work with that.

302. Superintendent Noble: We will try to link the authorisation for a special occasion to the breadth of the police’s powers, so that if a premises were out of order in some way, a much more effective and speedier deterrent could be used down the line. However, such premises are absolutely the minority.

303. Mrs M Bradley: It is similar to pubs, in that they will want to protect their licences. I hope that that works out.

304. Mr F McCann: I want to return to a question that Sydney asked. The fact that councils deal with noise offers a balance across the board, because the opinions of the police, objectors and the licensee are taken on board before a decision is made. One of the things that we have learned on the council over the years is that, if people go for an outright closure or try to take away the entertainments licence, they often find that they lose it in court. The council has the balance in that not only does it set in place procedures to gather the evidence but it offers a mediation role that brings together each of the individuals. That works in the vast majority of cases. If there is a serious noise nuisance, it needs to be dealt with, but if the council goes to court and loses the case, its hands are tied when trying to deal with such issues in the future.

305. The Chairperson: Do you want to say anything about irresponsible drink promotions, which we discussed in the previous session? I will not open it up to questions, but do you have anything that might helpfully inform us?

306. Superintendent Noble: Our organisation has not had the opportunity to consult and codify a response, but we are more than happy to do that if asked. That said, we have seen the consequences of people consuming significant amounts of alcohol in a short time, and, very often, it is local residents, members of the public or, indeed, members of the Police Service who have to suffer. By definition of something’s being irresponsible, we are against it. The key is defining what is irresponsible and what is responsible.

307. The Chairperson: If we could do that, we would be halfway there.

308. Thank you very much for your useful evidence, and we are sorry for the delay.

7 October 2010

Members present for all or part of the proceedings:

Mr Simon Hamilton (Chairperson)
Mrs Mary Bradley
Mr Mickey Brady
Mr Jonathan Craig
Mr Alex Easton
Ms Anna Lo
Mr Fra McCann

Witnesses:

Mr Stephen Hewitt Ms Siobhan Toland

Belfast City Council

309. The Chairperson (Mr Hamilton): Joining us to give evidence to the Committee are Stephen Hewitt, building control manager, and Siobhan Toland, head of the environmental health service. You are both very welcome. The session is being recorded by Hansard.

310. Ms Siobhan Toland (Belfast City Council): I would like to thank the Committee and the Chairperson for allowing us to set out the council’s position and take part in the discussion. We will briefly summarise the key points of our response. We will also make a few points about the community safety work that we do.

311. I am responsible for the council’s environmental health service, which incorporates the traditional environmental health functions, as most people know, but also the community safety teams and the district policing administrative teams. We lead on the community safety partnership for Belfast and chair its strategic tier. We will probably refer to some of the groups that are involved in that. One is the licensed premises group, and the other is the Holylands inter-agency group, which is also chaired by the council.

312. We are here today to articulate the council’s views, which are set out in the response that we submitted. As you would expect, that response went through the council’s processes and procedures. We have not yet had an opportunity to take through our council structures the two additional and interesting bits of information on the alcohol promotions ban and the approach to tackling alcohol pricing interventions, which we received from the Committee Clerk last Friday. Therefore, we cannot articulate a view on those issues on behalf of the council today. However, what I can say from the outset is that there is a high degree of concern among members of Belfast City Council about the impacts and harms that alcohol causes.

313. Hopefully, during the discussion, those aspects will come out from Stephen and me in terms of the debates that we have had around licensing or other aspects to do with community safety and issues that councillors raised in general. However, we do not have a position on those particular points.

314. Mr Stephen Hewitt (Belfast City Council): I have worked in Belfast for 20 years, and, for the majority of that time, I have been involved in entertainment licensing. Many premises that we license for entertainment are also licensed to sell alcohol, and it is fair to say that the vast majority of complaints and objections that we receive are about bar and club premises, which also sell alcohol.

315. I have been involved in the Get Home Safe initiative from the outset. It was instigated by the police in Belfast to tackle the growing problem of alcohol-related violence in the city centre. Get Home Safe is now managed by one of Siobhan’s teams, but I am involved in the licensed premises group, where the council and police officers meet to consider the small number of premises that present difficulties in relation to violence and alcohol-related antisocial behaviour. A key aim of the group is to provide information to inform the decision-making process of the council’s licensing committee. It is that committee which has considered the draft Bill and formulated the response that is before you today.

316. I will briefly outline the main points of the council’s response to the Bill. In relation to closure provisions, the council welcome those powers if they strengthen and augment the enforcement option open to the police for dealing with problem premises. The Great Britain equivalent of the provision provides that the police can make a closure order where there is disorder or where the officer believes that there is likely to be disorder. In addition, there is a provision for closure if public nuisance is being caused by noise coming from the premises and a closure is necessary to prevent that nuisance. We would like to point out that there is no equivalent provision in the Bill.

317. The council has powers under entertainment licensing to suspend a licence where there is a serious threat to public order or public safety. However, our experience shows that that cannot bring about the immediate closure of premises. Therefore, on the rare occasions when we have had to consider suspension of an entertainments licence, the potential option of a more immediate measure as proposed here is welcome.

318. The only other point on closure provisions is that the level of fine for disobeying a closure order appears to be a lot lower than in England and Wales. The council believes that that does not necessarily present a deterrent to non-compliance with the closure order.

319. The council supports the introduction of a penalty points scheme. The council is required to seek the views of the police in relation to any application for an entertainments licence. Although it would probably not be grounds to refuse an application, the fact that an applicant had penalty points for liquor licence offences would point to his overall suitability and fitness to hold a licence.

320. With regard to the proof-of-age scheme, the council welcomes any initiative aimed at combating the problem of underage drinking and suggests that consideration be given to a mandatory proof-of-age scheme.

321. The council’s last point relates to authorisations for special occasions. Many social clubs are in residential areas, and the council is concerned that an increase in the number of late licences has the potential to lead to more incidents of noise, nuisance and disturbance for residents. If that increase is to be included, the council requests that provision be made in the Bill that the police must notify the council of any application for a late licence to ensure that it does not conflict with any condition of an entertainments licence imposed as a result of objections from local residents. The council recognises and welcomes the reduction in the number of late licences following a previous draft licensing Order, which was effectively the potential for a late licence every night of the week for a club.

322. Ms Toland: Under the community safety team, and managing the Belfast Community Safety Partnership, we have a Safer Belfast plan for 2009-2011, which has four key priorities. One of those priorities is around reducing alcohol-fuelled violent crime. The other priorities are tackling antisocial behaviour, reducing hate crime and feeling safer. The two antisocial behaviour and alcohol-related agendas are interrelated and complement each other. Stephen mentioned the Get Home Safe partnership, which was set up in 2002 to encourage people to get home safely.

323. It is about responsible behaviours, and the partnership includes the Police Service, the Department of Justice, local universities and the Public Health Agency. The campaign slogan has recently been refreshed to “Stay together, stay safe", and it is about making young people more aware of their behaviours, particularly around safety. It also has a knock-on effect on the aspects of their behaviours that relate to antisocial behaviour. It is also about showing the difference between good and bad nights out and how drinking can affect that.

324. The Get Home Safe partnership also includes a number of positive interactions with the licensed trade. It offers off-licence training, and there is a voluntary code of practice with the licensed trade on the selling of alcohol to under-18s. Some of the things that were referred to earlier about bags and other aspects have been tried. As well as those elements of education and training, we also undertake joint enforcement operations with the police to tackle the sale of alcohol to minors, and that is supported through Belfast Community Safety Partnership. There are also alcohol by-laws in Belfast; there are certain streets designated where you should not be consuming alcohol. Again, we use joint enforcement operations with the police to tackle that together.

325. The licensed premises group that Stephen referred to is an inter-agency group. It talks about particular licensed premises and problem-solving around them. It comes up with agreed solutions, and all the partners pool their resources together.

326. The Holylands inter-agency group was set up in 2005 by the chief executive of the council, and he has chaired the group since then. One of the key problems that that group has led on, in partnership with the Department for Employment and Learning (DEL) and the Minister’s input, was the events of St Patrick’s Day 2009. We worked in partnership with DEL and produced an inter-agency action plan. That plan has five categories of interventions, one of which deals with alcohol and alcohol controls, including some of the legislative provisions that we are discussing today. That inter-agency group would like to see the Bill taken forward and very much welcomes it. There are other measures that are complementary to it in the Criminal Justice (Northern Ireland) Order 2008 that we also want to see in the action plan.

327. There is another aspect of our work in relation to health. A new unit was formed earlier this year in partnership between the council, the trust and the Public Health Agency — the Belfast Health Development Unit. It has five key priorities around on the health agenda, and one of those deals with alcohol. We are looking at a number of measures, including the education of young people, and we work with the Eastern Drugs and Alcohol Coordination Team (EDACT) to deliver projects in that area. We are also looking at the Total Place approach — approaches that are best practice, obviously, in some of the councils in England in the area of alcohol harm reduction. It is essentially about big partners pooling their resources, being up front about the resource that they have contributed and looking at that. It will be a bit of time before we can see where that goes, but there is an evidence-based suggestion that this will work and be more effective in tackling the issues.

328. We strongly advocate the use of joined-up approaches to tackling the issues around alcohol, and that is demonstrated by the partnership approach that we have taken. Thank you for listening; we welcome a discussion on the issues that have been raised.

329. The Chairperson: It is good for us to hear from Belfast City Council. The scale that your city has — we heard from the police last week that there are 440 licensed premises, and obviously you import a lot of people into the city on a Friday or Saturday night from all over the country. A lot of the problems are probably more visible and acute in Belfast.

330. You raised the issue of noise nuisance, and that was also mentioned by the police last week. I want to probe how that might operate in practice, because after last week’s session I thought that [Inaudible]. Working in practice may not be that simple. What provoked that in my head is that I know that councils are responsible for monitoring and dealing with noise disturbance and the police are not. This legislation moves the closure powers to the police. They can do it on the basis of various criteria; disorder is the one that is there at the minute. If we add noise nuisance to that, how might that happen in practice? The police do not have the experience, wherewithal or capability, other than to say subjectively that something is a bit loud. I now think that the music that I thought was all right 10 years ago is too loud. There is an element of subjectivity. How do you see that working? How has experience elsewhere worked in practice? Does it involve councils working alongside the police? Will the police say that something is too loud, and one of your officers go out, test it, and, if it is too loud, move to closure? Or is it simply in the hands of the police?

331. Ms Toland: That is an interesting point. Belfast City Council has adopted a night-time noise provision that allows it to serve fixed penalties on residential properties. That is also expanding under the Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Bill. We will be able to serve those on commercial properties, including bars and clubs. It will be so many fixed penalties and then look at further consequences to see whether we need to take any further action.

332. We currently work in partnership with the police on licensed premises, in particular, and in partnership with our colleagues in licensing. It is fair to say that noise is one of the key elements of antisocial behaviour that is looked at through the licensed premises group that we review. It is often related to patrons leaving the premises. Discussions like that have come up at the licensing committee in terms of looking at controls and extra conditions that you can put on in terms of tackling patrons and the nuisance that they cause.

333. We do not get that many complaints about strict noise breakout from bars or clubs. Complaints tend to be around outdoor events or concerts. We have usually had an input into the planning and licensing processes for bars and clubs so as to try to mitigate and control the breakout. It is really around the management of the bar or club, and complaints are often received during the summer months, when doors and windows are left open. Double lobby doors, or other measures that usually prevent noise breakout, are left open during the summer months, or, perhaps, windows are left open because the air conditioning is broken. That gives rise to noise breakout. In those cases, if it is severe enough, we work in partnership with the police and attempt to call and give advice.

334. We have no immediate power to do anything in relation to that, but that power would be rarely used. The only circumstance in which I think that it could be used is in an area of high density of a particular problem — maybe some of the scenarios that we have in the wider university area. If there was a nuisance premises and noise breakout, we would look at working in partnership with the police, but we would be there to provide the noise evidence. That can usually be picked up pretty subjectively, and it would be dependent on the number of complaints received. It would be proportional to that.

335. Mr Hewitt: Noise breakout from premises can be controlled through working with the licensee and putting measures in place to prevent it. The majority of complaints about noise that we get from local residents relate to patron dispersal. There are a lot of instances where you have large crowds of people milling about an area. The bar closes at 1·00 am, but they are there at 2·00 am, waiting for taxis, shouting and carrying on and making noise. The legislation would be best placed to try to address that noise disturbance and disorder, because although the council will try to limit that through entertainment licensing, the powers to close, or the threat of closure, due to that disorder, would be powerful in certain instances.

336. Mr Craig: I have listened with interest to a few of the comments that you have made, especially about the late-night openings of the clubs and the concerns around that being extended too far. From what you said, I gather that you have concerns about the number of 120. At the minute, registered clubs can open late one night a week if they so desire, but you have concerns about a 150% increase.

337. You highlighted a couple of issues. You recommend that fines for digressing from a closure order should be increased to £20,000. What is the reasoning behind that?

338. The other issue is proof of age, and you have raised an interesting thing there. You would like proof of identity before patrons go into the premises, rather than after purchase. It would be interesting to hear your logic behind that.

339. Mr Hewitt: Registered clubs can use a late-night licence once a week, and many do not use it that frequently. We do not havea huge amount of complaints about registered clubs; most of our complaints are about pubs and clubs. However, they have the facility to be open late every night of the week. We are suggesting that if registered clubs are allowed to open late more frequently, there may be an increase in the problems that arise from them.

340. It is fair to say that, over the past three years, we have not received a huge volume of complaints about registered clubs. However, 80% of registered clubs in Belfast are in residential areas, so we do have a slight concern that more frequent later opening would lead to an increase in complaints.

341. With regard to the fines, I am not advocating that every licensed premises that disregards a closure order should be fined £20,000. All that I was saying was that the legislation in England and Wales provides for a fine of up to £20,000, whereas here the fines that can be applied only go up to £1,000. I am concerned that a fine of £1,000 is not as much of a deterrent as a higher fine of up to £20,000.

342. Mr Craig: That is a good point.

343. Ms Toland: Our experience from the Get Home Safe partnership, which works with the vintners, is that there are responsible vintners and less responsible vintners. On some of the schemes that we have tried, such as the plastic bags scheme and, more recently, the voluntary code of practice, great work has been done in partnership with responsible vintners. However, not all vintners will sign up to it. It has probably been tested most in the south Belfast area and not as much in other parts of Belfast, so it is really uncharted water. The experience of colleagues professionally has been that something that is not mandatory will not be complied with. Therefore, the suggestion is that the Committee might consider proof of age as a test of entry as opposed to a challenge about the age of certain people.

344. Ms Lo: I was interested in what you said about noise nuisance usually being caused by people coming out of pubs and waiting for taxis. I get a lot of complaints from residents in south Belfast about people coming out of pubs and walking through the streets in drunken crowds.

345. Mr Craig: It is you singing on your way home, Anna. [Laughter.]

346. Ms Lo: How can the Bill cover noise when the patrons who are making it are leaving the premises? Will we be talking about a vicinity, right in front of the pub, or is it a kind of boundary?

347. The Chairperson: The Bill refers to actual disorder “in the vicinity of" [Inaudible.]

348. Ms Lo: That is noise nuisance covered, then.

349. The Chairperson: It may not be. That is something that we will have to probe: whether noise disturbance outside a club or a pub counts as disorder. It may not be fisticuffs, but it is disorder of a kind, so we need to test whether it is covered or not.

350. Ms Lo: At the moment it is not covered, as far as I can tell. We are talking about the actual disorder, not imminent disorder or noise nuisance. You would advocate that, and I would very much advocate that as well.

351. Mr Hewitt: We have a number of premises in the Malone Road area, where residents are very vociferous in complaining. It is primarily about patron dispersal. We have gone down the route of entertainment licensing in the past and tried to determine where the people are coming from: were they walking up the road from the city centre, or coming from house parties? We have had some success through restricting entertainment licences. Those have been challenged through the courts in proving that patron dispersal from certain premises is attributable to those premises. It requires a strong body of evidence from the police and from local residents giving evidence to the courts, showing examples of how they were disturbed by these people. Proving vicinity can be difficult, but it is not impossible.

352. Ms Lo: Residents in my constituency have been getting up at 3.00 am and taking photographs of people from the windows.

353. Mrs M Bradley: We have the same problems in Derry. Former shirt factories in the city are now apartment blocks, and more people are living in the city centre. It is the same situation. They could have three, four, five or six bars around them. How do you identify what bar they are coming out of? It is well-nigh impossible. We have the same problem, and it is a difficult one to deal with. However, if the police have the power to deal with the whole area at one time, that will be good.

354. Ms Toland: We cannot deal with noise in the street; it has to be on a premises. People look to use the noise services, but when it is in a public area, we cannot deal with it. The only control at the moment is relatively weak: patron control and management. However, it is restrictive, and that is why we advocate that it should be looked at in partnership with the police. The response must be proportionate. Through the licensed premises group, we can get information that shows how often complaints are coming in, the level of noise and the times. Evidence can be built up on which decisions can be based. There are possible solutions there, and they could be built into guidance on this if noise is looked at. However, at the moment, there is a big gap in the legislation on noise. People sometimes refer to it as noise but it is often antisocial behaviour. There could be the odd shout or scream, but it is probably not very nice behaviour, fights and various things in the street that we cannot deal with. A persistent problem with a particular premises can be looked at proactively. However, there needs to be legislation to allow that to be exercised.

355. Mr Brady: Dispersal is a difficult area. In Newry, where I live, there is one particular place. I have said this before to the Committee: it is like driving into the ‘Thriller’ video at 1.00 am. Taxi drivers will not go near it after midnight. It is horrendous. That is easily identifiable. People bus in from as far away as Newtownards to this place.

356. The Chairperson: Now hold on a second — [Laughter.]

357. Mr Brady: You have to take responsibility for your constituents.

358. The point is that there are other areas where there are three or four premises and it is difficult to link patrons to particular premises, whereas there are other cases where the premises are much more easily identifiable. We must strike the balance; it is difficult but not impossible. It comes back to where the responsibility of proprietors stops. People can get drunk in an establishment and go half a mile away and cause huge problems because of the amount of drink they have consumed. It is kind of an arbitrary thing.

359. The entertainment licence, I accept, where there is a persistent offender, can be dealt with. However, other premises are responsible. I take the point that registered clubs are responsible in most cases, even though they are in residential areas. There are very few complaints against registered clubs. The problem is nightclubs that go on to 1.30 am and 2.00 am. Therein lies the difficulty. That is obviously a much bigger problem in south Belfast, particularly if Anna Lo is experiencing the night life in her constituency and singing on the way home. However, that is a microcosm of what we are dealing with.

360. Mr Hewitt: The point is that a closure order would be the very last resort. We work with premises where issues come up by gathering information and sitting down with the licensee. We outline the problems and look for solutions with them, police and others. It is a stepped approach. It is possible that the threat of closure is enough to make a licensee take that extra step to address the problems.

361. We have the power to suspend a licence where there is a serious threat of public disorder. In the past seven years, we have exercised that power four times, and then it was not about public disorder but public safety. We would rarely get to the stage of wanting to use it. However, there will always be one or two premises that will not co-operate, no matter much —

362. Mr Brady: The particular premises that I talked about has CCTV. When quite serious incidents have happened in the past, with people being badly injured, it has turned out that has not been recorded. Just down the street, city centre CCTV has made a difference because those cameras look directly up and down this particular street, whereas, before, there would have been no recording. That may be something that can be used if you are going for closure orders, in a more defined way.

363. Mr Hewitt: Residents are very keen to see CCTV put up, although, of course, it involves big expense.

364. Ms Toland: That touches on the key point of the difference between antisocial behaviour and alcohol issues around the premises and its patron. Identifying what patrons were in the premises responsible for the antisocial behaviour is very difficult and hard to prove. Those are the types of things that we struggle with on the inter-agency group, because the stuff that we are talking about in relation to the wider university area applies to the whole of Belfast and beyond.

365. The action plan talks about alcohol disorder zones, fixed penalties and the power of seizure, and improving the designated places for drinking in public. Those are obviously under the Criminal Justice Order (Northern Ireland) 1996, and we are discussing with the Department of Justice how we can bring forward those proposals. Again, they are probably more of a tool to deal with matters beyond the premises, which is relevant to the community safety strategy that we hope will be launched later this autumn and on which there will be consultation. For us, it is about a package of measures, of which this is only one, but we are acutely aware that there is a gap in the noise element.

366. Mr Brady: The ID thing is interesting, because the majority of people who cause the problems leaving premises in the early morning are not underage drinkers; they are 18-year-olds and people in their 20s. The ID thing is certainly laudable, but it seems to be done on an ad hoc basis, certainly where I live. Requiring ID will not necessarily prevent the knock-on effect, because the problem is not caused by underage drinkers.

367. The Chairperson: Thank you; that was very useful. When the council has formed a view on responsible drinks promotions, it would be useful to inform the Committee.

368. Ms Toland: We would like to do that, yes.

7 October 2010

Members present for all or part of the proceedings:

Mr Simon Hamilton (Chairperson)
Mrs Mary Bradley
Mr Mickey Brady
Mr Jonathan Craig
Mr Alex Easton
Ms Anna Lo
Mr Fra McCann

Witnesses:

Mr Jeremy Beadles		Wine and Spirit Trade Assocation
Mr Andrew Opie		British Retail Consortium

369. The Chairperson (Mr Hamilton): I welcome Jeremy Beadles, chief executive of the Wine and Spirit Trade Association (WSTA), and Andrew Opie, food policy director at the British Retail Consortium (BRC). Thank you for coming over to brief the Committee. I just want to remind you about mobile phones, in part because the proceedings are being recorded by Hansard as part of our report on the Licensing and Registration of Clubs (Amendment) Bill.

370. Mr Jeremy Beadles (Wine and Spirit Trade Association): There will be quite a lot of overlap between the two organisations, because we share a lot of the same member companies. I run the Wine and Spirit Trade Association, which has 310 member companies. We have a membership across the entire wine and spirits supply chain: importers and producers of wine and spirit products, including a number of businesses established in Northern Ireland, such as Bushmills, Guinness and the like; and, through the supply chain, wholesalers and retailers in both the on-licence and off-licence trade. We have all the major supermarkets and off-licence chains. Andrew’s membership includes the same off-licence businesses.

371. Our day-to-day work is all about alcohol. Andrew’s day-to-day work covers all issues across the retail sector. As well as working on behalf of our membership with governments across the UK and Europe, we run a range of sensible drinking activities, such as Challenge 25, which I am sure you have seen in stores across the North, community alcohol partnerships, the Campaign for Smarter Drinking, Drinkaware, and a whole range of initiatives that I can take you through if you are interested.

372. We do not have many significant comments in relation to the evidence that we presented to the Committee. With regard to the concept of penalty points, we are fully in favour of action to tackle underage drinking. Our two organisations have been at the forefront of tackling underage drinking across the whole of the UK over the past five years. Challenge 21, which has now become Challenge 25, is a national scheme run out of my offices and supported by all the national retailers of alcohol and a whole range of independent businesses. We believe that premises that intentionally sell alcohol to young people should be shut down. If that is the intention of those retailers, they do not have a right to have a licence and it should be taken away from them.

373. We are concerned about the penalty points system, predominantly around the concept that no discretion is given to the court; anyone found selling alcohol to someone underage twice in a three-year period will lose their licence for a period. The three-year period is considerably longer than in any other market. It is a three-month period in England and Wales. A superstore services 100,000 customers a week and may employ 200-plus checkout assistants. A store could lose its licence if one checkout assistant made a mistake at the beginning of year one and another checkout assistant made a mistake just before the end of year three. That seems excessive to us. In a small store environment, that could be two people making a mistake three years apart and their business would, effectively, be finished. Mistakes do happen.

374. We run Challenge 25, rather than Challenge 21. That means that if you are lucky enough to look anywhere near the age of 25, you will be asked for ID. If you cannot produce it, you will not be served.

375. The Chairperson: It is a cross to bear, isn’t it, Fra? [Laughter.]

376. Mr Beadles: It has not happened to me in a while, but, when it happens to my friends, they are always delighted. My personal assistant is 28 but looks 16, and she gets challenged everywhere she goes, which is an irritant to her.

377. Our view is that something should be done in that area. We are not convinced that three years is a reasonable timescale. The courts should have some discretion in identifying when problems arise, because there can be genuine mistakes. We have done a lot of research into why shop assistants, even after training — they get very well trained by retailers — make mistakes. A lot of the time, it is because they are not very good at judging age. It will not surprise the Committee to know that men over the age of 40 are very poor at judging the age of young women between the ages of 16 and 25, and quite often make mistakes in that area. That is not just an excuse. We did research with chief police officers from around the UK, and put panels of young people in front of them. We discovered that the police are also pretty useless at identifying age. Thus, we use 25, because it gives more room for error.

378. In terms of the proof of age scheme that has been mentioned, obviously, we already do Challenge 25, and, therefore, are entirely supportive of the concept. However, we are nervous about the detail of regulation, because we do not want to create a new and different scheme with new and different page and training requirements from those that are already successfully in place. Our offer is to work with government to develop the second stage of the guidance and regulations to ensure that the good practice that we have built up over the past five years becomes part of the process rather than being superseded.

379. The Committee should note that the English Government in Whitehall brought in exactly the same piece of legislation earlier in the year; it came into force on 1 October. However, before that legislation had even come into force, the Government were consulting on removing it. The reason for that was that, in their view, it was going to undermine the voluntary Challenge 25 scheme, making it impossible for retailers to operate that, because they would have to operate a mandatory Challenge 18 scheme. We know from past experience that the Challenge 18 scheme is not as good and challenges only people who look 18 years old. I ask the Committee to take on board what is happening on the issue in England. However, we are entirely behind the concept of a proof of age scheme.

380. My final comment is about police powers to close premises. We recognise that, when there is trouble in an area, the police need those powers. However, we ask that, for any expected or future trouble, some thought and credibility be given to how proportionate decisions are made. Having the power to close all premises in an entire area because there is, for example, a football match going on, may not be what we are seeking to achieve. That should be considered in the guidance that sits behind the regulations.

381. Mr Andrew Opie (British Retail Consortium): I have very little to add to Jeremy’s comprehensive introduction. As he said, we share members across the piece. For clarity, the BRC represents food and non-food retailers, including all the major grocery retailers that you are familiar with and all those that are represented in Northern Ireland. In total, our members sell about 90% of the UK’s groceries, which is pretty comprehensive coverage.

382. Unfortunately, I need to leave at 11.45 am, if that is OK with the Committee, to catch a plane.

383. The Chairperson: Do you both have to leave?

384. Mr Beadles: We were hoping to travel together. However, I can stay a little longer if necessary.

385. Mr Opie: We are happy to follow up.

386. The Chairperson: We can bring the meeting to a close at 11.45 am. That gives us plenty of time.

387. Mr Opie: I endorse Jeremy’s points. The only thing I would add is that, because our members are grocery retailers, alcohol licences, although not their main purpose of business, are an important part of it. The majority of consumers coming into our stores to buy alcohol do so as part of a wider grocery sale. Therefore, any impact from, for example, closure, would have a wider impact on the business’s overall sales and not just on its alcohol sales.

388. The Chairperson: Society takes a dim view of the sale of alcohol to minors and its consequences. What is the thrust of your collective argument — is it the lack of discretion or the time period? There is no doubt that these things happen, particularly when it comes to the scale of some of the members that you both have.

389. Mr Beadles: I think it is both. A superstore might have six different store managers and 2,000 or 3,000 sales assistants in a three-year period in the life cycle of the business. The aim of the legislation should be to tackle problem premises that are repeat offenders — I am not sure that something that happens twice in a three-year period is a repeat offence. I also believe that there should be an opportunity for a business to defend itself in circumstances that allow the courts some discretion to take those circumstances into account. If, for example, the shop assistant who made the sale of alcohol was a student on his or her last day of work, had fallen out with the boss and did not give a hoot, but the licensee was a known and well-regarded person, it would seem a shame if the court could not take those things into account.

390. The Chairperson: Personally speaking, I do not think that that type of scenario would be credible. There would be an issue, say, if a customer was challenged, but produced documentation that was a very good forgery. That is something that could be taken into consideration. However, sloppy behaviour by employees is a different matter altogether. Those employees are part of the overall corporate entity, and, whether they are junior or not, the organisation is still responsible for their actions. I understand your point, and it is something that the Committee can look into.

391. Mr Beadles: There are always circumstances that, in our view, the courts should have an opportunity to take into account, rather than just having to shut premises. It may be that the licensing officers will say that the store is a really good one with a great track record that has had two isolated incidents over a three-year period.

392. Mr Opie: The second point builds on the argument about the timescale. We absolutely endorse action against irresponsible retailers. We have always said that, and our members have always agreed with that policy. We have no problem with targeted enforcement to close irresponsible retailers. However, a shorter period than three years would show a systemic failure in a business that one would need and want to address quickly. In England, two failures in a three-month period are enough for someone to ask what is going on.

393. You asked whether businesses are taking the matter seriously enough. If any of our members get a failure, they want to know about it immediately. They want to know what is happening in the store and what the store manager is doing. They will review the situation and try to ensure that it does not happen again. However, we are talking about a fairly lengthy period, and, as Jeremy said, lots of people could have worked in that store.

394. We know that smaller stores often have problems late at night with intimidation. There may one or two people in the store who, when faced with a group of youths, are put under a lot of pressure to sell. There may even be people outside who are put under pressure to go in and buy on the youths’ behalf. We should not underestimate the problem of intimidation, particularly for owners of small stores. It is less of an issue for the larger stores, which have security staff and more colleagues around to support them. Intimidation is something that could be taken into account when exercising the discretion that we talked about.

395. Mr Craig: You have raised an interesting point. I note the position in England. I strongly argue that three months is far too short a period, though one can argue that three years is far too long. The Committee can look at this interesting issue and try to find a better balance.

396. You might know the answer to this question about the powers of closure. Is there anywhere else in the UK where powers of closure have been used for major sporting events?

397. Mr Beadles: There are agreements in place around some of the major football grounds on match days. However, they are not closures which the police enforce on businesses, but closures where pub and shop owners agree that, for a period during match days, they will not be open. It takes place for a time on match days by voluntary agreement between them and their competitor businesses.

398. Mr Craig: That is a common sense approach by everyone. I have always said that common sense is the way to go, but, let us face it, it does not always prevail.

399. Mr Beadles: Yes, and it is difficult to express in legislation.

400. Mr Craig: The local authority has to pick up the pieces at the end of the day should it all go wrong. Should it not have the ability to make a judgement and have the right to close premises to prevent public disorder? To my mind, that is probably a more sensible approach. However, you are concerned about the abuse of that power.

401. Mr Beadles: Yes. I want a proportionate approach — closing for a couple of hours during match day, rather than for 48 hours, and not just one shop closing while competitor shops all around remain open.

402. Mr Craig: There is a balance to be struck in all that, but I am not against the police having the ability to do that. You have raised an interesting problem, and I can see the difficulty with this. How does one link any shop or off-licence to an incident that occurs maybe as much as 100 yards down the road from it? What is the direct link?

403. Mr Beadles: Where does individual responsibility come in?

404. Mr Craig: I am interested to hear your views with regard to that. In your experience, is there anywhere else in the UK where something has been introduced to try to get around that issue? Sometimes there is a clear link between sales from off-licence A and trouble in area B.

405. Mr Beadles: I can answer that in a number of ways. The Licensing Act 2003 does not permit a licensing authority in England and Wales to impose a condition on a premises that does not relate geographically to that particular premises. It cannot impose a condition on a supermarket because someone was drunk in the city centre three hours later.

406. So how do you make the link? There is a scheme that has run a number of times in the UK which is flawed but keeps being repeated because it is very well promoted by the people who did it in the first place. It is called bottle marking. That is where product from a particular shop is marked, so that the police can identify, when they catch young kids with it, where the product came from. The flaw in the process is that the police then take the marked product back into the shop, tell the shop that they have just taken it from kids, and ask what the shop will do about it. The shop’s response is to ask who bought it, and to offer the police its CCTV footage for the last 48 hours. It does not provide the link between the one and the other, because so often the alcohol that the kids had was bought by an adult. Therefore, the shop has committed no crime whatsoever. Survey figures in the UK suggest that well over 50% of the alcohol that kids have is given to them by their parents.

407. Conceptually, bottle marking sounds like the right way to go about this. However, in a superstore environment, the packaging means, for example, that packs of beer have to be taken apart to mark each can, and then they have to be put back together. It is logistically impossible. It does not work, and it has never led to any action or prosecution as a result.

408. We have had a lot of success with a major project that we run called community alcohol partnerships. Those started in a small market town in Cambridgeshire called St Neots. In that area, a group of retailers — led by our organisation — the local authority and local police got together and recognised that they had a problem with young people drinking in the town parks and getting hold of alcohol etc, and that they should work together to sort it out as a partnership. They brought in local health and education authorities, schools and things like that, and we worked on a pilot project there for six months.

409. Although it was a small project, the results were extremely encouraging in that they reduced the level of underage sales, underage drinking in the parks, and alcohol litter in public arenas, which is a fairly good indication of where the kids have been drinking, because they are not very good at taking their litter home with them — if it is there, they have probably been there. It involved a whole range of projects, including shutting down proxy purchase things and watching kids who were approaching adults going into stores. A trading standards officer in the store would tap the adult on the shoulder and say that if they bought that bottle of vodka, there would be a £5,000 fine, and then suggest they put it down.

410. All of that stuff was included in press releases, and the PR that they got was phenomenal, because it broadened the scale. Retailers went into schools and explained that, although for kids it was just a game going into a shop trying to buy alcohol, they could lose their job, end up with a criminal record or lose their licence and livelihood. There is a lot of impact. The results were very positive, but it was a small pilot project, so for the next stage we went to Kent County Council and ran a project across the whole of Kent with the police and the health and education teams there. The reduction in alcohol-related issues in the areas we were working in was significant — there was a 17% reduction in the first nine months of operation.

411. As a project, so far it seems to work better in small market towns and suburban areas than in city centres. We have not quite got it right in relation to the city centre night-time economy, but we are working on that. We now have 31 partnerships in operation across England and Wales with another 10 on the move, and we are now resourcing it full time from my offices in London. We have a conversation ongoing with Derry City Council about the first one over here. It is a way of tackling local issues and getting things like diversionary activities involved — getting kids away from thinking that the only thing they have to do is sit in a park and drink and getting them involved in playing football, dance, art, and things like that.

412. Businesses are investing in those hugely successful projects. I will be very happy to come over and present the details of the findings on another occasion. We are very keen to get it working in Derry and wherever else people in Northern Ireland want it, because we think it is a great solution. It tackles a lot of the problems by working together, rather than seeing the retailer as the enemy.

413. Ms Lo: My question may not be directly relevant to the current legislation, but I want to ask it. There has always been a lot of criticism of the irresponsible sale of drink by off-licences and irresponsible promotion of cheap alcohol in supermarkets. I am an MLA for South Belfast — you are both from England, are you?

414. Mr Beadles: I was born in Sion Mills, actually.

415. Mr Lo: There are a lot of students here in a place called the Holylands, and on certain days such as St Patrick’s Day and festivals, students go mad drinking. A number of off-licences have been seen or criticised for still selling drinks to young men and women when they are totally intoxicated. Supermarkets are also sometimes selling a bottle of beer for less than a bottle of water. How do you think your two organisations can have some positive influence on that?

416. The Chairperson: To add to that, Anna, are you aware that the Department is considering outlawing several so-called irresponsible drinks promotions?

417. Mr Beadles: We noticed that earlier this week, and although we discussed it, we have not had time to go through the proposals in detail, but we will come back to you on them. A range of promotions that are included there would not be allowed by our self regulation, according to the Portman Group code, which applies to all alcohol promotions. The code simply does not allow promotions aimed at young people or based on the strength of a product, so we do not do them. In addition, we do not do buy one, get one free (BOGOF) promotions; we have not done a BOGOF on alcohol for at least three or four years. We will, however, come back to you in detail on some elements of it. In particular, we are concerned about linear pricing, which we believe encourages businesses to stop selling smaller quantities of alcohol. To explain things in detail and to understand the issues, we will need to come back with charts, price points and so on.

418. It is against the law for businesses to sell alcohol to intoxicated people, so, other than having the law enforced against those businesses, we do not need anything else. You cannot sell alcohol to someone who is intoxicated. Yes, it can be difficult to make that judgement, but, if a business sells to drunk people, powers exist for the police to close that business down, and they should do so. If it is a repeat offence, the police should take action to make the licensee aware of the issue, and if they are not prepared to stop doing it, they should be shut down.

419. Mr Opie: Having spoken to our members, we know that less than 1% of customers come in purely to buy alcohol. The bulk of customers who come in to our stores are there to buy their weekly groceries, and they may buy alcohol —

420. Ms Lo: What about on Saturday nights at 9.00 pm?

421. Mr Opie: Stores in England that can open 24 hours in the run-up to Christmas find that late Saturday night and early Sunday morning is a successful period for them, because people can come when no one else is there. The key point is that, whatever we do, our aim is to promote to families. That is the core of our business; customers come in to buy the family groceries, and that is where supermarkets compete. Yes, there is some promotion on alcohol, as there is on other products, but we think that we conduct those promotions responsibly. We certainly do not treat alcohol in the same way that we would treat a tin of baked beans. We look at these things seriously, and we support all the initiatives that Jeremy has talked about. For us, and the figures back us up, it is about achieving a balance and making sure that the vast majority of people who drink responsibly and who come into our stores to buy a bottle of wine to enjoy at home with the family in a very safe environment are not penalised for the sake of the minority who perhaps drink irresponsibly. That is the key issue in all of this.

422. Mr Easton: I broadly support what we are trying to do, and I am particularly keen for the police to have the power to close premises. Nevertheless, to take on board what is being said, there must be a responsible measure for doing that, and we need to ensure that it is done even-handedly.

423. With respect to premises that are caught twice selling alcohol to underage people, although I am sympathetic to the idea of punishing repeat offenders, three years is quite harsh. I doubt very much that any off-licence in Northern Ireland will not have sold, at least accidentally, to young people twice in three years. If you go down that route, you may have to close every off-licence. We need to get a better balance. I am not against the idea for repeat offenders, but the three-year period is far too harsh. I am certainly keen to cut down alcohol use among underage drinkers, and the media and education schemes that you outlined, along with increasing the cost of alcohol to put it out of the range of such people, are key areas. However, to be honest, the three-year period is a bit harsh.

424. Mr Brady: If legislation is introduced that entails enforcement, that enforcement needs to be effective. Do you find that, in England, there is uniformity in enforcement, or are there areas where the Trading Standards Service is more zealous?

425. The issuing of bags with the names of off-licences has been discussed here. We tend to get these blue bags that could come from anywhere. It is a bit like the bottle marking; it is not infallible, but it may be a deterrent. In the area that I represent, which is on the border, huge amounts of alcohol are sold. Sainsbury’s in Newry has the highest turnover of alcohol in any off-licence in Ireland or Britain, particularly at Christmas when it amounts to about £1 million a weekend, mostly from Southern shoppers. That might take the problem out of our area. However, there have been incidents where staff in off-licences have been underage and underpaid. You may or may not have come across that problem. It does not happen often, but it has happened.

426. Mr Beadles: I very much doubt that any of our national or local members would employ anyone underage.

427. Mr Brady: It is not common, but it has happened. However, I am interested in the question of enforcement.

428. Mr Beadles: We would love to see the same form of enforcement across the UK. It will never happen. Localism means that people react differently, and, given that we operate a national organisation and deal with national businesses, we spend a lot of our time going to local areas to explain why, based on experience in another area, their plans are not necessarily a great idea. Enforcement will always change. One issue that we struggle with is that it is better local public relations to try to catch Tesco or Sainsbury’s selling to underage people than to go after a problem business. We find that a lot of the enforcement budget is often spent on sending 30 or 40 test purchasers to one superstore in a day until they get a result. I am not sure that that is what enforcement is about.

429. Bags for off-licences would provide an indicator to police that they have a problem with particular premises. I do not think that it could ever be used in legal action or in a court against an off-licence. However, it would be an indicator to police that a particular store is becoming a problem. They could use that as a first line. Effectively, it could inform enforcement. In our view, there is not enough enforcement of the laws that we already have. There are lots of laws around alcohol that are never enforced, such as laws on serving drunks and on underage people who try to buy alcohol.

430. Mr Brady: I am interested in some of the schemes that you mentioned. I was at a meeting about antisocial behaviour in our constituency last night. A lot of that happens along the towpath at the Newry canal, and underage drinking is a huge part of the problem. However, people from the Adolescent Partnership in Newry were at the meeting and talked about engagement with young people. That works for a lot of them. There will be a hard core who simply will not engage, but they are in the minority. You mentioned some schemes; community partnerships seem to be the way forward.

431. Mr Beadles: It is a great way to get business money into local communities. Businesses all have local community engagement budgets to use. We draw down on those for community alcohol partnerships and find ways to engage young people in local schemes. At the beginning of the project in Kent, we ran a scheme where four young people were involved in a local youth project. By the end of it, there were 70 of them playing football and doing dance, art and a range of things, because they had been given the opportunity. To be honest, none of them ever realised that the scheme existed before. It had not been promoting itself.

432. Mr Brady: Boredom is a big reason why they drink outdoors, because there is nowhere else to go. Statistically, in the North, 10 years ago, 78% of alcohol was consumed in pubs. That has gone down now to 23%, and the majority of alcohol is consumed in the home or outside.

433. Mr Beadles: That is across Europe and in the US. That is a result of changing lifestyles: people have nicer homes, with flat-screen TVs, DVD players, Playstations, they are entertaining more at home, going to the pub later, and the smoking ban.

434. Mr Brady: And also cheaper drink.

435. Mr Beadles: Coffee shops have taken away a lot of pub custom. A whole range of things are going on.

436. Mr Brady: In our area, cheap alcohol is probably one of the main issues.

437. Mr Beadles: The differential between one and the other. The key thing, however, is that they are not the same type of business. A pub supplies more than the alcohol. It supplies the premises, the electricity, a nice person standing behind the bar, and things like that. It is a very different business.

438. Mr Brady: Here, it is a cultural thing. More than 100 pubs have closed across the North in the past couple of years, so there is, in a sense, a change in culture.

439. Mr Beadles: Yes, I agree that that is going on across the UK and Europe. We are seeing it, and it is a challenge for the widest possible industry that I represent in the supply chain, because we are obviously quite keen on selling products through pubs. It is presenting the industry with a lot of challenges.

440. Mr Opie: We have no problem with targeted enforcement. We want to see all enforcement around the better regulation principles — it should be targeted, should be based on evidence and should go for those that are the most risk. You should put your resources into that and learn from previous things such as test purchasing exercises, which, in our experience in England, has not always been the case. I endorse Jeremy’s point: the figures show that the major supermarkets have a disproportionate amount of test purchasing, but their results in passing test purchases are much better than any other sector.

441. Mr Beadles: By miles.

442. Mr Opie: So there is a disconnect there. One slightly flippant point about bags: we have another conversation going on with the Assembly at the moment about reducing the number of bags, which is, as you are aware, quite a sensitive issue for retailers. Bags may not be the answer. [Laughter.]

443. Mrs M Bradley: I see a bit of a problem, particularly in a supermarket situation, that when they get to the liquor department, they are even allowed in. They then go to the checkouts, and it is young students working late evenings who have to deal with them. The students have to argue and whatever goes on there with those who want to come through with alcohol. They do their very best to check people’s ages. I must say that they do hold to the law, because I had occasion to be behind one in a queue one night. Off-licences and liquor marts in supermarkets are where ID should be checked.

444. The point about plastic bags is just a no-no. The owner of an off-licence in my area put his name on his bags. The minute they came outside the door they took the drink out of the bags, rolled the bags up, and put them in their pockets until they got to wherever they could get rid of them. They were strewn all over the streets. When the police went to where they were drinking, there was not a plastic bag to be seen. That idea is not a winner, and would be most difficult to implement.

445. However, age checks should be made on entering liquor departments in supermarkets and off-licences, rather than letting them get to a checkout.

446. Mr Opie: Northern Ireland is unique compared with England in that alcohol is deliberately displayed in a discrete area of the store. There is still a challenge at one point in the store, either going into the discrete area or at the till. Whichever way you go, those young people, who may be in a big group and may be aggressive, will still be challenged at some point.

447. Mr Beadles: They would have to be challenged twice. You would have to challenge them at the point of sale as well, because the legal duty is at the point of sale.

448. Mrs M Bradley: They would be more adamant when they had the liquor in their hands, rather than if they were stopped before they got in to purchase it and pick it up.

449. Mr Beadles: But you would have to challenge them twice: to stop them going in, and at the sale point, otherwise someone else could hand them a bottle.

450. Mrs M Bradley: It is very difficult, it really is. And see as regards the three-year one: when they get the three months first, is a strict warning given if that occurs again?

451. Mr Beadles: In England, it is two strikes and you lose your licence for a period. If you get two underage sales in three months, your licence is reviewed. It is done on a strict basis.

452. Mrs M Bradley: When the police came to us, they said that they would not close a bar until after they had negotiated with the owner. Did they not say that? I think they did.

453. The Chairperson: They said that they would have a conversation with the bar owner.

454. Mrs M Bradley: They said that a conversation would take place between them and the owner.

455. Mr Opie: That is reassuring, because that is what we are talking about — that kind of guidance and proportionality.

456. Mrs M Bradley: That is what the local police said to us, anyway.

457. Mr Beadles: Engaging with wider business, one issue that can occur in a national business is that head office does not necessarily know that a test purchase has taken place in one of its stores. Therefore, it does necessarily know that it needs to step in to change the process, et cetera, or, perhaps, that the store manager is the problem. One thing that we encourage is ensuring that when a failure is identified in the process and procedure, the store is, then, properly engaged and a conversation had as soon as there has been one test purchase failure and not when there have been two test failures.

458. Mrs M Bradley: I welcome the idea that you mentioned about consultation in Derry. I am well aware that it is happening. There are loads of people involved, including police and schools.

459. Mr Beadles: Anything that you can do to encourage them will be appreciated.

460. Mrs M Bradley: I will see what I can do when I get home.

461. Mr Beadles: Navigating the politics of Derry is a challenge for anyone. [Laughter.]

462. The Chairperson: We have almost reached the time when you need to leave. I want to ask two quick questions. We can find out concrete data on closures under the legislation and on businesses that have had two strikes within three months. Are you aware that any of your members have fallen victim to that?

463. Mr Opie: Yes.

464. The Chairperson: They have already fallen victim to that. Is it a sizeable number?

465. Mr Beadles: No, it is not a sizeable number, but there were some big names.

466. The Chairperson: That is intriguing. Are these big-name shops or national chains whose individual stores —

467. Mr Beadles: They got two strikes, which meant that their licences were reviewed and they were closed for a period. Sometimes, that is for 24 hours, 48 hours, a week or longer. I think that the longest one was for three months. A three-month licence revocation for a superstore means millions of pounds in lost revenue. For a small store, it is the end of the business. If a small off-licence is closed for three months, it is finished.

468. Mr Opie: The damage to reputation is also key. Obviously, the local press picks that up. No supermarket wants that kind of publicity.

469. The Chairperson: On an unrelated issue, what position have your two organisations taken in respect of the Scottish Government’s attempts to introduce minimum alcohol prices?

470. Mr Beadles: I am a fervent opponent of minimum pricing. Market intervention in that way is not the route to take to tackle the issue. It is about pricing poor people out of buying alcohol, not about tackling alcohol misuse. It is untargeted — it affects every single person who drinks, not just those who misuse alcohol. It raises a range of competition issues, and I am fairly certain that it is illegal under European competition law.

471. I am more than happy to share with the Committee our detailed examination of the subject. We have spent the past three years in dialogue, debate and frenetic argument with the Scottish Government about that particular message. It is a complex issue. It has been claimed that minimum pricing has been proven to work. My first argument is that it has never been tried anywhere in the world and, therefore, cannot be a proven solution. That is the starting point.

472. Pricing based on a minimum per unit would affect every single drinker in the population. Is that the right way to do it, or should we be tackling problem drinkers? I believe that they have the least price elasticity; moderate drinkers give up alcohol when the price increases, but problem drinkers do not. They give up other things instead. You will find that minimum pricing is not the solution that it has been painted to be. I am happy to share extremely detailed work on the subject with the Committee.

473. Mr Opie: Absolutely. I am happy to do the same.

474. The Chairperson: I think that I knew the answer to that question before I asked it. [Laughter.] I thought that I would do you the courtesy of asking.

475. Mr Opie: It has been quite well publicised.

476. Mr Beadles: We have made our views fairly well known during the past few years. Debate has raged.

477. Ms Lo: Surely the increase in the price of cigarettes has a major effect on people giving up smoking.

478. Mr Beadles: The only people who are affected by increases in the price of cigarettes are smokers. All cigarettes kill you and are bad for you. However, the majority of people are moderate drinkers. Indeed, a moderate amount of alcohol is good for you; there are proven social and health benefits from taking a moderate amount of alcohol. This would punish the majority of people in trying to tackle the minority. My view is that the minority are the people who are least affected by price changes. Tobacco and alcohol need to be looked at in very different ways.

479. We already have, in comparative terms, the highest levels of wine and beer tax anywhere in Europe — we have just overtaken the Republic again after its tax went back down — and the third highest level of tax on spirits. Pricing here is radically different to that in France, Spain, Italy, Germany, Portugal and so on. Those countries do not have the same kinds of alcohol misuse issues. The only areas that have the same types of alcohol misuse issues as us are in northern European countries, where pricing is high.

480. The Chairperson: You have already said that you are forming a view on the irresponsible drinks promotions. The Department is thinking about the pricing issue, and we will come back to you when that comes up. It would be much appreciated if you would feed your views on irresponsible drinks promotions back to us, when those have been formed.

481. It is only a little after 11.45 am. Thanks very much.

482. Mr Opie: He was getting nervous. Thanks very much.

483. Mr Beadles: Thanks very much.

14 October 2010

Members present for all or part of the proceedings:

Mr Simon Hamilton (Chairperson)
Mr Sydney Anderson
Mr Billy Armstrong
Mrs Mary Bradley
Mr Mickey Brady
Mr Jonathan Craig
Mr Alex Easton
Ms Anna Lo
Mr Fra McCann

Witnesses:

Mr John Davidson		Northern Ireland Federation of Clubs
Mr Danny Murphy		Ulster Gaelic Athletic Association
Ms Katie Nixon		Northern Ireland Sports Forum
Mr Kevin Stevens		Golfing Union of Ireland
Ms Janice Gault Mr Eugene McKeever		Northern Ireland Hotels Federation
Mr Eugene Cassidy Mr Colin Neill		Pubs of Ulster

484. The Chairperson (Mr Hamilton): Joining us are John Davidson, chairman of the Northern Ireland Federation of Clubs; Katie Nixon, executive manager of the Northern Ireland Sports Forum; Danny Murphy, who is from the Gaelic Athletic Association; and Kevin Stevens, the secretary of the Golfing Union of Ireland. It is an eclectic bunch; more eclectic than members of this Committee, anyway. You are all very welcome. The meeting will be recorded by Hansard for the purposes of compiling a report. Please kick off with a briefing, after which I will open up the session to allow members to ask questions. I do not know how you want to handle it: perhaps one person will speak on behalf of everybody or everyone could speak briefly.

485. Mr Kevin Stevens (Golfing Union of Ireland): Thank you, Chairman. Each of us intends to speak, and we will cover four areas. I will briefly give an introduction, and then we will look at the legislation, some of the changes that we think are necessary and the impact that the proposals in the Bill will have on volunteers. We will then address the issues of antisocial behaviour and drinks promotions, as we have been asked to.

486. The Department for Social Development (DSD) has clearly identified a growing problem that affects not just our jurisdiction but all parts of this island and further afield, and that is the growing abuse of alcohol, especially, although not exclusively, by the younger generation. Statistics clearly demonstrate that growth. In saying that, however, in bringing forward the legislation, the Department must realise that the content of what is proposed only scratches at the surface of the root causes of the problems that have been identified. In fact, some would say that it does not even touch the main source of the problem. We reiterate the comments that were made by the Chairman in response to the Minister at the Second Stage of the Licensing and Registration of Clubs (Amendment) Bill:

“We all know that the real problem with excessive alcohol consumption in Northern Ireland is not necessarily in our pubs, hotels or registered clubs… The real societal problem is the mass consumption of alcohol in the home." — [Official Report, Volume 52, No 3, p150, col 2].

That is not what the legislation is aimed at addressing.

487. The Chairperson: I am not sure whether I sounded just as elegant as you. [Laughter.]

488. Mr Stevens: We would go further and highlight the fact that the club sector in Northern Ireland is not a source of the problems that have been identified. It remains the most regulated sector of the licensing trade. This issue has, and will continue to have, a detrimental effect on the positive contribution that clubs can and do make to our society. We would compare small businesses with clubs. We would also highlight the fact that the vast majority of clubs are run by volunteers and point out the amount of legislation that clubs have to overcome or get through.

489. The explanatory and financial memorandum issued by the Department outlines three options that were considered following restoration of the Assembly, the first of which was to do nothing. Extra information provided under that option stated:

“This would leave government open to criticism that not enough is being done to combat the growing problems of breaches of licensing legislation, alcohol-related harm and public disorder."

That is not a situation that we recognise in the club sector, which encompasses some 600 clubs and 250,000 members in Ulster. That being said, we are not against updating and changing the legislation that deals with how licensed premises, particularly clubs, are regulated, so long as doing so does not adversely affect the operation of clubs and their volunteers, because clubs are an essential part of the fabric of life in our country.

490. In our view, initial legislation should be aimed at tackling the root causes of the problem — as I said, this legislation does not do that — which are to be found in other sectors. Particular issues are the availability of low-cost alcohol from supermarkets, off-sales and the antisocial behaviour associated with both. Legislation should not penalise sectors that have, to date, shown that they do not contribute to the behaviour that has been described.

491. We support the contributions that the Committee Chairman and Fra McCann made in response to the Minister during the debate on the Bill’s Second Stage. They both re-emphasised that the Bill does not address the root cause of the problem. Therefore, our view is that a problem has been identified in the proposed changes but not addressed.

492. We support the proposed changes to legislation to ban alcohol promotions and are keen to promote the message that we may not be part of the problem but we can be part of the solution. Therefore, we will work closely with the Department and the Committee to support any legislation to outlaw alcohol promotions that have been identified, but we wish to clearly state that the sector that we represent has never condoned such practices.

493. Mr John Davidson (Northern Ireland Federation of Clubs): I will go through some of our proposed changes to the Bill. We have made a full submission to the Committee. Time does not allow us to go into the nitty-gritty of that, but I will bring the main points to members’ attention. The contribution of clubs to sport, leisure and community life has been recognised by respective Ministers — particularly, and more often, under direct rule — which we appreciate. In view of that, we feel that it is time to show tangible appreciation of that contribution through appropriate amendments to the proposed licensing review. We are concerned that appropriate consideration has not been afforded to the federation’s overall submission.

494. As feared, the devil is in the detail of the penalty points system, which has the potential to unfairly penalise the registered club sector, even though it is not a contributing factor in the growth of social problems such as antisocial behaviour. A business operating on a turnover of £5 million or less is not required to operate under a prescribed system of accounts that incurs mandatory penalty points for failures, yet those administering in the registered club sector are, in the main, elected volunteers who can be criminalised for minor infringements. If there was ever a time to abolish the penalty points system for accounts, it is now, when everyone is striving for a normal society. I ask this question of everyone sitting here: has anyone genuinely looked at the accounts system of clubs when considering the penalty points system proposed in the Bill? If you have not, I would appreciate it being done.

495. Children’s certificates should be modified to permit children to be on sports club premises until 11.00 pm with a parent, guardian or club official, which would cater for sporting events, including sports awards evenings. The vast majority of our clubs pursue sports that continue well past 9.00 pm. A few examples include golf, sailing and yachting, GAA, cricket, and so on.

496. We appreciate that late licence extensions is a contentious area; however, we have lobbied for approximately 30 years for additional late extensions as a potential means of increasing funding with which to maintain and develop our sporting base. Sports clubs of all kinds are under financial pressure. As a result, there is a distinct possibility of closure in a growing number of cases, which, as you would expect, would be a serious loss to the sporting base of Northern Ireland. We feel that three late extensions a week should be available, which is not unreasonable considering the holiday periods and the sports events and charity awards that we hold.

497. In the past, we had talks with the then RUC head of policy, and they revealed that the restriction on advertising was time-consuming and unnecessary, took up valuable police time and resulted only in complaints from licensees. In the modern era, there is no reason for such a restriction. Due to population shift, club members live over a considerable area, and we should be able to use the media to inform members of events and the like.

498. We appreciate that the Minister intends to amend the accounts regulations. However, will the regulations go far enough when compared with the requirements on other business sectors that do not have to work under a prescribed/mandatory system? Consideration must be given to small clubs, a number of which are seasonal. I reiterate that the club sector relies on a substantial volunteer base, which should be encouraged and not dissuaded from continuing to make a valuable and important contribution. Based on our accounts, we have submitted to the Committee various suggestions as to how the accounts system should be modified.

499. We request that favourable consideration be given to permitting all sports and recreation clubs in Northern Ireland to introduce a voluntary common pass card, which would act as a form of security. Consequently, clubs would voluntarily give their members a pass card, which, although not guaranteeing access, would enable other clubs that they visit in the Province to see that they are members of a qualified and responsible organisation.

500. In conclusion, although we seek numerous other amendments, we feel that it is important for the Committee to focus on the issues highlighted by this representative body today.

501. Ms Katie Nixon (Northern Ireland Sports Forum): I want to take a moment to look at the impact of the legislation on volunteers. The Northern Ireland Sports Forum is the independent voice for voluntary sport in Northern Ireland, so we have a particular interest in legislation that may impact on sporting volunteers.

502. Ninety-two percent of sports clubs rely on volunteers to survive, and those volunteers tend to take up administrative and board roles. Sports clubs make up 90% of all registered clubs in Northern Ireland. Therefore, the majority of our clubs will be affected by the legislation. In addition, sporting volunteers represent around 30% of all voluntary activity in the Province, and, for every £1 that is spent on sporting volunteers, £30 is generated for the economy. Their contribution to society in Northern Ireland is unquestionable, and we believe that the overall impact of the legislation will be to increase the burden on clubs and their volunteers.

503. DSD’s draft volunteering strategy aims to promote the value and benefit of volunteering; to improve the volunteering experience; and to support volunteers and organisations that involve volunteers. We would argue that applying what could be viewed as a draconian penalty points system to clubs that are administered by volunteers goes against the entire ethos of the strategy. How would that be fair to our hard-working volunteers, and who, under those circumstances, would put themselves forward to be a volunteer?

504. We also want the Committee to consider ‘Sport Matters: The Northern Ireland Strategy for Sport & Physical Recreation 2009-2019’, a cross-departmental strategy that names sports clubs as integral to the delivery of the physical literacy programme of which Northern Ireland is in desperate need. Should we not, therefore, be doing all that we can to support our clubs and volunteers to carry out that essential role, because who can provide access to facilities and sport better than community-based sports clubs?

505. We must remember that volunteers work for their clubs because they are passionate about them and that any money generated by a club goes directly back to it for the benefit of its members and the wider community. It is important that we distinguish between public houses, hotels and restaurants and private members’ sports clubs. Clubs are different, given the volunteer-led community dimension of associations that do not strive to profit but to survive. In light of the current economic climate, any income stream is essential for their survival.

506. We hope that, in considering the legislation, the Committee will give due regard to the dedicated and hard-working volunteers who are the lifeblood of sports clubs in the Province and who will bear the brunt of the significant impact that we believe the proposed legislation will have.

507. Mr Danny Murphy (Ulster GAA): I have been asked to address what is probably the most controversial by-product of alcohol consumption: antisocial behaviour. GAA social clubs wish to address the matter in the context of the control that sports bodies have over their memberships. Our social clubs are, by law, not-for-profit bodies, and they form a vital part of communities. We use our social facilities to generate income that allows for social support in the community; allows clubs to reinvest in the local communities through their work in providing sport and recreation for people of all ages and abilities; gives people the opportunity to participate in activities; and promotes sport, culture and heritage.

508. Our clubs have clear rules and regulations on the use of alcohol on club premises with social clubs. Those rules cover various issues and include a ban on putting alcoholic drinks into cups after teams win them. They are supported by an alcohol and substance abuse programme that has been rolled out over the past three years. That programme promotes the idea of a sensible approach to alcohol and puts out a strong message against the misuse of alcohol, drugs and illegal substances. We have also targeted our Live to Play programme at 14- to 20-year-olds.

509. Our social clubs are controlled by the general environment that allows members of GAA clubs to socialise and enjoy alcohol before and after games. All social clubs are run by our volunteers, with the best interests of the community inherent in every aspect of club activity. Our clubs believe that the provision of social clubs helps to reduce the high intake of alcohol in uncontrolled environments, which, as has already been said, include homes, public places and the precincts of off-licences. The GAA clubs allow families to socialise and relax in a friendly and controlled setting.

510. The Committee must consider the statistics that have come from the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety (DHSSPS). Almost every social occasion involves alcohol, and, as a country, we binge drink more than any other country in the European Union. We spend more money on alcohol pro rata than any other European country, and, between 1996 and 2001, there was a 347% increase in the number of cases of intoxication in a public place. Some 98% of PSNI and gardaí officers believe that alcohol is the main cause of public order offences. Between 1989 and 1999, alcohol consumption in Ireland increased by 41%. During the same period, it declined in 10 other European countries, while rates of suicide here increased by 45%.

511. I want to support those statistics with some worrying information from DHSSPS. If teenagers drink before they are 15, they are four times more likely to develop a dependency on alcohol than those who wait until they are 21 years old before starting to drink alcohol. They are also seven times more likely to be involved in a car crash and 11 times more likely to suffer unintentional injury after drinking. Those are very clear points that the legislation does not deal with. It is critical that we address them if we are to control the use of alcohol.

512. The GAA is community-based, with a high level of voluntary engagement. Its sense of communal pride provides a substantial bulwark against any form of antisocial behaviour in our communities. Our rules require clubs to control the circumstances in which alcohol can be provided, and the sale of alcohol to under-18s is not permitted in our clubs.

513. It is the GAA’s belief that social clubs provide a different environment that allows a controlled level of drinking, and, as such, it would recommend an extension to the hours in which minors are allowed to be on registered club premises; from 9pm to 11pm. That would take into account the fact that many of our underage and adult matches finish after 9pm during the summer, and it would allow families, who are central to our club activities, an opportunity to spend time together after the games.

514. We welcome the proposals to increase the number of nights for late licences, but we feel that there should be three each week. That is essential for us to maintain our club structure, and it would provide GAA social clubs with the option of running more events in the clubs. That would increase potential income, directly benefit Gaelic games culture and heritage and encourage a proper and temperate attitude to alcohol.

515. The Chairperson: I want to put on record my praise for the work that registered clubs across Northern Ireland carry out. I am a member of a registered club and know a little bit about what makes a club a success. We all acknowledge the work that goes on, often on a voluntary basis, to make clubs of all kinds — particularly sporting clubs — the success that they are. When you see the success that Northern Ireland’s team is having in the Commonwealth Games and the disproportionate impact that a country the size of ours is having on the sporting world, you realise that that success often comes from the grass roots, and registered clubs help to develop that. Therefore, I appreciate the work that goes on, and I appreciate the contribution that clubs make to the fabric of Northern Ireland.

516. I do not disagree with your view that there are gaps in the Bill, and I maintain my position that the Bill as initially drafted is incomplete. In many respects, it has an inherent contradiction in that it increases access to alcohol in some respects but does not do anything about bigger, wider social problems. Committee members have raised concerns about that, and there has been some progress on addressing the issue of irresponsible alcohol promotions. Work is also ongoing in the Department on the pricing issue. That would obviously have an effect on supermarkets and the perceived problems there.

517. Mr Easton: Thank you for your presentation. I was a wee bit alarmed by some of the suggestions made by the Northern Ireland Federation of Clubs. One suggestion was that officials of clubs should be barred from office only if they have unspent convictions for sex offences or fraud, yet the clubs are advocating that children should be allowed in the club’s licensed premises at all times coinciding with events. I would have thought that you would not want someone with a spent conviction or an unspent conviction for sex offences on your premises, especially if you are advocating more leniency in letting children on your premises. That is an absolutely crazy situation, and it is one that you might want to reflect on.

518. Mr Davidson: I genuinely feel that very few clubs would allow that type of person to be a member. Indeed, I do not know of any that would. The clubs’ constitution and common rule book states that a club has the right under law to prevent any person of bad character from becoming a member or to terminate a person’s membership. We do not encourage or want to see that type of person anywhere near our sporting or recreational clubs.

519. Mr Easton: OK. I am grateful that you said that. However, you used the word “unspent", and I am saying that you would not want such a person on your premises regardless of whether their conviction was spent or unspent.

520. Mr Davidson: Yes, indeed. We agree.

521. Mr F McCann: I declare my membership of two clubs, as I do nearly every week: the Irish National Foresters and Cumann na Méirleach in west Belfast.

522. Mr Easton: Is there a forest in west Belfast?

523. Mr F McCann: Apparently there used to be. One part of west Belfast is rural.

524. As a member of clubs, I know that clubs set strict criteria for people who wish to become members, and there can be a lengthy parole period before people are accepted as members. However, there needs to be a clear distinction between clubs in the whole argument and debate around binge drinking and special offers. I would like you to comment on that. The other week, I raised the issue of late-night clubs that operate in town and city centres sometimes being lumped in with general clubs. There needs to be a separation of those types of clubs. One type provides late-night drinking with all the freebies that go along with that, while most other clubs do not, by and large, involve themselves in that sort of thing. Do you agree that a distinction needs to be made between clubs?

525. Mr Davidson: There is a need for that. We have spoken to certain editors and reporters about editorials in some of the press, and broadcast media is also guilty. In virtually every incident of antisocial activity, the word “club" is used. However, private members’ social club are never involved; it is always the nightclubs.

526. A classic example of that appeared on the front page of ‘The Irish News’ last month over the all-you-can-drink-for-£25 night. The newspaper stated that people were coming out of a club, but they were not coming out of a private members’ club. We know the area, and we know the nightclub involved. We are a bit concerned that the word “club" when used not to refer to a private members’ club has the effect of lumping us all in together.

527. Mr D Murphy: The definition of what we are talking about as “clubs" needs to be looked at. We, as registered clubs or registered private members’ clubs, are defined as being sporting or recreational. Therefore, the definition needs to be looked at. Fra McCann talked about the role of the club in its community. The Sport Matters strategy clearly articulates the role of a club, under a section titled “Community cohesion". Clubs are very much part of community cohesion. The Sport Matters strategy also states that the value of sport and recreation is set as a net financial contributor to the economy equal to 2% of GDP. That fact should not be overlooked.

528. Mr F McCann: My second question related to late licences. We have received evidence from people who oppose the extension of late licences. How would an extension benefit your clubs?

529. Mr D Murphy: We play quite a number of games on Friday, Saturday and Sunday nights. If we play at 7.00 pm, the game will finish at around 8.30 pm or 8.45 pm. If we operate to a 9.00 pm deadline, that leaves no time for people to come into the club to socialise. The permitted nights are to be increased to 120 in the legislation. However, we feel that a late licence on those three nights should be available. If members check the facts, they will see that, currently, not everyone takes up the option of having extended hours, although some do. It is to allow for it to happen rather than for a club to take advantage of the situation.

530. Mr Davidson: It is fair to say that clubs have used their late bars extensively to fund-raise on behalf of the majority of our charities in the Province. It is for that reason that we wish to see an increase in the number of late nights permitted a week. Other sections of the licensing trade can avail themselves of a similar late-night facility. Club members have proven themselves to be responsible. There is none of the antisocial behaviour there that one sees on our streets. I came from Windsor Park on Friday night. As I passed through Bradbury Place, I noticed the volume of people standing in the area. There were boys and girls sitting on pavements with glasses. Two ambulances and a number of police cars were standing by. That is not the scene at our clubs when we have late-night bars.

531. Mrs M Bradley: You are very welcome. I concur with what Danny said about later opening hours after football matches. That could apply to all sports.

532. Mr Stevens: Yes, it could.

533. Mrs M Bradley: It is not a bad suggestion. I would not have too much trouble with that.

534. Mr D Murphy: I appreciate that.

535. Mr Stevens: We appreciate it as well.

536. Mrs M Bradley: Everything would be controlled. As it is, young people are on the streets and everywhere else, on Friday nights, drinking and causing concern for people.

537. Mr D Murphy: The member raises an interesting point. I want to go back to John’s response to an earlier question. If people are on premises that are controlled by a club’s rules and regulations, there is a disciplinary process through which, if they step out of line, their membership will be restricted or they will be removed from the club. That is an important factor in controlling the overall abuse of alcohol.

538. Mr Davidson: I would not like to see the debate on antisocial activity and some sections of the trade’s irresponsible attitude towards promotions mask the issues that we want to bring to the table, which include the children’s certificate, PSNI rights of entry, penalty points and accounts’ regulation. There is a whole raft of issues. We have made submissions, and we hope that they are not being masked by the antisocial problems that society has, not just in Northern Ireland but in the whole United Kingdom.

539. The Chairperson: I understand.

540. Mr S Anderson: Thank you for your presentation. I have some experience, albeit from some years ago, of family in the pub trade. One typical question that I am asked concerns the number of late licences being granted in a year. The number has increased over the years, and now you are asking for 156 nights. How do you view that?

541. You touched on the differences between clubs and private members’ clubs. I am not a member of a club, but if people and families can sign others into clubs for functions and suchlike, do you consider that to be taking trade away from the pubs, in the sense that clubs more or less become the social scene? I am sure you will agree that small businesses such as pubs are having great difficulty at present. There is no doubt that people will be lobbied from different directions on the issue. People strike a balance when going out to socialise with friends and partake in a drink, because, in this economic climate, they have only a certain amount of money to spend. If they go out on a Friday night, they will not also go out on a Saturday or Sunday night, and if they go to a club, they will not be going to the pub. If the maximum number of late nights is increased to, say, 156, do you foresee a shift away from pubs to clubs?

542. Mr Stevens: There is a choice to be made, but the signing-in of other people tends to be club members signing in family or extended family members. Whereas the pub trade is open to the general public, the club is not, so there is a big difference between the two. Yes, there is social activity at the club: that is part and parcel of being a member. Members wish to bring their family and friends to partake in that activity, but the big difference between the two is that one is open to the general public and the other, significantly, is not. The big difference is that the member who signs people into the club is responsible for them and for their behaviour. There is a big difference between the two sectors, but it comes down to a choice for individuals.

543. Mr Davidson: One must consider that the club is the community. Take my club in the heart of east Belfast: it has 1,100 members, so we are the community. There is another big club that probably has around 2,000 members. It is the same scenario on the Falls or the Shankill.

544. Clubs can also be charitable. When a club gets a request to raise funds for Marie Curie Cancer Care, Chest, Heart and Stroke or another charity, it sets out to aim to raise as much as possible for that charity. The only way in which to do that is to ensure that members and their guests turn out in numbers so that the charity benefits, not the club. The last charity night at my club was for Sport Northern Ireland, and the night was supported by Northern Ireland Council for Voluntary Action (NICVA). We raise probably £3million or £4million per annum for charitable and worthy causes throughout the Province. Naturally, we benefit from the bar receipts. We are not naive, but the profits that we derive from bar sales are ploughed back into the club to develop its sporting basis and ethos. That is what the clubs are all about.

545. Mr S Anderson: I do not dispute that assertion in any way, and I appreciate and congratulate you on the way in which many of the clubs run. Many charities certainly benefit from clubs’ fund-raising. However, we are talking about granting licences for three late nights a week. If things go well, we could be talking about four nights a week a couple of years down the line. I am sure that you agree that Northern Ireland and Southern Ireland are very proud of their Irish pubs and Ulster pubs. No one wants to see those small pubs fall off the end of the conveyor belt. We want to try to protect them.

546. I take the point that you make, Mr Murphy, about the playing aspect. Three times a week, teams are out on the field. That is to be commended, especially as young people are being given that opportunity. That has been demonstrated by the Golfing Union. We have the Ryder Cup, and the Chairperson talked about the boxing and other sports. I commend the different sporting sports. You have asked for 156 authorisations, and you say that there is a great need for an extra night a week on top of the two that the Bill would allow for at present and that that would be of great benefit to you. Do you foresee a conflict with the pubs in the sense that, because they are smaller businesses, that would have a greater impact on them?

547. Ms Nixon: There is obviously a conflict, but it comes down to survival for sports clubs as well. We need to look at the wider benefit of sports. If you compare like with like, or try to determine who is to survive and who is not, it is the sports club rather than the pub that creates a wider benefit for the community. I appreciate your point: we do not want any small business, or any business, to go out of business, but sports clubs need to generate income. We are looking at widespread public spending cuts, and sport will be greatly affected by those. The governing bodies are not going to be able to distribute as much funding to their clubs; therefore, the clubs will have to look at other ways in which to create income to ensure their survival. The money from one extra night a week, when a club can run fund-raising events and its members can put money behind the bar and buy raffle tickets, goes directly back into the club and ensures the survival of that club and its sport in the community.

548. Mr D Murphy: During the season, from April to September, we operate almost every night of the week. The nights on which there is a demand for social facilities are those nights that I mentioned.

549. I will make a couple of broader points. Since the 1980s, legislation as it has applied to registered clubs has been viewed as pretty draconian. In some circumstances, to deal with the abnormal times that we went through, it probably was. The law was then modified by the Registration of Clubs (Northern Ireland) Order 1996, which we viewed as being hugely restrictive. The permitted times, for instance, were in many cases unusable, because they were set directly at times when matches were being played. In some cases, therefore, clubs’ availability to us was practically negligible. We believe that having, hopefully, entered normal times, the registration of sports clubs legislation from here on should take account of the normality of the society in which we live.

550. I will refer to my colleague’s point. We are not out to compete with pubs or the licensed trade. We are, in effect, part of the people who provide places where alcohol can be consumed. We have demonstrated that we are a very sensible organisation. All our colleagues in the federation have taken a pretty sensible approach to the matter. If there are issues that emerge from what we are seeking, we will be the first to assist in dealing with them. We believe that what is happening here can be beneficial in a wider context in dealing with the use or, dare I say it, abuse of alcohol.

551. Mrs M Bradley: I understand what Sydney is saying about pubs and clubs. As a non-drinker, I would go to a club before I would go to a pub. That matters a great deal to families who are members of clubs, because if not all members of a family drink, they can all go out together and socialise. There is a good social scene in a club, which is an attraction to people. I know that small pubs are suffering, but I believe that the smoking ban has been a bigger blow to the pubs than the changes in licensing laws. That is my position, Sydney. I would go to a club with family members, but I seldom go into pubs.

552. Mr S Anderson: Do you enjoy the club scene? [Laughter.]

553. Mrs M Bradley: I enjoy the club scene. [Laughter.] I am talking about sports clubs.

554. Mr F McCann: I want to follow up on what Sydney was saying. Clubs and pubs are being affected, not by each another, but by the changing attitudes in the way in which people look at entertainment today. It was said earlier that most people postpone going out until 11.00 pm or midnight and instead go for late-night sessions. That has a knock-on effect. I see the effects on clubs and pubs in the area in which I live. Going back quite a few years, pubs used to complain that clubs had a clear advantage when it came to opening hours. That was in the days of Sunday closing. At some stage, however, there was a complete reversal and many of the powers were taken away from clubs. The problem is trying to find a happy medium that accommodates people.

555. Pubs have serious overheads. I do not know whether there is any interaction between clubs and pubs to work out the best solution. Both sectors provide a great deal of employment. One will have to speak to the other to come to some type of agreement.

556. The Chairperson: I want to raise a couple of points. First, what are members’ views on irresponsible drinks promotions? My second point relates to the number of late licences. Much of this is arbitrary. The witnesses suggest 156 late licences, which is three a week. The Department suggests 120, which is two a week, with a few more for high days and holidays. Currently, 52 late licences are allowed, which is one a week. The figures are arbitrary — it s a case of pick a number.

557. There are other issues around increasing the number of late licences even to 120. We have sought evidence, in so far as one can, on the present demand for late licences. The evidence is that the overwhelming majority of registered clubs — between 70 % and 80% — are not even threatening the upper limit at this time. They are using only around half of the nights that they are entitled to. Therefore, only a small number of registered clubs are using the 52 nights or anything near it. Can you see how providing for 156 late nights, which is the opportunity to average three a week, may work in some cases but will not be applicable in the vast majority of cases?

558. That is where I see a contradiction in the case laid before the Committee, in that you are increasing access to alcohol. I accept that, by and large, registered clubs are not contributing to the problem of antisocial behaviour. However, what you suggest will increase opportunities for the consumption of alcohol in society without addressing some important points. It does so, although the statistics do not suggest that there is a particular demand for late-night opening. You suggest a trebling of opportunities for late-night opening, while the Department suggests a doubling. How do you respond to those points?

559. Mr Davidson: It is evident that the vast majority of small clubs do not apply to the PSNI for their late bar but still operate it. One can assume that the PSNI probably applies a high degree of common sense to the situation. I have been in many establishments and clubs that have not applied for licences but are kept open to 11.45 pm or 12.15 am. They have not gone through the motions. Many clubs have the illusion that they should use a late bar licence only for fund-raising, presentation of trophies, but not for members’ social nights. That practice is established.

560. The Chairperson: That is interesting in itself. Do you have any views on irresponsible drinks promotions?

561. Mr D Murphy: Yes; very much so.

562. Mr Davidson: We have submitted a response on that. It is envisaged, subject to consultation, that regulations would ban alcohol promotions if the promotion relates to an alcoholic drink that is likely to appeal largely to under-18s. The Registration of Clubs (Northern Ireland) Order 1996 prohibits the consumption of alcohol by under-18s, which private member clubs and social and recreational clubs enforce. We support that as good practice.

563. The regulations would likely also ban promotions if alcoholic drink is provided free or cut-price when purchasing one or more drinks, whether alcoholic or not. That is not a common practice in private member clubs, and that type of promotion should be outlawed, expect where it applies to non-alcoholic drinks. The practice of an alcoholic drink being provided free or cut-price on the purchase of that particular drink — two-for-one offers — should be outlawed.

564. Another promotion provides an unlimited supply of alcohol for a fixed charge, including any entrance fee; for example, “all you can drink for £10". Alternatively, people pay an entry fee, and then drink free until 10.00 pm. That has to be one of the worst forms of drink promotions in the licensing trade, and it should be prohibited. To our knowledge, that practice does not take place in the club sector.

565. Some promotions encourage people to buy a drink or a larger measure of alcohol than they had intended. Sensible drinking habits should be encouraged, and such a practice should be discouraged. Any promotion that is based on the strength of alcohol, thus encouraging an increase in consumption, should be outlawed. Again, that practice is not promoted in the club sector.

566. Any promotion that promotes rewards or encourages drinking alcohol quickly — for example, drinking games — should be outlawed. Although practices such as drinking a yard of ale and the dentist’s chair are alien to the club sector, they should be outlawed. I have never even heard of some of those games, believe it or not. [Laughter.] That is the truth.

567. Another promotion that would be banned is where alcohol is offered as a reward for prizes, unless the alcohol is in a sealed container and consumed off the premises. Private member clubs have raffles to raise funds for charitable and good causes. To our knowledge, however, such prizes overwhelmingly have to be taken off site.

568. The practice of one person dispensing alcohol directly into the mouth of another, other than where the other person is unable to drink without assistance because of a disability, should be outlawed. Promotions that encourage specific groups to drink free or at a discount — for example, “women drink for free", half-price drinks for under-25s, discount nights for students, or cheap drinks for the fans of specific sporting teams — is not a practice in private member clubs, and should be outlawed.

569. Other specific promotions may include the supply of alcohol on licensed premises at a reduced price during a limited period on any day — happy hours. Happy hours and any other promotion that encourages excessive consumption should be prohibited, although some happy hours are responsible.

570. Officials are continuing to liaise with the Office of the Legislative Counsel about the viability and practicality of bans on differential pricing of alcoholic products being included in the Bill. If, as we suspect, that relates to selling products as loss leaders, or at heavily discounted prices, the federation finds itself in a Catch-22 position. Although we agree that outlets should not be permitted to sell below cost, that nevertheless affords a benefit to those on low incomes, pensioners and the unemployed, who will be paying a price for irresponsible consumers, who form the minority. Hopefully, common sense will prevail.

571. The federation has produced a poster, which we will distribute to all our clubs Province-wide to display in their premises. The poster states: “We may not be part of the problem, but we can be part of the solution." We are proud of our association with the promotion and development of sporting, social and recreational activity. Nevertheless, clubs have an important role to play in helping to address the problems associated with binge drinking by encouraging good practice and not permitting irresponsible drink promotions on club premises. We want clubs to abolish happy hours, “buy one, get one free", “drink all you want for £25", drinking games, yard of ale competitions, or any other promotion that encourages binge drinking. The poster will be enlarged and distributed to every one of our clubs Province-wide.

572. The Chairperson: Thank you very much. That was helpful. That issue was not initially covered in the Bill, but we are still taking evidence on it. Thank you again for coming along, and for your input into the Bill.

573. Joining us now are Janice Gault, who is the chief executive of the Northern Ireland Hotels Federation; Eugene McKeever, who is the president of the federation; Colin Neill, who is the chief executive of Pubs of Ulster; and Eugene Cassidy, who is a member of Pubs of Ulster. You are all very welcome. I remind everyone to turn off their mobile phones, because the proceedings are being recorded by Hansard. Please make an opening presentation, after which we will move to a question-and-answer session.

574. Ms Janice Gault (Northern Ireland Hotels Federation): Eugene and I will talk about hotels, and then Colin and his Eugene will talk about pubs.

575. The Chairperson: Everyone needs a Eugene.

576. Ms Gault: Indeed. Each one comes free with a packet of corn flakes. Thank you very much for the invitation to speak to the Committee. We have given our submission about the amendments. Eugene will discuss the late licensing issue, and I will look at the other aspects, including the recent papers that we were sent by the Committee.

577. We, as hotels, are pretty clear about our role. We are fairly heavily regulated, we are licensed to sell drink and we are a commercial range of entities. We probably provide around just over £90 million worth of a wage bill, and we pay somewhere between £7 million and £8 million in rates. Our role is primarily a visitor role, a tourism role and a role in the community.

578. We fully respect the role that clubs have. It is very important. Most of our members appear to be members of one or more clubs. Our concern is the movement towards non-membership-type activities. That has been an ongoing issue with our members. Last week, a members’ club advertised for non-member-based function business, which is covered by people taking out social membership. It has been advertising widely in the local community for weddings, which is a direct part of our business. We have been charged by the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment (DETI) to increase visitor spend here. It is currently £37 a person, which is the lowest in any GB region. In the Irish Republic, it is currently £62·50, based on the euro conversion. In Scotland, it is about £62. We have been asked to contribute more in visitor spend. We have also been asked to increase visitor numbers. To do that, we have to be able to survive as an industry. We would like the whole area of club membership, including registration, to be looked at in some way.

579. We wish to see a more cafe-based society. That is quite important. We do not encourage any form of irresponsible drinking. Most of our members, when I spoke to them and surveyed them, said that they would only ever offer a food-related drinks promotion; for example, something along the lines of a free glass of wine with two main courses. Very few of them are keen to do that. Most of them have never engaged in any such activity and have no intention of beginning to do so. They are very aware of the fact that we are also in a family market, which is a big trade here. They do not want any incidents of social disorder. I have spoken to the PSNI in that regard. In general, it is quite happy with the way in which things are regulated in our sector. We have a very close relationship with the police, and we would like that to continue.

580. We do have genuine concerns about the future. Over the past year, there has been a severe drop in rate and revenue. Our problem is that we cannot compete commercially with people who do not have the same cost structure as us. That will be one of the features going forward. We have to remain open 365 days a year. We have to have a staff to meet that, and we have to cover those costs.

581. If we have to compete with somebody who does not have to do that, we simply will not be able to continue to trade. That is our stance on that issue. Eugene will comment on how late licensing will impact on us.

582. Mr Eugene McKeever (Northern Ireland Hotels Federation): I am president of the federation, and I own three hotels in the Province, so I come from the private sector. I am also a member of a sports club, so I take on board some of the points that were made about them being well run and controlled. In that respect, I have no issues with clubs.

583. One of the issues raised in the presentation — it was also mentioned by the Chairman — is that most of the 52 late licences already available are not being taken up. The obvious question is why people who are not using their present allocation want 120 late licences. The point was also made that, largely because of overheads, the cost factor for a hotel is much higher than that of a club, sometimes as much as 30% or 40% higher. The witnesses from the clubs said that they are manned mostly by volunteers: however, we are not. We do not have anybody who volunteers for anything, apart from going home early or something. Obviously, we have to pay our staff.

584. The caterer in my club has no overheads whatsoever: he pays his wages and buys his food, and that is it. Consequently, because of his cost factor, his food is about half the price that I could sell it at. That is good for the members, which is no problem, and they are all happy about that because he is such a good caterer. On a Sunday, you cannot get into the place. There is obviously a relaxation of policy in that I could arrive with 20 members of my family and sign them all in. There may be a wedding or an anniversary with 50 or 60 guests. Where does it go from there?

585. I take the clubs’ point that, if a game of football is played in the evening, they want families and their kids to be able to come together afterwards for a social gathering. That is a very important part of the social infrastructure of any community. We have no objections to that whatsoever. However, what happens if clubs start to get 120 people in twice a week, say every Friday and Saturday night, and start to run outside functions to which anybody can turn up? People could be allowed to hold their works’ do at a club, and all they would need is one person to sign them in. They would think, “Happy days". I am told, “Eugene, you cannot compete: the club charged me £15 a head and you are looking for £25." Of course I cannot compete. I would be doing well to charge them even £25. That is our commercial view of clubs.

586. Janice touched on the issue of social responsibility and the problems of binge drinking and drinks offers, and we concur with what the pubs said about those problems. I am certainly against such activity. A meal for two and a bottle of wine, which many hoteliers offer, is not promoting drinking as such, but I am against cut-price drinks, half-price drinks and the like.

587. Mr Colin Neill (Pubs of Ulster): I thank the Committee for the opportunity to present my evidence. I will cover some of the nuts-and-bolts issues and then Eugene Cassidy, who operates a pub in Belfast, will explain the day-to-day challenges of running a family pub.

588. I will start by stating categorically that we have nothing against clubs. I praise the clubs’ federation and the work that clubs do. Nearly every one of my members is a member of a club, and I have often helped to set up a club by advising them on occasional licences and stuff. I think that clubs do fantastic work. Pubs of Ulster is against any venue — a pub, registered club, so-called nightclub, a hotel or whatever — acting irresponsibly or outside the regulations as laid down in legislation. We have been working very hard in our own sector to drive that message forward.

589. As an organisation, Pubs of Ulster may be better known as the Federation of the Retail Licensed Trade Northern Ireland. Straight away, you can guess why we changed the name. The organisation was established in 1872 and represents pubs, bars, cafe-bars, restaurants and hotels. A member talked about not going into a pub; often, you may be in a pub without knowing it because it does not look like one. The pub has a traditional image and name, but many a restaurant now has a pub licence.

590. We are well embedded in the economy. PricewaterhouseCoopers estimates that we put £1 billion into the economy each year and employ about 35,000 people. However, we will be watching that figure after the comprehensive spending review. We are a family-friendly market; family business is a major part of our market. Nowadays, we are a chameleon: we are a breakfast place in the morning; a restaurant during the day, and, by 9.00 pm, we become a pub. Sometimes it is hard to see that.

591. There are three major coffee chains in the UK: Costa Coffee, Starbucks and J D Wetherspoon. It is interesting to note that we are a major player in the coffee market, so it is not all about alcohol. I use a line about people not going to the pub for alcohol. People look at me and tell me that that is strange, but it is true. Anyone who is looking purely for alcohol can get a can of beer for 21p in the supermarket, against £3.00 a pint in the pub. They will, of course, go to the supermarket. People go to the pub for another reason, and they may have a drink when they are there, and that drink may be alcoholic.

592. We are not only part of the local economy: 80% of all tourists visit a pub, and 70% of all tourists eat in a pub. The Lonely Planet guide lists the top 25 things to do in Northern Ireland, and number one is to visit the pub. Those are Tourist Board figures and not figures that we have come up with on the back of an envelope.

593. Small businesses, registered clubs and pubs face common challenges. We identify with the comments made about the changes in social trends, the impact that the smoking ban has had on the industry, the massive impact that the increase in drinking at home or on the street has had and the low cost of alcohol. It is estimated that the pub industry sells, in round figures, 25% of all the alcohol sold in the Province, and that the off-licence trade, which includes the majority of supermarkets, sells 70%. Therefore, we are no longer a major retailer of alcohol, although that connotation is still there. Most of our members employ doormen to keep people out rather than throw them out, as the market has changed.

594. We support the proposals regarding proof of age, penalty points and power of closure that the Bill introduces. We realise that, as always, the devil is in the detail, and we hope that the Committee will support our call for the Department to work with us and the police so that we can not only develop regulations but ensure that they are enforceable. More often than not, we have regulations, but try taking them through a court; convictions are never made. I am aware of one licensed restaurant in Belfast that had 21 convictions for breach of its alcohol licence, and the police got it shut down only because it allowed too many people into the premises and the insurance companies pulled the plug. We can have legislation, but it is of no benefit if it does not work. We are not looking for a favour, but we understand how the industry works. Working together would allow us to introduce effective legislation.

595. One of the major issues to come up is the provision of 120 late night licences for registered clubs, the argument being that the pub industry has one for every night of the year. In reality, we have about 120, because there is no need for a late licence on a Monday or Tuesday night; workers would be there on their own. Given how the industry is at the moment, workers are there on their own even on Friday nights, so there is not a big need for late licences. We are not against the clubs getting something; we believe that they should get something, and there is a compromise position. Like ourselves, the clubs trade in a difficult environment, and we support some movement for them, but we feel that it would be excessive to go to that level.

596. There are also concerns about enforcement of the regulations in all of the sectors. There are requirements on all establishments. I differentiate between responsible clubs and irresponsible clubs. Responsible, registered clubs operate within the law, and we fully support them and co-operate with them. Irresponsible clubs, like an irresponsible pub, will find the loopholes and flout the legislation. There are issues around enforcing current legislation. Recently, I had a conversation with a senior policeman, who said to me, “You do not expect me to enforce the requirement that people sign into clubs, do you?" To be honest, I do not, because there are so many other demands on police time. However, it is an ineffective control as regards regulating practice. It is about trying to make sure that we operate on a level playing field and that we all operate within our own legislation. If anyone strays across those lines, no matter what sector they come from, it puts pressure on the others in the industry.

597. We support the proposals for a liquor licence review. Again, the devil is in the detail. Regulations should apply across all sectors so that they tackle alcohol abuse and deal with anyone who breaks the law. We are totally against the misuse or abuse of alcohol.

598. I will now hand over to Eugene to explain some of the difficulties that have arisen.

599. Mr Eugene Cassidy (Pubs of Ulster): Thank you very much for asking us to be here, folks. My friend Eugene and I are at the coalface, and we see the problems day and daily. The big issue is controlling the sale of alcohol. The way I see it, the only establishments that control the sale of alcohol at the minute are pubs and hotels; it is definitely not the clubs that do so. I say that because certain clubs in Belfast open until 6.00 am. Why are they open that late? I do not know. One club in Belfast has an open-door policy whereby anyone can walk in and get a pint for £2. That particular club has caused more hassle and problems than any other in Belfast, and it is, of course, still operating.

600. Mrs M Bradley: Was Fra down at it? [Laughter.]

601. Mr Cassidy: Last week, I walked into two clubs on the Falls Road in Belfast, and I could not tell whether they were clubs or pubs. I was not asked to sign in or for anything at all, and the drink was about 60p cheaper than the local pub.

602. Mr Craig: Was Fra there? [Laughter.]

603. The Chairperson: Fra, your image is being tarnished.

604. Mr F McCann: You would think that I was an alcoholic.

605. Mr Cassidy: I do not know one club in Belfast — apart from maybe conservative clubs — that is a private members’ club. There is no such thing; they do not exist.

606. Another problem is that clubs advertise that they are available for 18th birthday parties. We would not touch them with a bargepole. You can forget about having birthday parties for anyone younger than 24 or 25 years of age, because there is no way that everyone at an 18th birthday party is 18 years old. Clubs will take anything and anybody.

607. I was a wee bit annoyed at some of the things that were said by the representatives of the GAA. If you are involved in a sporting organisation, the last thing you should be talking about is alcohol. I played GAA for years. As soon as my club began to sell alcohol, it dropped two divisions, and it is still there. No alcohol is allowed in the Holy Family Boxing Club or any boxing club that I know of. Perhaps that is why our boxers did so well at the Commonwealth Games.

608. Drink should be sold in an environment that is controlled by responsible publicans and hoteliers. They will prevent drunk people from coming into the premises and will not serve people if they have had too much. No matter what you might think, that is not happening in clubs. Eugene said that we have no volunteers, and he is right. Everyone who works in our pubs expects to get paid.

609. What do clubs give to the Exchequer at the end of the year? The answer is nothing. Instead, they divide up their profits, which are supposed to go to members. I heard someone say that one club in east Belfast has 2,000 members and another has 1,500 members. That is simply not true; there are associated members who are not full members, and the divvy is divided up among the full members. They get their fair share, but they are paid in alcohol rather than money. That has happened in north Belfast for years. Instead of giving men their bonus at Christmas, the local clubs give them 20, 30 or 40 tickets for drink that must be drunk within two or three days. Is that responsible? It is not, but it is happening, and that is part of the problem. The clubs should use their profits to give money back to the Exchequer at the end of the year by paying capital gains tax and proper rates like we do, instead of giving their profits out in alcohol. It is an unfair playing field, and it is time for change.

610. By the way, the late licences do not affect me at all. My pub closes at 12.00 am on a Friday and Saturday night, because, in my opinion, if you do not have enough drink in you by 12.00 am, you need to go and see a doctor. [Laughter.]

611. That is it in a nutshell. I could go on about it all day, but those are the basic facts as I see them. Thank you for listening.

612. The Chairperson: Thank you very much. Some members have indicated that they want to ask questions. Jonathan, follow that.

613. Mr Craig: You have stolen my thunder, and I never thought that I would say that about an ex-GAA player. [Laughter.]

614. Eugene, I will make no comment, other than to mention that your thoughts on clubs are similar to mine. It defies logic that they are associated with sport yet, unfortunately, now seem to be totally reliant on the sale of alcohol. What sort of message are we sending out? Clubs want to encourage sport and healthy living yet are trying to fund that by encouraging something that is far from healthy.

615. I admit that, because of my background, quite frankly, I do not have a lot of time for alcohol, end of story. Your comments are absolutely right, and Colin hit the nail on the head. If I go out for the night with my family, we are not looking to even be associated with alcohol. However, we could now go into most of your premises to have a meal — and probably spend an absolute fortune on soft drinks — but that would be the end of it. To be honest, most people now do not even notice that they are in a pub or a hotel. That is the nature of the game.

616. I have a question about late-night opening, which I find ludicrous. We are trying to regulate the system to discourage the abuse of alcohol, and I commend the Minster for his efforts on that. I have seen too many people go to an early grave. My wife is a paramedic, and she will tell you that, if alcohol were removed from our society, the health budget would not even be an issue, never mind any cuts that are coming in. Around 80% of the work that paramedics do is related to alcohol.

617. What is a sensible compromise, Colin? I do not see 120 late licences as a sensible compromise in any way, shape or form. Over 90% of clubs are not using the 52 late licences that are already available. Therefore, I have to question how sensible it is to increase the number of late licences from 52 to 120, given that the majority of clubs do not use the current provision. I have surveyed most clubs in my constituency to see what the situation is, and I have yet to find a club that uses its 52 late licences, never mind one that would use 120. Perhaps an unholy clique somewhere is abusing the situation. What do you see as being a more sensible compromise on that issue? Although I would like to reverse the 52 late licences, I am a realist, and in the real world, that is not going to happen. However, we need to give clubs some leeway. Therefore, what do you envisage as being a more sensible compromise?

618. Mr Neill: I agree with you, and I, too, am a realist. We are not suggesting that it should be no, nothing, never. There are a number of issues around late licences. The proposal to increase the number of late licences raises the issue of developing enforceable regulation around the control of all premises. The two go hand in hand, and we need to review the current position.

619. To be open and honest, I had it in my head that there would be something like 75 late nights a year, which would move some way towards helping clubs to be a bit more flexible around some of their events, without opening it up to full-on competition. I am aware that this was to be phase one of the liquor licence review and that phase two was to be tied into the review of public administration (RPA). However, with the RPA being, shall we say, a very hard thing to tie down at the moment, I appeal to the Committee to consider having an interim phase — phase one and a half — to take a long hard look at some of the current legislation.

620. I have to support the police in saying that the current legislation is unenforceable, and, even when it is enforced, it gets thrown out of court. That applies not just to registered clubs but to pubs and restaurants, too. A restaurant licence costs a few hundred pounds, as opposed to the thousands of pounds that has to be invested in a pub or hotel licence, and restaurants just set up and trade like pubs. The police take the licensees to court, but cases are thrown out for the strangest intangible reasons. Therefore, we have to give the police the tools to do their job and encourage the majority to comply, so that the police can concentrate on the minority that will not join a professional body and act in a responsible manner.

621. Mr F McCann: I agree with Eugene that the boxing fraternity has survived for many, many years and created many champions. Equally, though, St Galls brought the all-Ireland club championship cup back to Belfast last year, and the team would probably not have been able to do that had St Galls not been able to finance its team’s training with money that it derived from the clubs. Some of the GAA clubs have 10 or 12 hurling and football teams. Had they not the finance that clubs provide, they would not be able to buy the hurls, rigs or uniforms. We are trying to get a happy medium.

622. I asked earlier whether representatives of pubs and clubs had sat down together to try to work out a common approach to the issue. I am a member of a couple of clubs, but I do not really socialise in them. When I go out, I socialise in pubs. I find the atmosphere more sociable when I am meeting friends. The major difficulty is the change in people’s attitude to entertainment and drinking. There are certain popular pubs in the city of Belfast that people go to at 11 pm or 12 am that will stay open until 2 am, 3 am or 4 am. It is the likes of your premises, the hotels and pubs in local areas, that feel the pinch and suffer difficulties and problems as a result of the change in attitude.

623. Mr Cassidy: People are leaving pubs now at 11 pm and 11.30 pm to go to clubs. What is the point in doing that if a club is supposed to close at 1 am? People have asked me to keep my pub open to 1 am, and I asked them what the point would be in doing that. They told me that if the bar stayed open until then, they could drink in the house until 10.30 pm and then come out, whereas now they are in the pub at 9.00 pm or 9.30 pm. I rest my case.

624. Mr F McCann: I will ask you the same question that I asked in the last witness session. Do you see a difference between the registered clubs in the federation and nightclubs?

625. Mr Neill: When we talk about clubs, we mean registered clubs. Technically, and according to licensing law, there is no such thing as a nightclub in Northern Ireland; all the nightclubs are pubs. However, I am very aware that there are a number of nightclubs, shall we say, in Belfast. As an industry body, we objected to the entertainment licences of two of our members being renewed by Belfast City Council because we support the police and because there was a public safety issue. We believed that the police were best placed to say that, and we felt that, as a responsible body, we should back them up. Those licences were reduced from 6 am to 3 am.

626. There is still an ongoing debate about this issue. The police are involved, and there are matters that I know to be public knowledge. There are issues, and, as an industry body, we have a duty to help to resolve those issues. We are doing our best to do that. We have our own brief to challenge licensed premises that are operating outside the law, where the police are perhaps unable to. We are moving on that.

627. The member asked whether we engage in dialogue with the clubs’ federation. We do; we have a lot of respect for that federation. We have worked together to develop a responsible retailing code of practice that would apply right across the industry. We have held a number of meetings, but that work is stalled because we want to ensure that we are working hand-in-hand with the Minister. We want to see whether we can take it further than the Minister proposes. We have talked to the federation about this issue, but I do not speak for it. However, the federation felt that its position was reasonable, and we agreed to disagree on this, as two professional bodies that work together on other things.

628. Mr F McCann: Danny Murphy talked about the number of matches that finish at 9.00 pm or 10.00 pm and said that people go back to the clubs after the matches. Is that taken into consideration when late licences are being discussed?

629. Mr Neill: We have looked at the figures for the current usage of late licences, and we noticed that there was not that great a demand for them. We felt that another 25 licences would allow for some flexibility. I do not know the registered club industry, but, if it is anything like the pub industry, it can be pretty lonely on a late Friday night, never mind a late Thursday night. Most pubs will not be too busy on a Friday night; Saturday night is the only night that there will be any sort of custom with a late licence. The need for late licences on Thursday nights has gone. Most people go to bed early in order to get up for work.

630. Mr F McCann: My last point is about penalty points. Do you think that that sort of power should be left to the police to go into premises and close them down?

631. Mr Neill: There are two issues: the penalty points system and power of closure. Penalty points are new; nobody has had them before. Northern Ireland is leading the way, and it is nice to see that we are leading the way rather than just adopting GB or Republic of Ireland legislation. We are doing our own thing. Like everything, the devil is in the detail of how the policy is drawn up, but it will probably help to tackle some problem premises that sell after hours. The police have to mount a covert operation to try to catch them, and that comes at massive expense. Therefore, we support the proposal for a penalty points system, but we want everyone to work together and to be realistic about getting something that is effective. We do not want to throw the baby out with the bath water.

632. We support the current proposal for power of closure. I know that there has been a conversation about whether the police should be given power of closure for anticipated disorder. I assume that that is what the member is asking about. However, again, the devil is in the detail. We would have concerns if it were simply given without some sort of extra control mechanism. In another life, I worked in the retained Fire Service for 28 years, and, as a crew commander, I knew only too well that when you hit the ground and stuff gets exciting, the adrenalin is up and you make snap decisions. However, you almost need somebody on your shoulder to tell you to think about it. Therefore, if the police were to be given power of closure for anticipated disorder without any extra control, there should be some sort of system whereby the decision can be referred further up the line to someone senior who is not on the ground and who can look at the situation calmly.

633. There is a bar in Belfast with quite substantial premises that shows a lot of sport, and it showed two different football matches; one upstairs and one downstairs. In our own little Northern Ireland, the two matches were watched by different communities, and the police said that the bar could not show them because there would be trouble. They said that they could not have two communities in the bar at the same time, and they told the publican to shut the bar or to show only one match. The publican said that if he did not show them both, there would be trouble. Therefore, there is a science around running a pub. It is no longer about opening the door, letting people in and then chucking them out. That particular pub has certain types of music that it plays straight after a match and after the scores, depending on what the game is, to wind people down. There is a whole psychology behind that. My fear is that, if the decision is left to a police inspector who does not have the knowledge and expertise to understand the situation, he will simply say that the bar should be shut.

634. Mr F McCann: I do not disagree with what you are saying, but, in the vast majority of cases, if a problem develops in premises, it would be better if the police negotiated with the keyholder or the owner to try to get something done. In the past, I have seen the police arrive at pub doors perhaps 10, 15 or 20 minutes after closing time. They are met with a lot of drunk people, which is a recipe for disaster. Therefore, it would be better to negotiate in those situations.

635. Mr Neill: I agree. The problem premises are pretty well known. I am involved with the PSNI and councils in different areas where problem premises have been identified, and it is about doing the work beforehand and how you handle the situation. I would never tell the police how they should operate, but it is sometimes a case of acting immediately or waiting until the morning to go to the bar and tell the owners that they were out of line.

636. I sit on the Holylands interagency working group, and we all know the problems that exist in that area. Our organisation has a Northern Ireland remit, but members could see that there was a major problem there, so we got involved. In that instance, we could have recommended shutting all the bars and off-licences within a two-mile radius, but Tesco will still deliver. People would still walk beyond the two-mile radius to buy their drink. The Assistant Chief Constable is on record as saying that pubs are not his problem when it comes to violence. There is very little alcohol-related violence in pubs now. Our biggest challenge nowadays is that people turn up for the last hour of opening “pre-loaded" or “pre-fuelled", and they drink until 11.30 pm. To be honest, if you were to let them into the bar, you would be lucky if they bought one drink, and they would probably throw up over somebody or spill their drink over somebody.

637. Pubs are not a profitable option, and I say that purely in a business sense, rather than in a moral sense.

638. If we turn people away, they are then standing on the street at 11.30 pm or midnight, intoxicated, and they do not have a taxi booked until 3.00 am. Therefore, they start trying to do all the pubs, end up in a group, end up in trouble, and are associated with us because they are drunks in the street. We did not put them there, and we have no control over them. Seventy per cent of alcohol is being consumed at home. Our industry has a major challenge to tackle a problem that is not ours, and we are doing that. We have just instigated a pilot programme called Purple Flag, which is a Quality Mark for a town or city centre that is clean, safe and accessible. As an industry, we are trying to go beyond our own front door, and say, “Can we help? We are here at night, so can we get involved and do something?" However, our major challenge will always be that “pre-fuelling" situation, which is from where the major part of alcohol-associated violence comes.

639. Mr McKeever: Overall, the Northern Ireland Hotels Federation, the pubs and the clubs are fairly well controlled in the drink that they give out. There is no question of that.

640. From a hotel point of view, people will go to a late-night function with carrier bags of drink, leave them in the car park, walk out, fill their glasses and walk back in, or bring them in under their coats. At least the Troubles brought an advantage, in that you at least had a right of search to get the bloody stuff off them. Now you cannot touch people. There is also the case of two people booking a room, only for all their friends to land in with their carry-outs.

641. We have a list of promotions that should stop, or not happen. That also has to apply to supermarkets. With the best will in the world, we still see three bottles of wine for £10 as great value. Therefore, people go out on a Saturday night planning to buy one bottle, end up buying three, and sit in the house and drink two of them. They then think, “Bloody heck, why did I do that?" It is time to look at supermarket off-sales and stop them from doing promotions and advertising to sell drink. We cannot stop people going to off-sales, nor would we want to. However, people seeing advertisements in the newspaper for three cases of beer for £15 leads them to drink to excess.

642. Colin is right about people going “pre-loaded" to functions. I have daughters, and they will have a bottle of wine or something before they go out. They say that they do not drink when they go out, apart from one drink when they pay to go into the disco. That is them for the night.

643. Control by the pubs, hotels and clubs will not stop binge drinking or problems on the street. The stories in the press about the lower Ormeau Road were terrible, saying the publicans should pay for the clean-up and policing bill. The publicans could not possibly have sold that much drink to get so many people that drunk. All Belfast would have been able to have a drink.

644. The Chairperson: It must have been in the water supply. [Laughter.]

645. Mr McKeever: They do not drink water. That is even dearer than beer now. [Laughter.]

646. Mrs M Bradley: I thank you for your presentation. I realise pubs’ concerns. You are right to say that there are many bars that we would not know are pubs, where people can get a decent meal and everything else. That is really the bars trying to make a living as well. That will impact badly on hotels, however, with people going to bars because they are a bit cheaper than hotels. Therefore, it is a snowball effect. Eugene was very honest in his remarks, but the Committee will consider all the evidence.

647. Ms Lo: Colin and Eugene said that there may not be much custom for pubs beyond midnight. How many nights, on average, would a pub stay open late, or want to stay open late?

648. Mr Neill: The majority of pubs would probably stay open late on Friday and Saturday. That tends to be norm. A tourism market could support a few opening a bit longer in Belfast city centre. However, there is not really the customer base or demand for late-night opening out across the Province. It is the old story of there being no point in standing there alone and running overheads and paying staff and such. Late-night openings are becoming less common. The weekend used to be a Friday and Saturday but is now moving to being a Saturday only.

649. Ms Lo: Therefore, it is around 120 late nights a year, or even fewer.

650. Mr Neill: Yes.

651. Ms Lo: Interestingly, you said that nightclubs are also pubs. I did not realise that. As you know, we have a number of nightclubs in south Belfast. They open so late. How does that operate?

652. Mr Neill: Anyone in that game has to have a public house licence. We can sell alcohol only if we have an article 44 extension, which is granted by the court and allows us to extend our opening hours from 11.00 pm to 1.00 am. That extension can only be granted to premises that hold an entertainment licence or sell substantial food until 12.30 am. It is different for restaurants. Indeed, there are a number of restaurants that act as nightclubs, which is a really big problem.

653. In Belfast, entertainment licences are granted by Belfast City Council. For a time, those licences allowed premises to stay open until 6.00 am, the theory being that the bar stops selling at 1.00 am but people dance on until 6.00 am. I will pause there to let you think about that. That is why we have taken the attitude that 3.00 am should be the maximum. If alcohol can be sold until 1.00 am, the current legislation requires that customers drink up by 1.30 am. It is OK if there is a bit of dancing to wind down. As one of my colleagues says, pick up your girl and go home.

654. Ms Lo: If you can find a girl. [Laughter.]

655. Mr Neill: It is the entertainment licence that allows them to stay open. In order for pubs to get a late licence, licensees must satisfy the courts that they meet all the requirements to get an extension from 11.00 pm to 1.00 am. Licensees must also satisfy the council that they meet the requirements to get an entertainment licence. In both processes, the council can object, and in the council process, the general public can object. There is a very tight objection system, which does not apply to registered clubs. All that they have to do is ask the police for a late licence; they do not have to sell food or have live entertainment. They can have one of the 52 nights currently available to them, which is to become one of 120.

656. We are quite heavily controlled, and those controls are expensive. If a licensee wants to open until 1.00 am a couple of nights a week to offer live entertainment, not only is there the cost of the entertainment, which many bars cannot charge for, but the cost of applying for the entertainment licence. The licence fee, advertising and associated costs come to an estimated £7,000 a year — just to get an entertainment licence to let a licensee put a guy in the corner of a country bar strumming a guitar. Those costs add to the situation.

657. Ms Lo: In theory, pubs can ask for late-night opening the whole year around.

658. Mr Neill: Technically, we have late licences all year around, but in practice, it would be a very optimistic publican that had a late licence to open until 1.00 am on a Monday night.

659. Mr S Anderson: Thank you for your presentation. It is good to get the facts. Eugene Cassidy was telling us how the trade is doing at the moment, as was Colin. Saturday night is probably the main night for any pub. You talked about pubs in rural areas. I said earlier to the previous set of witnesses that the smaller pubs are closing. You know that better than I do.

660. Eugene also talked about what the pubs pay back. They pay their staff, their rates, their VAT and whatever else is going. How will the extension to the number of late opening nights — should it be 75 nights — have an effect? It is good that you have come here with what could best be called a compromise solution. The clubs began by asking for 150 nights and then 120 nights was suggested. However, you are now talking about 75 nights. How will that affect smaller pubs? Can pubs survive here?

661. Mr Neill: To be realistic, even 75 nights will have an impact. We are trying to be fair and realistic. There are massive challenges in our industry, in the registered club industry and across the private sector. Those extra 25 nights could be the tipping point that causes pubs to close, especially those in rural areas.

662. Many rural pubs now open only for three days a week. To keep their licence live, they have to open for a significant amount of time. To be honest, if they could, to save costs, they would probably opt to open only on Friday and Saturday nights, but the legislation does not allow them to do that. The pub industry, particularly in rural areas, has taken a big hit. Some clubs compete directly with them by running events and public dances, but pubs cannot compete on price because their overheads do not allow it. In the short term, 25 additional late licences a year will have an impact, but we have to be grown up about the debate and find a compromise.

663. Mr S Anderson: Based on what we have heard about the impact that the legislation would have on struggling pubs, we will have to achieve a balance.

664. Ms Gault: Our real concern about the additional late licences is the ability of clubs to run events. We think that the additional licences will be used to attract additional events, which already presents us with a major problem. Clubs are advertising events that are open to the public. The last that I heard, a wedding does not involve the attendance of members. We checked that out. You will be glad to hear that I will be getting married in Portstewart in a number of weeks. I have not found a groom yet, but I am searching. [Laughter.] I do not hear many people volunteering. Nevertheless, I can get married in a certain club for £60, which is 30% less than I can in a commercial operation, and I have no association with and have never been to that club. I have no idea what goes on in it, but I was told freely on the telephone not to worry, because I would become a social member when I paid my £60. Furthermore, the club told me that it would be able to provide a late licence.

665. My big concern is that 120 late licences a year will allow clubs to open late every Friday and Saturday night. Aside from running events to raise money for charities, the chances of them needing three late licences a week for their members are very limited. In a number of cases, they will be used to attract events, such as commercial events and fund-raisers, which are not necessarily of benefit to the club.

666. Mr S Anderson: I do not want to prolong the evidence session, but we heard from Colin Neill that pubs are lucky to get trade to any degree on a Saturday night, whereas, according to Janice Gault, clubs are going the other way by getting around the regulations and advertising various events. Hearing about certain aspects of clubs has certainly enlightened me.

667. Ms Gault: There is also the enforcement issue. We have complained about advertising, which carries a £2,500 fine for every officer of a club, only to be told that the regulations are very difficult to enforce. We have a guy whose wedding business has gone down, and he asks us why the rules cannot be enforced. We want to see the definition of a club member and what he or she can do be tightened up. Clubs are fantastic at sports development, young people’s development and community development. They are an integral part of society, but they cannot be allowed to move into a market in which they will have an unfair commercial advantage.

668. The Chairperson: The issue has been well aired.

669. Mr Neill: If I might mention the promotions legislation, on the Minister’s proposals, we totally support anything that stops illegal or irresponsible promotions. Some of the promotions that have been mentioned do not exist here anyway, such as “women drink for free". I thought that that sounded great. I told my wife not to buy a round, because that has been the only way for women here to drink for free.

670. We are concerned about the term “happy hour". The proposals stipulate that prices cannot fluctuate in any 24-hour period; however, offering 50p off the price of a pint for two hours at teatime on a Monday night could not be classed as an irresponsible promotion. We do, however, recognise that five shots for a fiver at midnight on a Saturday could. We should try to find a formula that can accommodate both sets of circumstances; otherwise, there may be a drive towards even more irresponsible promotions. If publicans cannot change prices during the day, they may take things in the other direction and offer pints for £2 all day, particularly when faced with supermarket prices of 21p a can all day every day.

671. Eugene McKeever referred to the idea put about by the supermarkets that people buy alcohol in bulk, take it home and drink it responsibly. It is called the Coca-Cola effect, because Coca-Cola, which most people acknowledge has one of the most significant and professional retail operations, sell mass volumes at bottom prices to encourage people to buy and drink more of it. It is a science.

672. It has long been argued that it is irresponsible and unfair to prevent supermarket minimum-price promotions, because doing so would penalise the majority by making them pay more for the few who abuse cheap drink. The same argument applies to the pensioner buying his bread and jam or the mother buying food for her kid. There is no such thing as a free lunch. If supermarkets are losing money on alcohol, the loss is being added on to the price of another product. Supermarkets operate on a standard margin. If they lose £20 million this year in alcohol sales, you can bet your bottom dollar that that is added on to all the other products.

673. On the promotions issue, we appeal to the Committee and the Assembly, instead of waiting on Scotland, to lead the way by bringing in minimum pricing in Northern Ireland ahead of Scotland, where a lot of research has been done but the political situation means that a majority vote cannot be secured. Although I believe that advertising is a reserved matter for Westminster, I would add to that a call for the Assembly to push for a ban on advertising alcohol price promotions. That alone would kill much of the activity.

674. Finally, the pub industry is the only industry that pays a social levy on rates. We pay around 30% more in rates because we sell alcohol. That is right, because the product that we sell has consequences, but it is time that that social levy was applied to supermarkets and the like, which now sell 70% of alcohol. That would generate a large income in such a tight time and would help to mop up the economic mess. Thank you.

675. The Chairperson: That was very helpful. Thank you all for your evidence today and for your submission previously.

4 November 2010

Members present for all or part of the proceedings:
Mr Simon Hamilton (Chairperson)
Ms Carál Ní Chuilín (Deputy Chairperson)
Mr Sydney Anderson
Mrs Mary Bradley
Mr Mickey Brady
Mr Jonathan Craig
Mr Alex Easton
Mr Tommy Gallagher
Ms Anna Lo
Mr Fra McCann

Witnesses:

Mr Tom Bowler ) Department for Social Development

Mr Liam Quinn )

676. The Chairperson (Mr Hamilton): Tom Bowler and Liam Quinn from the Department’s social policy unit are with us to advise on the Bill as we go through it. You are both welcome. Proceedings will be reported by Hansard, and mobile phones must be turned off.

677. Members, we will start with Part 1 of the Bill, which deals with licensing. Clause 1 introduces additional closure powers relating to all licensed premises. It allows a Magistrate’s Court in a district that is experiencing disorder, or is likely to do so, to make a closure order in respect of licensed premises. It allows a police officer of the rank of inspector or above to make a closure order of up to 24 hours if it is believed that there is public disorder on or near and related to the premises.

678. The clause requires the police officer to apply to the relevant Magistrate’s Court to consider the closure order and any extension of it as soon as possible. There is a new offence of keeping premises open in contravention of a court order, which will attract a fine not exceeding £5,000 and/or up to six months imprisonment. The clause also sets out the circumstances in which premises are deemed to be open by listing who may legitimately enter the premises so as to help the police determine whether premises that should be closed are in fact trading illegally.

679. A number of amendments have been proposed to clause 1. Amendment A will increase fines and includes a possibility of three months’ imprisonment associated with disorder leading to closure.

680. Mr Tom Bowler (Department for Social Development): Northern Ireland has a different structure of fines and penalties. The proposed amendment seeks to bring the fines and penalties into line with those in England and Wales. In licensing law, our fines do not normally exceed £5,000. The issue was raised a few years ago with the Office of the Legislative Counsel, which reiterated the fact that, under licensing law, we have a quite different structure.

681. Ms Lo: The amendment will increase the fine to £20,000. The average fine in England and Wales is around £5,000. Imprisonment can be only for three months while, in England and Wales, it can be for up to six months.

682. Mr Bowler: It is the other way around. It is currently three months there and six months here.

683. The Chairperson: The fines are the other way around. They are £5,000 here and £20,000 there. We are harder on time in the clink and less hard on fines.

684. Ms Lo: I am sorry; I read it the other way around. Our fines are lower, but imprisonment is longer. What is the rationale for that? Why are we so different?

685. Mr Bowler: I do not know. That is the way it has been for quite a long time. We have different legislation from England and Wales, and we certainly have different licensing legislation. That is just the way that it has evolved in Northern Ireland. I do not know any more of the history of it than that.

686. The Chairperson: Is there a strong view that we should support the amendment, or are we content with the clause? Jonathan made the point that there is probably very little enforcement up to that level anyway. OK, so there are no strong views. That is fine.

687. Amendments B and C will allow the police and courts to have the powers to require closure on the grounds of imminent disorder, or public or noise nuisance.

688. Mr S Anderson: How is that to be defined? That is an area of difficulty. If a club is having a function on a Friday night, and there is massive noise and disorder, it would be down to a police inspector to say that the club has gone too far over the line. Can he or she define that, or do they need to contact noise officers from the local council?

689. Mr Bowler: The draft Bill contained a power to allow the police to close premises because of noise levels. That provision was withdrawn. If it were to go back in, our guidance would probably state that the noise would have to come from within a premise and not from people outside. As the member rightly says, there would have to be specific guidance on the rights of the police, because noise nuisance would probably be a subjective opinion. We have not taken the issue as far as we would have taken it, because the provision is no longer included in the Bill.

690. Mr Easton: The Chief Constable was in Bangor on Monday night for a consultation with residents. He said that he wants the power to be able to close premises.

691. The Chairperson: The oral and written evidence from the police was similar.

692. Ms Lo: Can the Committee put in amendments about wanting to bring back the two other reasons for closure, namely, imminent disorder and noise?

693. The Chairperson: If it is the Committee’s view, we can propose an amendment on imminent disorder or noise. How that would look is a matter for drafting. However, the Committee can propose anything if it supports it.

694. The Committee Clerk: If the Committee did not support it, the member would be free to put down an amendment.

695. Ms Lo: The police were quite strong when giving evidence to the Committee that this is what they want in order to carry out their duties.

696. Mr F McCann: I declare that I am a member of Belfast City Council, and I have sat through many —

697. Mr Brady: Disorders? [Laughter.]

698. Mr F McCann: Indeed. I sat through many committee meetings at which the police were fairly strong on the refusal of entertainment licences. However, when one started to investigate, one found that there were no real grounds for the refusal. I have serious problems with the amendments.

699. Councils have a good policy for dealing with noise nuisance, to the extent that they enter into lengthy mediation between pub and club owners and local residents to try to ensure agreement on noise levels. Councils can bring in restraints to stop noise, one of which is the refusal of an entertainment licence. I oppose that power being given to the police.

700. I do not know what the term “imminent disorder" means. Again, incidents have ended up being far worse because of police intervention, whereas matters could have been dealt with easily through mediation beforehand.

701. Mr Brady: How would the phrase “imminent disorder" be defined? For example, if a football match was taking place and opposing supporters were drinking in the same pub, the rational view would be that there would be a risk of imminent disorder. Apart from that, it is very nebulous.

702. The Chairperson: Initially, the Department had included the phrase “imminent disorder" in the Bill. However, it has been taken out. How did the Department define the phrase?

703. Mr Bowler: It was more a matter for the police at the time. It was where disorder was expected and, obviously, expected imminently. There would have been history involved with that provision. Take the typical scenario of football fans before and during a match.

704. Mr Brady: That seems the most rational example.

705. Mr Bowler: If football fans had caused problems in the past, the police may have formed the view that they were going to do so again. Therefore, as a last resort, they would have asked the relevant premises to close voluntarily.

706. Mr Brady: The difficulty is whether that would be based on a subjective or objective view.

707. Mr Bowler: It really does depend on police intelligence. However, the best that I can offer by way of an explanation is that there would probably have to be some history by which a court could judge the validity of a police decision.

708. Mr Brady: But, by that stage, the place would have been closed.

709. Mr Bowler: Yes.

710. Mr Liam Quinn (Department for Social Development): If an amendment of this nature were made, the guidance would have to make it very clear as to the circumstances under which that particular power could be used by the police. That would evolve as the courts reviewed the use of the power over time.

711. Mr Brady: Precedent would be set through case law.

712. Ms Lo: There would need to be guidance and criteria for defining imminent disorder. Noise would be one factor. A senior police officer who wanted to close premises would have to justify his actions to a court.

713. Mr F McCann: By that stage, it would be too late.

714. The Chairperson: Although supportive of the clause, I have issue with the implementation of closure powers where the actual disorder relates to the phrase “in the vicinity". I support the powers, but I have issues with how they are going to be implemented. As we have asked several times: what does the word “vicinity" mean? What does the phrase “related to" mean? I understand that there will be guidance on that. However, there is still wriggle room in the interpretation, and those powers could be abused just as much as they could be used sensibly. Although I have an issue with that, I still support the clause as being right and proper.

715. My concerns are amplified by the fact that we are talking about “imminent" disorder. I would be 100% supportive of a clause along those lines if I had confidence that the powers provided for would always be used appropriately. I do not have that confidence, because such powers would be used subjectively. That is why I am concerned.

716. Mr Brady: Everybody knows that there are disorderly premises. However, the situation might arise in which a place that is normally well run has one incident of disorder, and, as a result, is closed down. Some rationale has to be applied. Everybody knows that there are places that people just would not go into. Those are few and far between, but imminent disorder may well happen every week on such premises. [Laughter.]

717. The Chairperson: They are always there.

718. Mr Brady: For many years, I lived opposite a club in Newry in which disorder was always imminent. [Laughter.]

719. Premises that are orderly and well run may, unfortunately, come under the same remit. Therein lies the difficulty. Therefore, the phrase “imminent disorder" will have to be very clearly defined, and whether disorder is repetitive or consistent would have to be taken into account.

720. Mr Bowler: The police would have to use the power very cautiously. As Liam said, ultimately — and perhaps too late — it will be the courts that decide. However, I stress that closure orders are a last resort. Ideally, the police will negotiate voluntary closure.

721. Mr F McCann: Not in all cases. The police should be going to the courts for closures. This is open to abuse. I am not saying that all police officers would abuse the power, but individuals may do so because of the nature of a club or pub. I think that the court should have the say. As Mickey said, if problems are persistent, one would think that the police would automatically apply to the Court Service for a closure order.

722. Mr S Anderson: I support what you said, Chairperson, as regards the clause and the powers for the police, but it puts the individual police officers in the very difficult position of having to read situations as they develop on the night. Perhaps each inspector may see things differently. We would be depending on the police on the ground making a decision at that particular time. As Anna said, there have to be guidelines to make this effective. People could end up in court saying that one bar should not have been closed down because, for example, if two premises were close to one another, then the trouble arose from the other one. It is a grey area, but I support the clause and I support trying to do something to stop levels of noise and disruption.

723. Mr F McCann: Are councils not better placed to deal with noise nuisance through the process from initial complaint? They facilitate local residents by providing equipment to detect noise. Before any action is taken, they help mediate between the complainant and the pub or club, wherever the noise is emanating. Finally, they only move as a last resort when no agreement can be made.

724. Mr S Anderson: I declare an interest as a member of Craigavon Borough Council. I take those points, but if something develops during the night, it is not easy to get council officers out at 1.00 am or 2.00 am with noise-level detectors; I do not know what it is like in Belfast. If an issue develops after 1.00 am, and a police inspector is there, he or she has to make a decision quickly about whether particular premises are causing a problem. How would that inspector detect the noise level? Will he or she have some sort of noise-level detector? It is being left to individual police officers to close premises. If something happens at 1.00 am and there is disruption and a lot of noise, what should an individual inspector do?

725. Mr F McCann: It could actually precipitate trouble.

726. Mr S Anderson: Following on from that, what are the consequences if it can be proven that the right decision has not been made? Where does that put the individual police officer?

727. The Chairperson: You are saying something similar to what I was saying. You support the principle of the suggested amendment, but the application is much more difficult in practice. That is the point. It is not that we do not support the idea.

728. Mr S Anderson: I fully support this. Is there any way we can give the police a better way to make their decision, or will it be just left to them to decide when to close a premises?

729. The Chairperson: Presently, the Bill only gives the power to close where there is actual disorder related to premises or in the vicinity of premises. That is actual disorder. The proposed amendments suggest that there should be provisions for “imminent disorder" and “noise". Those are incredibly subjective; particularly the question of what is the right noise level, because the equipment may not be available at 1.00 am.

730. Mr S Anderson: That is why the councils have noise detectors; it is because they need to get evidence. I am sure that every district council works in the same way. They have to have a history of noise levels over a period of time. How can noise in this situation be detected over a period of time? It will be down to one particular decision at one particular time.

731. Ms Ní Chuilín: Public order legislation can be used with respect to imminent disorder in which there is a fear that people will do harm to themselves or others. Obviously, that does not relate to noise pollution. However, those powers are being used far too arbitrarily in Belfast, and their use depends on district commands and sometimes on the complexion of the inspectors in those commands. If the police believe that people are being disorderly when coming out of a premises, it is better that they talk to the licensee about the potential effect on residents. This proposal will take away the ability to remind people of their responsibilities. It will give the police the power to close premises if they feel that there may be problems.

732. The problem with the amendment is that, even with guidelines, it is difficult to judge noise levels. It is leaving the power open to abuse or misuse.

733. Ms Lo: Noise levels can often be judged by the number of complaints received from residents. There are machines to measure noise levels; but, if the police receive dozens of calls from residents who live close to pubs and clubs, those will provide the intelligence that there are huge noise levels. That could be the case, for example, in South Belfast or in the residential areas of the city centre when there are open-air concerts.

734. Mr F McCann: I understand what Sydney said. However, if someone feels that too much noise is coming from a bar and phones the police, the police are obligated to investigate that complaint, which could create more trouble. Councils are the best bodies to investigate those complaints. They may not be able to deal with the problem on the night, but the fact that they are investigating and recording noise levels over a period of time will send the message to the licensee that that behaviour will not be tolerated. One of the things that one learns in council is that these things are open to legal remedies. Eight out of 10 times the councils end up losing out. What will it be like if a police officer closes premises due to noise levels?

735. The Chairperson: Your opinions are not divergent; your emphasis is just different. There is limited support for an amendment. We do not need to get any more information, because it is a matter of opinion.

736. Ms Ní Chuilín: It is.

737. Ms Lo: Can we ask the police to clarify what sort of guidelines and criteria will be put forward?

738. The Committee Clerk: As I understand it, and the departmental officials can keep me right, the Department of Justice will issue guidance that the Department for Social Development will help to draft.

739. The Chairperson: Tom, do you have any more on that?

740. Mr Bowler: The guidance will be on the Bill as it stands, which does not include noise nuisance.

741. The Chairperson: What guidance will be given to police officers?

742. Mr Bowler: The Department of Justice will produce guidance for police officers.

743. The Chairperson: Yes I know that. Have you done any work on developing that guidance?

744. Mr Bowler: Yes we have.

745. The Chairperson: I am trying to tease that out. What is in that guidance? Can you give us a steer as to what that guidance looks like?

746. Mr Bowler: Our closure provisions are based broadly on the England and Wales version. They have produced guidance, as has Scotland, on their closure provisions, and ours will look similar to those. However, the emphasis will be on the caution that the police need to use before they make any decisions, the relationship that the police have to build up with licensed premises and registered clubs and on the voluntary nature of any action, with closure being a last resort. It will stress the communicative role of the police rather than stress the ultimate power that they will have to close premises.

747. The Chairperson: We will get copies of the guidance in the other jurisdictions to give us an outline.

748. Ms Lo: In a way, this will give our police less power than the police in the rest of the United Kingdom. If I recall it right, the police in England and Wales have that second and third power, whereas our Bill will go through without the amendment and the police will have less power.

749. The Chairperson: That is correct.

750. Ms Lo: Our pubs and clubs are not less rowdy.

751. The Chairperson: That is devolution, Anna. We can do what we want to do. We will seek that additional information.

752. Amendments D and E will require the police to notify the district council of a closure and to consult with the local community. Does the Department have an opinion on those amendments?

753. Mr Quinn: The amendment on consulting the district council is worthy of consideration and could be included in guidance to the police on the use of their closure power. There is a link between the liquor licence and the entertainment licence.

754. The Chairperson: How do you define “local community"?

755. Mr Quinn: Those are emergency powers, and it would be very difficult to consult the local community when dealing with an issue that happens very late at night. However, it is worth considering whether the police, as part of their normal liaison with the community, could raise the matter afterwards and explain what had happened and how they had used the power. Again, that is for the guidance.

756. The Chairperson: How does the Department define “local community"?

757. Mr Quinn: We need to look at that issue. Presumably, “local community" has different meanings in different areas, such as rural areas and inner city areas.

758. The Chairperson: Yes, it is quite nebulous.

759. Mr F McCann: Councils have a long track record of trying to deal with noise nuisance, and they have gone to court on many occasions. They have lost cases and it has cost a fortune. Therefore, the trusted practice in councils is to try and get agreement between the licensee, the local community and the council so that they do not have to go to court. That is the best procedure.

760. Mr S Anderson: Amendment D says that the police will be required to notify district councils. Will they be required to do so immediately? We know that things lie around, and, given that district councils issue the licences, they should be informed immediately. They should know with immediate effect if there is a problem at premises. The Bill should maybe state that councils should be informed with immediate effect or within a certain time period.

761. The Chairperson: The Department suggested that that can be done through guidance. There are practicality issues if an incident happens at 3.00 am.

762. Mr S Anderson: I understand that. However, they could be informed within 24 hours or, if an incident happens on a Friday night, they could be informed by the following Monday.

763. The Chairperson: That is legitimate. We could do that.

764. Mr S Anderson: It should not lie on a desk somewhere for three months before the local licensing authority finds out about it.

765. Mr F McCann: The fact of life is — and I can only speak about Belfast — that if most police in Belfast had their way, most places would close at 12.00 midnight to save hassle.

766. The Chairperson: Amendment F will allow the courts discretion to rescind a closure order if certain conditions are met.

767. Mr Bowler: Yes. That seems unnecessarily harsh in our view. I would not say that the nuisance is more likely to be at night time, but there is a fair chance of it happening during the night. Issuing a closure order for a pub and yet allowing it to stay open subject to certain conditions just seems a little bit prescriptive, and we would prefer that a closure order was either issued or was not issued. The monitoring of those conditions would be very difficult.

768. The Chairperson: I do not think that the amendment is suggesting that a bar stays open under certain conditions. I will paint a scenario. A closure order is issued at midnight, and the bar closes. The publican applies to the court at 9.00 am the following morning asking to have the pub reopened and offering to be a good boy and do X, Y and Z, and is told that he can open from 11.00 am as normal if he abides by the conditions. That is what the amendment is suggesting. It is not that the premises are closed but open; that would be patently ridiculous.

769. Mr Bowler: I think I know where the proposal came from; it was based on the equivalent closure powers in England. In England, a court can issue a closure order, yet allow a pub to open subject to certain conditions, which are not specified. I was pretty sure that the proposed amendment reflected that fact and was a comparison between here and GB. That is why I took the line that I did.

770. The Chairperson: What about the scenario that I painted? Is it a possibility to have an amendment to allow that to happen?

771. Mr Bowler: If the police decide that the disorder —

772. The Chairperson: It would be up to the court to decide. The court would be issuing the order.

773. Mr Quinn: Yes, it would be up to the court. It is possible to bring forward such an amendment, but I am having difficulty visualising what sort of conditions would be put in place.

774. The Chairperson: I’m not speaking in favour or against; the suggestion has been made. I accept Tom’s point. I think that it would be ridiculous to close and open premises; that would be a preposterous scenario.

775. Mr Quinn: The Bill as it stands gives the court the power to allow the licensed premises to reopen but removes their late licences, for example. It could say that the premises can open from 11.00 am to 11.00 pm but cannot have a late licence. That is an element of restriction.

776. Ms Ní Chuilín: They do that anyway.

777. The Chairperson: Amendment G suggests an alteration to the definition of when premises are open so as to include when entertainment is provided.

778. Mr Bowler: That sounds like a pretty useful idea. We will probably need to discuss it further with the DOE; we are getting into that Department’s legislation, but it makes sense. I was trying to envisage a scenario in which the police issue a closure order and the pub then goes ahead and runs a dry entertainment event or holds a gig with no alcohol. I am trying to envisage when that would ever happen, but we think it is a worthy idea to consider and we will certainly take it up with the DOE.

779. Mr S Anderson: There is a possibility that some premises could provide meals and, although not selling drink, people could bring in their own alcohol in bottles. Is that possible? One knows what happens after that; they are asked to leave a fee for their meal as they are going out the door, which covers everything.

780. Mr F McCann: It is usually before you go out; it is when you go in.

781. Mr S Anderson: I said that for a specific reason.

782. Mr Bowler;

783. I do not think the Bill makes it clear, but the police could go into a place and issue a closure order but not require the premises to shut.

784. They could ask the bar to shut, and that will be part of our guidance. They may not want to exacerbate the situation by asking customers to go into the street in a group. There are lots of scenarios under which a pub will not have to close its doors. However, we think it fairly unlikely that meals would be served during a closure order, or that any other activity would take place once the bar was closed.

785. Mr S Anderson: Yes, but it is possible. If the establishment were to serve meals, and the clientele brought their own bottles of wine —

786. Mrs M Bradley: Aye, if they bring it in —

787. Mr S Anderson: Yes. The meal is served, they drink their bottle of wine, and the whole thing is charged as one complete setting. What is to stop that from happening?

788. Mr Bowler: The police could stop that from happening. They could simply close the premises completely. Again, I have difficulty envisaging —

789. Mr S Anderson: On what grounds?

790. Mr Bowler: It would be on the grounds that they intended to close the premises in the first place. There has to be disorder. The police would have closed the premises because of disorder breaking out. It is hard to imagine why, in that scenario, they would not clear the premises and not allow people in to eat or drink.

791. Mr Quinn: The Bill allows the police to close a bar if there is disorder. So, they can close premises completely, but in some circumstances, as Tom said, they would not want all the people moving into the street at the same time for fear of further disorder. So, they may close the bar, no more alcohol would be served, and people would remain on the premises.

792. I cannot envisage how, in those circumstances, people would go out, buy drink in off-sales, and come back and be served a meal, because the police could immediately say that they are closing the whole premises and that everyone must leave. The Bill makes it clear who is legitimately entitled to remain on premises when they are subject to a closure order. Staff, and maybe family members who live on the premises, are legitimately allowed to be there. However, one could not have people wandering in with drink.

793. Mr S Anderson: Tom said that perhaps premises could stay open and continue to serve meals.

794. Mr Quinn: Yes, but that would be when police have closed the bar and not the premises. If that scenario developed, then the police would close the premises completely. I would imagine that to be the sensible approach.

795. Mrs M Bradley: Is that in a case where premises lost their licence?

796. Mr Quinn: That is when a closure order would have been imposed.

797. Mr F McCann: A closure order is usually against the sale of alcohol on the premises, not the consuming of alcohol. Many restaurants and late-night clubs outside the pub trade operate under the guise that people pay £20 in. They are supposed to be alcohol-free, but they are not, and that is accepted. Many restaurants allow people to bring in their own carry-out. It is put in the fridge, and is served to you when you are eating.

798. Ms Ní Chuilín: I must go out with you more often, Fra.

799. Mrs M Bradley: How do you know that, Fra?

800. Mr Brady: Fra has done a lot of research.

801. Mr F McCann: It is called being close to your community.

802. Mr Brady: Fra is organising the Christmas party this year.

803. Mr F McCann: I have organised plenty of Christmas parties.

804. The Chairperson: He can organise the Committee’s Christmas do.

805. OK, amendments H and I sought to restrict closure powers as they affect an area in respect of off-licence sales.

806. Mr Bowler: There does not seem to be an awful lot of sense to that. Courts can close off-licences easily.

807. The Chairperson: I suspect that members will agree with that. OK. Fair enough.

808. Clause 2 introduces a penalty points system for licensed premises. The penalty points for each offence are set out in schedule 1 of the Bill. Where a licensee is convicted of two or more offences committed on the same occasion, the court may restrict the points attributable to the highest number due in respect of one of the offences. The Department is also empowered to amend the penalty points attributable by affirmative resolution procedure. A Magistrate’s Court may suspend a licence for not less than one week or within three months when 10 penalty points are accumulated in a three-year period.

809. A number of amendments have been proposed to clause 2. Amendment J will require the courts to impose all penalty points associated with all offences committed on a single occasion.

810. Mr Bowler: The courts have the power to do that in the Bill. The Bill allows them to award points for every conviction or to award one set of points.

811. Mr F McCann: Are you saying that that power exists already?

812. Mr Bowler: Yes, it is included in the Bill that the courts will have the discretion to do that either way.

813. The Committee Clerk: The difference is that the Bill allows the courts discretion. It may have been the Caleb Foundation that suggested that all of the points should always be applied automatically.

814. The Chairperson: Amendment K will restrict the application of penalty points to the on-licensed trade. It is similar to amendments H and I in that it seems a bit ludicrous. An off-licence is as likely to misbehave as an on-licensed premises.

815. Mr Brady: Obviously, it has a cumulative effect.

816. The Chairperson: Amendment L will reduce the level of points associated with every offence.

817. Mr Quinn: I am not clear why that has been suggested. Obviously, it would benefit those who commit the most serious offences. We want to send out the message that underage sales, for example, are a serious offence and should be treated seriously.

818. The Chairperson: Amendment M is about reducing the shelf life of penalty points from three years to three months. A similar argument applies to that amendment as the previous one.

819. Mr Quinn: It would mean that premises could be convicted of selling underage three times each year without any fear of suspension of their licence.

820. The Chairperson: We had representations from major retailers, who are unlike a wee bar in the main street of some town. They are huge retailers. For example, it seems that half of the booze that is consumed in the Irish Republic is sold in Newry.

821. Mr Brady: It all goes into the local economy.

822. The Chairperson: They argue that they get thousands of sales a week and probably hundreds of thousands a year. I will play devil’s advocate: those retailers say that they do their level best to restrict underage sales, but that, invariably, the fact of life is that someone will slip through the net. In the real world, people under the age of 18 are consuming alcohol every day of the week. They get it from somewhere, or someone gets it on their behalf.

823. The retailers’ argument is that as they have such high volumes an enhanced regime of enforcement would mean that it would take only two breaches in a three-year period for them to risk being closed. I do not know how regularly it occurs, but it is much more often than that. If they were closed for a period, it would have a massive effect on the business. I understand their point. I do not condone sales to underage individuals or to those who pass alcohol on to underage people, but it is a fact of life. We would be targeting retailers that, as Mickey can testify from his backyard, are huge contributors to the local economy.

824. Mr Quinn: The reason that we are debating the Bill is that alcohol is a controlled substance, and the state recognises that. That is why these controls are in place. People who sell large quantities of alcohol have responsibilities not to sell it to those who are underage. The fact that they are selling large volumes is not sufficient to say that some people will get through the net. However, if they put all of the correct checks and procedures in place and, by mistake, something happens, there is the defence in law that they had carried out due diligence checks. A licence holder has a defence to the charge, and the court would take that into account in any hearing.

825. Mr F McCann: In such circumstances, would the supermarket be closed down, or would it be only the off-licence part of it?

826. In west Belfast, and perhaps across Belfast, the community, the police and local politicians have, as part of strategies, gone into off-licences. Many who are employed in those premises are underage and easily intimidated. However, there is nothing else here about off-licences.

827. Mr Bowler: Much rigorous training is undertaken by Pubs of Ulster.

828. Mr F McCann: That may be the case in some pubs, but it is not the case in west Belfast.

829. Mr Bowler: As one of the trade bodies from England told the Committee, it is the law that there must adult supervision where liquor is stored and there must be adults on the tills. Underage drinkers would have to slip through both those nets to purchase alcohol in a supermarket. As Liam said, the next defence is that the licensees used all due diligence to avoid the offence by having firm practices and policies in operation, and can convince the court that they had no reason to suspect that the young person was under 18. That is a great deal of hurdles to get over before a court will convict a large supermarket of the underage selling of alcohol. The same could also apply to off-licences if the young person behind the till had no reason to suspect that the customer was underage. Even when there was intimidation, if the off-licence had firm policies and procedures in place the courts would have a right not to convict, and if there is no conviction there will be no penalty points.

830. There are a lot of steps to be taken before a court will convict. It is not as simple as it seems and people do not simply get convicted for selling to underage drinkers and get hit with five or six penalty points. There is more to it.

831. Mr F McCann: One of things that we tried to do with the off-licence trade was to get them to have different coloured bags. That makes them easily identifiable and allows underage drinking to be tackled there and then. Sainsbury’s and Tesco have identifiable bags.

832. Mr Quinn: The majority of off-licence chains, such as Wine Barrel, have their own distinctive bags. If there is any evidence that that will help tackle the problem of underage drinking, the Minister said that he will look at it. The Department is actively considering it.

833. Ms Lo: If we remove penalty points after three months, we will send out a message to the public that we are not serious about dealing with alcohol abuse and underage drinking. I agree that there are many checks and balances, but to say that we should go easier on the pubs and supermarkets sends out the wrong message. Supermarkets are selling thousands of pounds worth of alcohol. Surely they have the resources to have all the checks and balances in place and to properly train their staff. It is no excuse to say that underage drinkers will fall through the net in supermarkets, because of the volume of alcohol sold.

834. Mr Brady: You made the point about adult supervision of tills. In Sainsbury’s in Newry, those who purchase alcohol pass through the main checkouts, many of which are manned by students. Therefore, there is not necessarily adult supervision of supermarket tills. However, underage drinkers are more likely to be detected in supermarkets, because they are much more open and public. It is easier for them to get drink in smaller off-licences, which do not have the same checks in place. That is a particular problem.

835. I am not sure which retailers use marked bags. Winemark had a place in Newry, which is now closed. The bags are unmarked, and that is one of the issues. Somebody from one of the retailers in England talked to the Committee about bottle marking, because bags can be thrown away.

836. Adult supervision at the tills does not necessarily apply in the larger supermarkets, but, that is balanced by the fact that, where it does apply, it is more difficult for underage kids to buy drink, because there are more people around. That is something that needs to be pointed out.

837. Mr Gallagher: Perhaps I do not go into off-licences often enough. I have been in them, but adult supervision is news to me. I am not aware that there is much adult supervision at tills. I am aware that, in some off-licences, it is young people who work on the tills, and there are young people around who appear to be interested in acquiring alcohol. Therefore, I find what you said very hard to take on board.

838. I agree with Anna. We are either serious about clamping down on underage drinking or we are not. So many serious problems arise from the availability of alcohol. Adults are adults and have the freedom to choose whether to spend all their money on alcohol. It would be treating the issue far too lightly to have a three-month penalty that can be removed. I have no doubt that it would indicate that we are not taking the problem of underage drinking seriously at all.

839. Mr S Anderson: I have listened to the discussion and want to go back to amendment K, which states that penalty points would apply to on-licensed premises only. As Anna and Tommy said, most of the alcohol coming to young people is through off-licences. Why is a case not being made for penalty points for off-sales, which is where most of the alcohol is coming from?

840. The Chairperson: That is in the Bill.

841. Let us move on to amendment N. Members, we are not making the progress on this that I would have liked us to have made. We will continue for a bit longer and, then, perhaps take a comfort break, before deciding where we are on these issues.

842. Amendment N will allow the courts more discretion in respect of the endorsement of licences. Tom and Liam, do you have any information from the Department?

843. Mr Bowler: They would have the discretion that they have now, pretty much. The Minister felt that we needed to crack down on this a little more and that the law needed to be strengthened. That is why amendment N been included. Checks and balances are made before someone is convicted, and not everybody who sells alcohol to underage people will be convicted. However, it is a question of whether the Committee thinks that the law should provide fewer opportunities for people and their licences to escape the consequences.

844. The Chairperson: Clause 3 introduces a statutory proof of age scheme for licensed premises that deals with the prohibition of young people under the age of 18 from certain premises and the sale and delivery of alcohol to them. The clause allows that, in court proceedings relating to underage alcohol offences, “all due diligence" may be demonstrated by the licensee or relevant member of staff being shown certain documents specified for the purpose of proof of age by a customer. Those documents are a passport, a photocard driving licence, an electoral identity card and a proof of age standards scheme (PASS) card.

845. The clause requires all licensed premises to display a notice containing information on underage sales and acceptable documents as proof of age. A number of amendments have been proposed to clause 3. Amendment O will require patrons of licensed premises to produce ID at entry if they are thought to be under 18. Is there any view from the Department?

846. Mr Quinn: The concern about that is that the stipulation that people would be denied entry would mean that pubs would and have to employ door staff during the day and off-licences would need door staff. We do not think that is really practical.

847. The Chairperson: No; it is potty, really. That may not be an official description. Does everybody else think it is potty? Amendments P and Q will require all alcohol retailers to request ID from anyone who appears to be under 25. Is there any view from the Department?

848. Mr Bowler: The trade currently operates the Challenge 21 policy. Challenge 25 was introduced in England and Wales, but the trade here was pretty confident that Challenge 21 was suitable. If the trade decided to up that to Challenge 25, that would be fine. It could happen; there would be no need to legislate for it.

849. The Chairperson: Challenge 21 is just an industry-led approach; it is not legislative, so it could go to 23 or 25.

850. Mr Bowler: That is right; it is an initiative, not legislative.

851. The Chairperson: I am sure the Committee would not like that. Quite a few have been caught by that. [Laughter.]

852. Mr McCallister: I am happy to show my licence.

853. Mr Gallagher: It might be difficult to get the same level of goodwill from the business side.

854. The Chairperson: That is a fair point. Amendment R suggests that a proof of age scheme should not prescribe any forms of ID. Is there any view from the Department?

855. Mr Quinn: There is no real rationale offered for this. The Department has the power to prescribe the forms of identification and that power should be used. The types of ID that are acceptable are prescribed in the Bill as it currently stands, and we do not want to move away from that.

856. The Chairperson: The legislation prescribes that these are the only forms of ID that are acceptable for proof of age, whereas if that is taken away licensed premises could accept a 17-year-old’s Hawaiian driving licence.

857. Mr Quinn: Exactly.

858. Ms Ni Chuilín: Did you see that film?

859. Mr Quinn: I clearly did not.

860. Ms Ní Chuilín: McLovin.

861. The Chairperson: Clearly, popular cultural references are missed by many here.

862. Ms Lo: Are student cards included in that scheme?

863. Mr Bowler: No.

864. Ms Lo: A lot of students carry student cards for concessions when going to the cinema, etc.

865. Mr Bowler: It would not be accepted as proof of age in a pub. It is a proof, but it would not be acceptable because it is easily forgeable.

866. Ms Lo: They have a photograph. Sometimes students go to shops and buy things and get 10% off. That is why a lot of girls carry student cards. You cannot stop them; that is the thing.

867. The Chairperson: It does not look like there is much support for this. Amendment S suggests that the proof of age scheme should specify that ID be pass accredited and specifically exclude expired passports.

868. Mr F McCann: Why would that be excluded if it contains a person’s photograph and date of birth?

869. The Chairperson: The Committee Clerk has reminded me that the police asked for that. Is there any view from the Department?

870. Mr F McCann: It is a bit crazy.

871. Mr Bowler: The electoral identity card was to have been pass-accredited at the outset, but it turned out to be too expensive a venture so the idea was dropped. Driving licences, passports, electoral cards and any other pass-accredited cards are included. Ideally they would all have been pass-accredited, but the electoral card is not.

872. The Chairperson: What about the exclusion for expired passports? The point that Fra makes is that an expired passport still proves who you are.

873. Mr Bowler: The trade will not accept it. Use of expired passports is a notorious in underage sales. Usually, a brother or sister gives their younger sibling an expired passport that has the corner cut off. The trade is on to that and will not accept it.

874. Mr F McCann: Surely, if the photograph is on the passport, you can see whether the person using it is genuine.

875. Mr Quinn: At that stage, the photograph is 10 years old.

876. Mr F McCann: The electoral card is free.

877. Mr Bowler: Yes; that is one of the big benefits of it. It is also easily carried.

878. Mr S Anderson: You could have identical twins.

879. Mr Brady: Born 10 years apart. [Laughter.]

880. The Chairperson: Clause 4 inserts new provisions that apply to licensed premises, which clarify how the licensing order applies to limited liability partnerships. The new provisions provide that: “a reference to a director of a body corporate is a reference to a member of a limited liability partnership."

881. They also provide that:

“the reference to any designated member of a limited liability partnership."

882. Liam and Tom, do you want to add anything to that?

883. Mr Quinn: No.

884. The Chairperson: No amendments have been proposed.

885. The Committee Clerk: Clauses 5, 6 and 7 are pretty much identical to clauses 1, 2 and 3 except they apply to clubs. Are Committee members content to skip to clause 8?

886. Mr Brady: The clubs made a good point that registered clubs are much less likely to have disorder than pubs. Registered clubs are, for the most part, well run and are much better regulated than pubs, so it is unfair to equate the two and say that what applies to pubs should apply to clubs. Clubs are much more community based and have a different ethos. That should be recognised in the legislation, but it is not.

887. The Chairperson: It is hard to recognise that in the legislation. It could be emphasised somewhere else.

888. Mr Brady: It could be in guidelines. It is something that needs to be recognised.

889. The Chairperson: It may be helpful for us to pass the message to the Department that the Minister could make that point in the House. Committee members will make that point, so it could be helpful for the Minister to underline it. Mickey is right that there has been a perception in the club industry that clubs are not the source of antisocial behaviour. It is provable that they are not the source of antisocial behaviour that we see.

890. Mr Quinn: In its evidence to the Committee, the PSNI confirmed that.

891. The Chairperson: At risk of opening a can of worms — I said that I wanted to make some progress — I want to ask about penalty points for licensed clubs. We received some pretty blunt evidence from representatives of licensed clubs, who said that there are breaches, which would incur penalty points under the Bill’s provisions on a regular basis. That begs a question about who is enforcing or not enforcing the current rules. I am not saying that the breaches are correct, but if the rules are not being enforced, who is going to give the penalty points?

892. Given that we received frank evidence from representatives of the licensed clubs, which was bold of them, what is being done to enforce those rules? How many times have there been enforcement proceedings? How many times have clubs been closed or lost their licences because of infractions that, under the Bill, would incur penalty points.

893. Mr Quinn: Enforcement seems to be very rare. I heard the evidence from the representatives of the licensed clubs, and they were very frank. As well as the clubs, Pubs of Ulster has been complaining for some time that a number of clubs are operating almost as pubs in that they are not open only to members and are running functions that are open to the general public, such as weddings, which is not within their remit under current legislation.

894. Pubs of Ulster met with Minister Attwood last Thursday and raised those issues, and Minister Attwood, in turn, raised those issues with David Ford, the Minister of Justice. We expect a higher priority to be given to some of those issues by the PSNI, but, ultimately, it is for the Minister of Justice and the PSNI to enforce the law.

895. The Chairperson: Notwithstanding what you have said, I can see the argument. The current regime is rarely enforced and we are building on legislation with another piece of legislation, which, in all likelihood, is unlikely to be enforced either.

896. Mr Quinn: In cases of disorder, premises are brought to the attention of the police. In that case, the penalty points system is a strong deterrent for the licence holder to ensure that they behave and run an orderly house. Clubs do not tend to come to the attention of the police because instances of disorder are rarely associated with them.

897. The Chairperson: In theory, they are also rarely open late.

898. Mr Quinn: Yes; in theory.

899. The Chairperson: In their evidence, the clubs suggested that there could be a perverse consequence of the penalty points system. Clubs are, almost exclusively, run by volunteers with only a few paid members of staff. Even if a club is run perfectly and does everything that it should be doing, if it sees a piece of legislation that could criminalise it if there was a breach, that could negatively affect another aspect of the Department’s work, which is to encourage volunteering. What is the Department’s view on that?

900. Mr Quinn: That is obviously a concern, but it comes back to the responsible retailing of alcohol. Clubs have the same responsibilities as those selling alcohol in commercial outlets like pubs and hotels. They need to be sure that proper checks and balances are in place so that they do not sell to underage drinkers, and that they keep proper records and so on. However, again, there are quite a few hurdles to cross before a club would be convicted of any of those offences. They would have the opportunity to argue their case in court and to offer the defence that Tom outlined earlier.

901. Mr Brady: Due to their voluntary nature, most clubs do not employ qualified accountants, but may have them on a voluntary basis; that is the difference. Most pubs are businesses and have — [Inaudible.]

902. The other thing about clubs and their guests and members, many hotels serve drink late at night to non-residents — [Inaudible due to mobile phone interference.] Most clubs are very strict about that, whereas, in many hotels, non-residents can drink until two or three in the morning.

903. Mr Quinn: The concerns that Minister Attwood raised with Minister Ford were about licensed premises generally. Some public houses are allegedly open after hours and are serving alcohol after they should be, in line, sometimes, with entertainment licences. There are also establishments that are popularly known as nightclubs, although there is no such thing as a nightclub licence and no definition of a nightclub in law in Northern Ireland. Hotels also operate on that basis, and the other issue was the clubs, which I mentioned. It is across the board and that conversation was not just an attack on clubs.

904. Mr F McCann: Again, I forgot to declare an interest.

905. The Chairperson: So did I.

906. Mr F McCann: I am a member of the Irish National Foresters club and a member of Cumman na Méirleach. You are right; it is right across the board. Clubs have been tied in with nightclubs, and that has almost penalised them. That was one of their concerns. Most nightclubs are run out of pubs or hotels that serve alcohol fairly late.

907. Mr Quinn: That is a fair point.

908. The Chairperson: The Federation of Clubs proposed changes to the rules for entry to a bar of a registered club, allowing entry at all times for under-18s when accompanied by adult. It proposed the abolition of children’s certificates and permission for children at the upper limit of compulsory school age to work in all types of clubs. That was one of the few amendments that were not the same as the amendments in the — [Inaudible.]

909. Mr Brady: The point was made that a lot of sporting clubs have events that go on late, and kids are on the premises past that hour. They are not supposed to be there past 8.00 pm, 9.00 pm, or whatever. If the clubs are well enough regulated, that should not necessarily be a problem. Pubs are different. [Inaudible due to mobile phone interference.]

910. Mr Craig: You are also into an area that would do away with the protection and rights that children have, and that would also contradict some other legislation. I would be cautious about adopting any —[Inaudible due to mobile phone interference.]

911. The Chairperson: Clause 8 amends the Registration of Clubs (Northern Ireland) Order 1996 to pave the way for regulations and guidance that will make the accounting requirements for registered clubs more flexible. The clause removes requirements to prescribe by regulations the manner in which clubs maintain their system of control of accounts. It gives small and medium clubs the option to have their accounts audited by an auditor or independent examiner. The clause allows the Department to issue directions regarding the system of control of accounts and the selection of an independent examiner.

912. Amendments UU to YY have been proposed to clause 8. Those amendments will exempt small clubs from statutory audit, allow them to be self-regulating and remove the requirement for clubs to make their accounts available at no charge to members.

913. Mr Bowler: The Bill introduces amendments to the Clubs Order, and the reason for most of those amendments is so that we can introduce new accounting regulations, which, it is hoped, will create quite a few easements for clubs. They will not have to have their accounts audited. Smaller clubs will be able to have their accounts examined by an examiner, which is a cheaper option. It was the police that asked for accounting regulations in the first place, and it will be the police that will be our chief partners in assessing what easements will apply to clubs. That is an ongoing task, and we will not have any information on that in the next few months.

914. The Chairperson: Clause 9 amends the Clubs Order to increase the number of occasions on which registered clubs may apply to the police for later opening to 1.00 am, or midnight on Sundays, from 52 to 120 in any year. A club must give at least seven days notice of the event and may, at the discretion of the police, include a number of occasions on the one application. A number of amendments have been proposed. We have talked about that issue quite a lot. We are seeking to find out whether we need additional information on some of those, rather than having a discussion. Amendment ZZ will require the PSNI to advise local councils on late licences.

915. Mr Bowler: That sounds like a good idea. We will discuss that with the police.

916. The Chairperson: Would that be done by an amendment or by guidance?

917. Mr Bowler: It could go into guidance. We are not 100% sure.

918. The Chairperson: Amendments AAA to CCC refer to the number of late licences granted to clubs in a year. Some stakeholders wanted more late licences for clubs, and some wanted fewer. We have rehearsed the issue a few times, and whatever number is picked is fairly arbitrary. It is about deciding whether we go for maintaining the status quo; for 120 late licences, as in the Bill; or for some other number.

919. Mr Brady: At the moment, the number is prescriptive. A lot of clubs do not use the current extra late licences, but they should at least be given the choice, because a lot of clubs are struggling for survival.

920. The Chairperson: We have to decide whether we accept the argument that clubs need that option and decide what the upper limit on that should be. Are 52 late licences an appropriate upper limit? Are 120 late licences, as is included in the Bill, an appropriate upper limit? Is there another option? I feel like Bruce Forsythe. That is the discussion that we have to have.

921. Mr Craig: I am not going to rehearse the arguments. I agree with colleagues that there is not a level playing field. However, we need to find a balance. Increasing the number of late licences by almost 120% is not the right balance. Personally, I think that something along the lines of a 50% increase would be a more reasonable and responsible balance. After all, we are trying to find a balance that does away with abuses. It is important to remember that we saw no evidence from clubs to suggest that there is a huge demand for such an increase. Surveys show that most clubs are not using the current 52 late licences. It is not the case that we would be crucifying clubs that are struggling. If clubs are struggling, why are they not using the 52 late licences? I do not envisage any club using 120 late licences. That is an artificial number that has been dreamt up.

922. The Chairperson: Just as any number would be.

923. Presumably, if the Committee did not go for 120 late licences and thought that 52 was also not an appropriate number, there is nothing to stop it from amending the Bill, and, that being tested in the same way that we have tested the popularity of having 52 late licences, show that there is still pressure and that, perhaps, the number of late licences needs to go up by a further half-dozen. We could increase late licences incrementally, although, clearly, that would be more cumbersome and chaotic. However, it might be a better way of discovering what the upper limit should be.

924. Mr Brady: I take Jonathan’s point, but, at the same time, if there is an issue of there not being a level playing field, why not reduce the number of late licences available for pubs? That is the counter argument.

925. Mr Craig: If you want to make that proposal, I will quite happily back it. [Laughter.]

926. The Chairperson: That is not a bad argument.

927. Mr Brady: Long-standing clubs with good reputations are closing down and are being put up for sale because they simply cannot compete. Pubs are also finding it difficult to compete with off-licences. If we are going to be prescriptive towards one section, it does not make any sense not to be prescriptive towards the other. It is a matter of fairness.

928. The Chairperson: You are right, and I agree with you. In some ways, we are dealing with the issue in isolation, which is wrong.

929. Mr Brady: Jonathan and I could bring forward an amendment on pubs.

930. The Chairperson: Do not encourage people. There is no point dwelling on this. The issue will be dealt with during clause-by-clause scrutiny.

931. Amendment DDD suggests that additional protections be included in the Bill for those living in proximity to clubs and who may be affected by late licences. Is there any view from the Department on that?

932. Mr Bowler: The police already have the power to have a club’s registration cancelled on a number of grounds, or to restrict, or stop, later openings if they have any concerns. Therefore, if concerns were raised by people in the area of a club, those could be addressed under the current regime.

933. The Chairperson: Amendment EEE is similar to the previous one in that it would allow sports clubs to open until midnight every Sunday, in addition to the proposed increase in late licences. As there are no views on that, we will move on.

934. Amendments FFF to HHH were proposed by pubs and hotels, and will require more stringent controls by clubs in respect of non-members using club bars for events. That is obviously a sore subject. What is the Department’s view?

935. Mr Quinn: This is already in the legislation, Chairman. It may be —

936. The Chairperson: They are prevented from doing these anyway.

937. Mr Quinn: It is about enforcement, maybe.

938. The Chairperson: Amendment III will increase rate payments for registered clubs up to the levels paid by pubs and hotels. There is no competence for this.

939. Mr Quinn: It lies within another Department.

940. Mr Brady: I have a question about amendment GGG and the issue of clubs advertising. Is there any real argument against that?

941. Mr Quinn: The current legislation allows a club to advertise for members on its premises. It can also advertise any sporting activity or charitable events taking place in the club.

942. Mr Brady: What is the rationale for clubs not being allowed to advertise externally?

943. Mr Quinn: It is because the club is not open to the public; it is for members and their friends and guests.

944. Mr Brady: The guests and friends do not have to be members. They may have to be signed in by members.

945. The Chairperson: They need three members to sign them in. You told us that there is a 3:1 ratio?

946. Mr Brady: There does not seem to be any rationale.

947. Mr Quinn: I think that that was the original rationale.

948. Mr Brady: However, like many other things, that seems to have gone by the board. If the aim is to introduce legislation that is relevant, that needs to be looked at.

949. The Chairperson: Amendment JJJ will restrict clubs to one late licence per application to the police, rather than have the discretion to say that they want three in the month of September. It seems pretty bureaucratic.

950. Mr Quinn: It will add administrative pressure on to the police.

951. The Chairperson: Amendments KKK to MMM will change the closing times of registered clubs from 11.00 pm to either 11.30 pm or 1.00 am; are there any views on that?

952. Mr Quinn: There does not appear to be any rationale for that, Chairman.

953. The Chairperson: Do members have any views? If not, we will go to other amendments that have been proposed by stakeholders. Amendment QQQ will introduce curbs on irresponsible drinks promotions. The Department has briefed the Committee on the issue but is unlikely to be able to table the text of an amendment before the Committee reports on the Bill. Do you want to say anything about this, Tom and Liam?

954. Mr Quinn: The consultation will finish on 6 December. Following that, the Minister will consider bringing forward an amendment, which we will share with the Committee if possible.

955. The Chairperson: The Committee is broadly supportive of the principle, but it is impossible for it to say anything too explicit on it. We do not have the text, as the consultation has not concluded. We can comment at greater length at Consideration Stage.

956. Mr Brady: We can make the point that the Minister was explicit in some of his utterances during the summer.

957. The Chairperson: We have made that point.

958. Ms Ní Chuilín: It is also going through the Justice Committee, but there is no text. It just says that it is happening.

959. The Chairperson: There is no text. It is a consultation.

960. The Committee Clerk: It is not in the Justice Bill. However, it has come out of that Bill and into this one as an amendment. That is my understanding.

961. The Chairperson: The way in which it has developed is a bit unorthodox. We are partly to blame because we encouraged the Department to do that. This is the best way to do it.

962. Mr Brady: It sounds as though we do not have to. The issue of such promotions seems to have been addressed by the media already.

963. Mr F McCann: Through the media.

964. Mr Brady: Through the media and by the media.

965. Ms Ní Chuilín: Will we see the text of that proposed amendment?

966. The Chairperson: We will not. We must conclude our report. What is our reporting deadline?

967. The Committee Clerk: I hope that the Committee will agree to finalise its report early in December, or maybe even sooner. Therefore, we will make limited reference indicating our support of the amendment in principle. Then, as the Chairperson has indicated, at Consideration Stage —

968. The Chairperson: We will have the text by then, because it will have to be produced by then.

969. Ms Ní Chuilín: Once the report is due, we will have it?

970. The Chairperson: It will not be in our report. However, we can consider in detail the text of any amendment —

971. Ms Ní Chuilín: It will be just the general principle.

972. The Chairperson: Yes. I think that everyone has been supportive of that principle. We can go there and no further.

973. Amendment RRR will introduce minimum alcohol pricing. The Department had indicated previously that such a measure would be considered only following the progress of a similar proposal in Scotland. I presume that that is still the case.

974. Mr Quinn: That is still the position. A report is also due to be released by the Home Office and HM Treasury towards the end of this month. It will look at below-cost selling and taxation and duty arrangements for alcohol sales, and we will need to keep an eye on that.

975. The Chairperson: That will inform any decision. Amendments SSS to WWW will introduce public drinking control measures, including fixed penalties.

976. Mr Quinn: That is a matter for the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008.

977. The Chairperson: Are you aware of any move to introduce those sorts of measures in legislation?

978. Mr Quinn: I am not aware of that. It is a matter for the Minister of Justice.

979. The Chairperson: Amendment XXX will require the Department to include statutory provisions to support the establishments of community alcohol partnerships. That idea came up in one of the discussions, and members were quite interested in it. What is the Department’s view on that?

980. Mr Bowler: There are voluntary schemes of that nature in GB. The Department would support it but would not legislate for it.

981. The Chairperson: The Department is actively encouraging a pilot project, or it is at least involved in one in Derry.

982. Mr Quinn: I am not aware of that. We may be supporting that through the north-west development office.

983. Mr Bowler: The organisers have addressed Derry City Council, but we are not aware that the council has taken any action.

984. The Chairperson: It is at the early stages. Amendment YYY will allow for rate relief for all social clubs that are connected to amateur sporting clubs. That is not within the Department’s remit. Amendments ZZZ to DDDD include a number of suggestions from the Federation of Clubs, which would make wide ranging changes to the regulation of clubs.

985. Mr Bowler: Those suggestions have been well known to us for many years. The Bill was never intended to address them. If anything, they would be addressed during stage 2 legislation following RPA. We are well aware of those points.

986. The Chairperson: Are any members particularly fond of any of the suggestions that are listed in amendments ZZZ to DDDD? It appears that there is no appetite for them.

987. Liam and Tom, you will be back to cover the Bill in further excruciating detail. That was a refresher, and we will get back into it during clause-by-clause scrutiny. Although the meeting was frustratingly long in some respects, it was useful and it gets everyone’s focus back on the Bill and, thankfully, away from caravans.

988. Mr F McCann: It puts the focus on carry-outs rather than caravans.

989. The Chairperson: Liam and Tom, thank you for your time.

9 November 2010

Members present for all or part of the proceedings:

Mr Simon Hamilton (Chairperson)
Mr Sydney Anderson
Mrs Mary Bradley
Mr Mickey Brady
Mr Jonathan Craig
Mr Alex Easton
Ms Anna Lo
Mr John McCallister
Mr Fra McCann

Witnesses:

Mr Tom Bowler

Department for Social Development

991. The Chairperson (Mr Hamilton): With us today is Tom Bowler from the Department’s social policy unit, who will advise and guide us. You are very welcome.

992. I advise members that the English and Welsh police guidance on disorder and the closure of premises is in your tabled items. The Committee Clerk will run us through that.

993. The Committee Clerk: The England and Wales guidance covers actual disorder, as in our Bill, as well as imminent disorder and noise issues. It is guidance to the police on how to apply closure orders that relate to such issues. The guidance indicates that police closure powers are designed to act as a deterrent. My reading is that they are applied to licensed premises and non-licensed premises that provide other forms of entertainment.

994. I will take members briefly through some of the key points of the guidance. Paragraph 11.10 states that, where intelligence that disorder may occur is available, the police should not rely on instant closure orders and should apply to the courts for a closure in advance. An example of a football match is given. Paragraphs 11.4 to 11.6 state that the police are required to take into account the prompt and competent actions of a premises owner to prevent or limit disorder before applying a closure order. Police must also consider the commercial impact of a closure before they do it. Paragraphs 11.17 to 11.23 set out that the police are advised to provide early warnings and seek voluntary co-operation with premises owners in respect of closures.

995. Paragraph 11.24 states that a causal link must be made between actual disorder in the vicinity of a premises and the premises in question and how a closure order can be made only if it is in the interests of public safety. Paragraph 11.29 states that customers who remain on a premises after a closure order but do not drink are not breaking the law. There is also a reference to phased emptying of licensed premises. If a bar in which there was disorder is very full, the guidance indicates, as the PSNI said, that putting all those people onto the street may create a different kind of disorder.

996. Paragraphs 11.43 to 11.47 refer to noise nuisance. The guidance defines noise nuisance as noise emanating from a premises that disturbs the public. There was some debate among members about how exactly the police will determine that. My understanding of the guidance is that the determination is based on complaints from the public rather than a measurement of decibels or whatever. The guidance also recommends interaction between the police and a local authority, as it will have experience of such matters.

997. The Chairperson: Thank you for that. Tom, am I correct that you indicated that the English and Welsh guidance will guide our guidance, so to speak, and that it will be used almost as a starting point?

998. Mr Tom Bowler (Department for Social Development): Yes, Chairperson. We based our provisions originally on the England and Wales model, and we will base our guidance on that as well. In the main, our provisions are exactly the same as those in England and Wales, bar those relating to imminent disorder and noise. We have not yet agreed the guidance with the Department of Justice, but I am pretty confident that the guidance will be largely the same as what the Committee Clerk read out.

999. Mr F McCann: To go back to last week’s debate about noise emanating from premises: there seems to be some confusion. Are we talking about taking the power to close premises under those circumstances away from councils and placing it solely in the hands of the police or —

1000. The Chairperson: There is currently nothing in the Bill that deals with noise nuisance.

1001. Mr F McCann: You spoke about noise emanating from premises.

1002. The Chairperson: There was a discussion last week when a witness suggested that the Bill should be amended to take noise nuisance into account. However, as it stands, there is nothing in the Bill that would allow the police to close premises on the basis of noise nuisance; Tom can correct me if I am wrong about that.

1003. Mr Bowler: That is right.

1004. The Chairperson: There is a debating point about whether we should amend that, and that is what someone suggested we do. There was not huge support for that during last week’s discussion.

1005. Ms Lo: It was in the original proposal, but it was taken out.

1006. What has been the experience in other jurisdictions on the issue of imminent disorder and noise nuisance? How often have the police sought to use their power of closure?

1007. Mr Bowler: In Northern Ireland?

1008. Ms Lo: In other jurisdictions in the UK.

1009. Mr Bowler: I do not know.

1010. The Department of Justice has the power to close licensed premises because of noise. That power was used once several years ago. Apart from that one instance, which was five or seven years ago, closure orders because of noise have not been used.

1011. Ms Lo: Was that in Northern Ireland?

1012. Mr Bowler: Yes, it was.

1013. Ms Lo: So, is there already a piece of legislation to cover the closure of premises because of noise?

1014. Mr Bowler: Yes, there is. That will be repealed if the issue of closure orders are approved to be included in the Bill.

1015. Up until last year, the Secretary of State had the power to close licensed premises in the interests of public safety. The Minister of Justice now has that power. In effect, that means that the police have to approach the Department of Justice, and previously the NIO, which has to draw up an order that the Minister of Justice that he would sign. However, that could rely only on police intelligence about anticipated disorder. If there was any actual disorder happening at the moment, getting the Minister of Justice to sign a closure order might take a day or two, by which time the disorder could have ended. So, we are seeking to introduce some emergency powers that enable the police to react quicker.

1016. Ms Lo: So, with noise levels, would the police have to approach the Minister of Justice in advance with intelligence?

1017. Mr Bowler: No; there are not any provisions on noise disorder in the legislation at the moment. The only power to combat noise disorder lies with district councils. We were planning to give the police an emergency power to close premises because of noise disorder. That would not interfere with district councils’ power; it would simply be an emergency power that could be used in a very unusual event. That is what the police want. They do not intend to use it very often, but that is what they want.

1018. Mr F McCann: Is it part of the Bill?

1019. Mr Bowler: No, we have taken it out.

1020. Ms Lo: It was part of the proposals?

1021. Mr Bowler: Yes, it was.

1022. Mrs M Bradley: Having been a councillor for a number of years, I know that noise nuisance on licensed premises has always been dealt with by councils. Councils send out inspectors to find out how the noise is getting out. Reasons would include a lack of soundproofing, open windows or open doors. Will the emergency power mean that councils retain their power? How can we be assured about that if it is not in the Bill?

1023. The Chairperson: You can be assured, because it is a different piece of legislation altogether. The power that you mentioned still resides with local councils. This Bill cannot change that, because it is an entirely separate piece of legislation.

1024. Mr Bowler: The Bill will not affect councils’ power. I am talking about an emergency power.

1025. Mrs M Bradley: So, it will definitely not interfere with the powers of councils.

1026. The Chairperson: The Department has confirmed that it will not inhibit councils in any way. The councils will retain their power.

1027. Mr F McCann: The confusion has arisen because we had a debate on that last week and this morning we are referring to the law in England that deals with noise nuisance.

1028. The Chairperson: I appreciate that. We are somewhat obliged to discuss any amendments that are proposed by those who give us evidence. We have discussed the proposed amendment on noise nuisance. The Committee Clerk has taken us through the guidance in England and Wales. There is a different regime there, and police have the power to close premises because of noise nuisance.

1029. Mrs M Bradley: The renewal of entertainments licences go through councils, so they need the power.

1030. The Chairperson: We will get to that when we start to go through the clauses, but I detect that members generally seem to be quite content with the current noise nuisance regime. However, I will not pre-empt that.

1031. If the Northern Ireland guidance for police on closure powers is to be issued by the Department of Justice, will it be scrutinised by the Committee for Justice? Will the Minister for Social Development give an assurance about that? It is important that there is that check. The view has been expressed to the Committee and in debates in the Chamber that there is a need for that guidance to be clear for the police. Can we have the assurance that, at Consideration Stage, our counterparts on the Committee for Justice will have the ability to scrutinise that guidance?

1032. Mr Bowler: Yes, Chairperson. I spoke to the Department of Justice this morning, and its officials agreed that the guidance will, obviously, be issued by them to the police, and that it will go to the Justice Committee. At that point, the Justice Committee will seek comments from the Social Development Committee. That was agreed this morning with Department of Justice officials.

1033. The Chairperson: Excellent. If members are content that their concerns have been addressed, we will move on.

1034. There was a debate on a number of issues at last week’s informal review. I will summarise the Committee’s position on the main areas of the Bill. The Committee does not support a change to the fines and enforcement structure relating to closures in order to bring Northern Ireland into line with the rest of the UK. Nor does it support an extension of police closure powers to include imminent disorder or noise.

1035. The Committee accepts that Department of Justice guidance will set out how the police link licensed premises with disorder occurring in the vicinity of those premises. The Committee agrees that district council and community consultation should be written into the guidance given to police by the Department of Justice.

1036. The Committee does not wish to explore changes to the definition of when premises are open to include the provision of entertainment so as to change the licensing environment for so-called nightclubs. The Committee generally takes the view that the curtailment of excesses associated with nightclubs is better addressed through existing legislation and possibly the proposed introduction of legislation on irresponsible drinks promotions. Finally, the Committee accepts the Department’s assurance that guidance to the police will also refer to that issue.

1037. I think that that is a fair summary of what we debated. Although we did not agree anything last week, that is where we were heading. Everybody will have the opportunity to set out any concerns that they may still have, and, indeed, propose amendments.

1038. The Committee Clerk: Just to be clear: I think you are asking members whether they are 100% content that they do not want to propose to amend clause 1, which deals with closure orders for licensed premises, or whether they still have some niggling concerns.

1039. The Chairperson: OK. We will move through all clauses.

1040. Mr F McCann: I am trying to get my head around what has been said. If we agree clause 1 as it stands, we are agreeing that a police officer of the rank of inspector or above could close premises. We disagree with that.

1041. The Committee Clerk: To clarify then: some members would be —

1042. Mr F McCann: We believe that the present system of going through the courts is the best way to proceed with the closure of premises.

1043. The Chairperson: OK. Fra has expressed a concern. The point that you raised is not about the rank of the officer but, effectively, the whole clause. Is that correct?

1044. Mr F McCann: It is the fact that it can be left to an individual to decide. There are better ways of dealing with that issue, which could be through mediation. It should be left to the courts to decide about the closure of clubs.

1045. The Chairperson: Effectively, you have an issue with the entire clause.

1046. Mr F McCann: Yes.

1047. The Chairperson: Is that the general view?

1048. Mr Brady: It takes away the subjectivity that exists when it goes through the courts. When an individual has that power, it can become subjective rather than objective. That is one of the difficulties. I agree with Fra. The courts are perceived to be impartial, and I use the word “perceived" advisedly.

1049. The Chairperson: Is there agreement with that position? I suspect that there is not.

1050. Ms Lo: I still have to consult with my party on the issue of closure. I have not done that. My constituents in South Belfast would want a much stronger clause on imminent noise levels. I think that they would support more police power, not only on disorder.

1051. The Chairperson: That is OK, and, to be fair, you have been consistent in outlining that.

1052. Mr Craig: I take on board the reassurances that Tom gave that the guidance in the rest of the United Kingdom on that sort of intervention will apply to this legislation.

1053. The Chairperson: More or less.

1054. Mr Craig: Given that reassurance, I am quite content to leave that part of the Bill untouched. Situations will arise, and, if the police do not have the power to intervene immediately in the interests of public safety, whether we like it or not, there will be a huge problem. There have been times when such problems have arisen. I agree on the grounds that the guidance for the rest of the UK will be followed. The powers will not be needed every week but for a major one-off event when things, unfortunately, get out of hand.

1055. We and the Department would always be able to redress the situation if it were seen to be being abused. I would far rather it were left in there, but, as with everything else, it could be reviewed after a period to find out how often it was happening, what the basis for it happening was and whether the guidance that we are saying will be put in is adhered to. It is similar to a lot of legislation in that we will have to see how it works in practice before we can make a real judgement on how effective it is or is not. There is no guarantee that any of us will be sitting here in a year’s time, but, in a period of time, we might look back at the legislation and wonder what we were worried about because it was maybe only ever used on one occasion.

1056. Mr F McCann: That might well be the case, but, in some areas, that has not been the case up to now where there has been huge disorder over the police trying to close places where late drinking might be taking place. That has ended up in a free-for-all in the middle of the road. I know that Tom knows the premises that I was talking about the previous time, but that is not the only premises where that has happened. If a bit of common sense had been used and the owner of the premises had been contacted, everything could have been dealt with in a much easier way, rather than having 15 policemen in riot gear forcing their way into a bar. That is the experience of some places, and I am concerned about that. In the past, people have gone down the avenue of using the courts to challenge licenses and to force closures, and that is the best place for that.

1057. Mr Craig: I understand the concerns that have been raised, but I have an obvious question for Tom. If such a situation were to arise under the new legislation and you could clearly point out that the police were not following the guidance that is applied in the rest of the United Kingdom, would you have any redress to knock on the door of the police and say that they had got it wrong?

1058. Mr Bowler: Yes, I would have thought so. If every decision by the police to close premises has to be heard by a court as soon as possible, and if the police did not follow the guidance that we will have in Northern Ireland, I imagine that the court would point that out. We always had the belief that, if the police do not follow the guidance, they would very quickly learn to, because the courts will overturn any closure orders.

1059. Mr Craig: That may enhance the redress for such situations and stop them happening in future, because there will be clear guidance for the police, which they should be following. My guess is that, at the minute, there is no guidance or real direction. In a roundabout fashion, you are giving the courts more redress when, let us face it, the police get it wrong. They are human, and they do get it wrong.

1060. Mrs M Bradley: It is only a 24-hour closure. They cannot keep premises closed any longer until the matter goes to court. Is that right, Tom?

1061. Mr Bowler: That is right. It is a maximum of 24 hours.

1062. Mrs M Bradley: How often will that even happen? Some bar owners would want to close the premises voluntarily if it was a bad enough situation. Maybe we could not really interfere with that.

1063. The Chairperson: The GB guidance talks about the need for consultation and balance anyway.

1064. Ms Lo: The emergency power would strengthen the hand of the police, even to go in and talk to the owner of the premises to about closing voluntarily, saying, “If you do not close voluntarily, we are going to close the premises through this emergency order." In many ways, it probably helps with that co-operation. The police would probably err on the side of caution, rather than go in heavy-handed. Some people in south Belfast are very keen to see that enforced.

1065. Mr F McCann: What happens in south Belfast is a far throw from what happens in parts of west Belfast.

1066. Ms Lo: Yes, I understand. Residents would like to see more police action on the ground on the likes of St Patrick’s Day.

1067. The Chairperson: I understand the concerns and opposition, but I think that the majority position on the Committee, although I am prepared to stand corrected, is one of support, notwithstanding your reservation or position on its use, Anna. I accept the concerns that were raised, but a majority is in favour of the clause. Is that a fair summary?

1068. Mr F McCann: Can we take a vote on that?

1069. The Chairperson: Yes. We do not need to do so now, but we will do it at a later stage. It is helpful to iron out positions, because if we start clause-by-clause scrutiny and concerns are raised, we cannot do anything at that stage.

1070. The Committee Clerk: Exactly. If the Committee agreed to a clause, and then members decided that they had a concern about a particular issue, the Committee may have to go back and amend the clause that was already agreed. We would then be into rescinding Committee decisions, and that is very messy. Again, I really appreciate members’ forbearance.

1071. The Chairperson: It is best to do it this way. It seems a bit tedious, but it is quite positive.

1072. Mr F McCann: There was a comment in the summary table about the definition of disorder. That was also raised about the English and Welsh legislation. However, there is no clear definition of what is meant by disorder or imminent disorder.

1073. The Committee Clerk: The reference, which may have come from you, Chairperson, was that it was about a linkage between disorder and particular premises. There is reference in the guidance that the police must be able to show a causal link between disorder in the vicinity of a premises and the premises in question. I may stand corrected, but the members’ fears on that were assuaged when they heard the guidance.

1074. The Chairperson: You are right: I did raise that. That is where I have some sympathy for the argument that you are putting forward. I can foresee a set of circumstances in which, because there was “disorder" as you and I and the man in the street would understand it to mean, a police officer could seek to close a premises that had nothing to do with the disorder. That is why the guidance from England and Wales, of which we will almost be making a carbon copy, states that there needs to be a causal link. My concern about that is assuaged because, in practice, we have all heard of accusations being thrown at establishments that they have a problem when the problems have not necessarily come from it or have come from a collection of establishments in an area.

1075. Clause 2 deals with penalty points for licensed premises. The Committee seemed generally to be content with the penalty points system for licensed premises. I am summarising the views that were expressed last week. The Committee believes that the courts have sufficient discretion in the application of points and that licensees have sufficient opportunity to defend themselves and demonstrate due diligence on, for example, underage sales. The Committee believes that the shelf life for penalty points of three years will impress on licensees the significance of underage sales and is an inappropriate means of tackling this important issue. Does anyone want to say anything to the contrary?

1076. Mr F McCann: The question of off-sales was also raised.

1077. The Committee Clerk: Was that raised in reference to exempting off-sales from the penalty points system?

1078. Mr F McCann: It seemed that off-sales were exempt.

1079. The Chairperson: They are not. On-sales and off-sales are included. I see the merit of the clause. I have previously raised concerns on the ability to enforce and asked whether the existing regime is being enforced sufficiently before another layer is introduced. Last week, I used the example of underage sales and you helpfully outlined, Tom, how an establishment or premises could defend itself against them. If it were doing everything that it ought to be doing, that could constitute a sufficient defence. Underage sales is probably the most popular example of where that might happen. I will jump forward because clause 6 is exactly the same. Is it worth raising that now or shall I do so at the relevant point in the Bill?

1080. The Committee Clerk: On how the penalty points will apply to registered clubs? By all means, mention it now if it is pertinent.

1081. The Chairperson: That might save a bit of time. Clubs have raised concerns that they think that the penalty points that are proposed are too high for them and that they are off-putting for people who might get involved in volunteering in clubs. Notwithstanding the argument that clubs should act in a certain way anyway and that the Bill proposes exactly the sort of establishment that they should be running, what sort of defence can they make? For example, some of it relates to paperwork. Is there a defence that they could likely put forward that might help them when they go to court?

1082. Mr Bowler: Yes, there is. Currently, and this will continue, there is the defence of due diligence for every single existing accounting offence that is prosecuted against a club or an official. The Bill will not affect that. Although the use of volunteers should not be an excuse to get things wrong, a club that had good, solid accountancy procedures in place and that had not previously come before the police could use that defence in the case of some aberration from a volunteer. In any case, that is unlikely to come from a volunteer but will almost certainly come from a committee member. If a volunteer were to carry out some lower-level accountancy such as emptying a fruit machine and something were to go wrong, the club could prove due diligence, and the defence would be fairly strong.

1083. The Chairperson: I have sympathy for the argument that an accumulation of two offences over three years could have a fairly catastrophic effect, not just on the licence but on the club. I am not saying that those offences are somehow right. Given the nature of licensed clubs — they are not bars or nightclubs, and they are not professional businesses in that sense — there is an increased likelihood that there will be oversight from time to time. The purpose of the penalty points clauses is to attack gross offences and to weed out extremely bad practice, not to attack people for honest mistakes or oversights.

1084. Tom, you are effectively saying that, where there are oversights or genuine reasons for things not being done, a reasonable defence could be put forward. Therefore, the spectre of accumulating two five-point penalties is not as large as it might appear in the Bill.

1085. Mr Bowler: There is now an additional safeguard. Accounting offences would have attracted the highest fine — a level 5 fine — and five or six penalty points. The Bill downgrades most of those offences to a level 3 fine, which means three or four penalty points. Therefore, if a volunteer or somebody else were genuinely convicted and penalty points were endorsed, he or she would receive three or four instead of five or six. That may be cold comfort for clubs, but it could make a big difference.

1086. The Chairperson: I am not saying that people should be able to get away with things, but there should be proportionality and an understanding of the fact that those people are not running a business and that clubs are entirely different to pubs or nightclubs.

1087. Mr Bowler: There have been almost no prosecutions for accounting offences in the past 10 years.

1088. Mr F McCann: The clause-by-clause summary table states that article 40 breaches should carry reduced penalty points that will be abolished after one year. Is that what you were talking about? Or, will the period be longer?

1089. Mr Bowler: After one year?

1090. Mr F McCann: It states:

“5 accounts-related offences in one year would be acceptable."

1091. Mr Bowler: That was a proposal by the clubs. It is not in the Bill.

1092. Mr F McCann: I want to pick up on the issue that the Chairperson raised. It is a fact of life that the personnel of many club committees changes every year. It takes people a while to settle in. Everyone is human, so there will be some difficulties and blunders. Therefore, clubs could be penalised for operating a completely democratic process. That is a bit unfair and would make people think twice before allowing their names to go forward for positions. That would hinder the progress of clubs.

1093. Mrs M Bradley: Are you suggesting that clubs change their entire committee personnel every year? They do not; there may be only one or two people who step down. Are you saying that penalty points should be dropped when club committee personnel changes or am I picking you up wrong?

1094. Mr F McCann: It is different if the same people are on the committee, because people learn from their mistakes. However, if there are changes in the people who look after the accountancy or secretarial positions in clubs, and some of those positions are fiercely fought over, there could be implications. Not that I have ever run for one of those positions.

1095. The point that I am making is that possible annual changes in the personnel of committees could have an impact, because someone coming in fresh could make the same mistake that someone made the year before. As a result, the club could be unfairly punished because of the changing nature of the people and their positions.

1096. Mr Bowler: Until now, the police had routinely been checking clubs’ accounts every year. However, the police have asked for that policy to be dropped. According to the Bill, in future, the police will only ask a club for its accounts when it has reason to. The police will not check accounts routinely.

1097. As I said before, there have been very few prosecutions, if any, in the past 10 years. Allied to that, we are downgrading many of the more serious accounting offences to a much lower grade. If a club is unlucky enough to be prosecuted and receive penalty points, with a bit of luck, that can happen three times before it suffers.

1098. Mr F McCann: Do you accept that clubs are unique, in that they elect their committees every year?

1099. Mrs M Bradley: But not all positions.

1100. Mr Bowler: It is difficult to legislate for that, other than to ease off on clubs and cut them a little more slack, which may be what you are suggesting. However, I do not think that the Minister would want to be seen to be treating clubs any differently from pubs.

1101. Mr F McCann: Clubs operate under a completely different system.

1102. Mr Bowler: The lack of prosecutions makes it appear not to be a huge problem at the moment.

1103. Mr S Anderson: Those who are elected to office in a club are expected to be responsible people, and I am sure that they all are. They have to accept what has gone before and what will come after. Is the three-year period for the penalty points system a rolling three-year period or is it counted back? For example, if a premises got three points in year one, four points in year two and three points in year three, are they all wiped out or do you count back three years from the last penalty points? I would like clarification on how the system will work.

1104. Mr Bowler: It is counted back. If the latest offence —

1105. Mr S Anderson: Is it counted back three years?

1106. Mr Bowler: Yes, so the first and second offences may be out of date by then.

1107. Mr S Anderson: It does not state that here, but that is the way in which it is to operate.

1108. Mr Bowler: It is.

1109. Mr S Anderson: Thank you.

1110. The Chairperson: Are there any other points that members want to raise about penalty points for licensed premises?

1111. Ms Lo: How many points will the highest level of offence — a level 5 offence — attract?

1112. Mr Bowler: Five or six.

1113. Ms Lo: What kind of offences are level 5 offences? Underage drinking, and so on?

1114. Mr Bowler: Level 5 offences are the most serious offences. Underage drinking is probably the one that we consider most. Another level 5 offences is opening after hours and selling alcohol beyond closing time.

1115. Ms Lo: Those offences carry five or six penalty points. If the premises offends twice in three years —

1116. Mr Bowler: The owners of the premises will have an opportunity to defend themselves if it is a one-off offence that was committed by inexperienced staff. They will have a defence of due diligence in most serious offences. Therefore, prosecution will not necessarily mean conviction.

1117. Ms Lo: Am I correct to say that level 3 offences do not necessarily attract penalty points and that only a fine need be imposed?

1118. Mr Bowler: Yes. The fine for a first level 3 offence, which a less serious offence, is up to £1,000.

1119. Ms Lo: Such offences do not necessarily attract penalty points.

1120. Mr Bowler: A court does not have to endorse penalty points for a first offence. It might, but it has the discretion not to do so. However, it must endorse penalty points if the place commits the same offence again within three years.

1121. Ms Lo: There is quite a lot of leeway and flexibility already.

1122. Mr Bowler: Level 3 offences have nothing to do with underage drinking or after-hours drinking. Many of them are more technical offences, and, as such, they are not regarded as quite as serious.

1123. The Chairperson: You are right, and that is part of what I was getting at. As Fra pointed out, we do not want an entirely different type of operation to be treated disproportionately. However, there does seem to be enough discretion for the courts and enough defence for clubs.

1124. Is it the Committee’s view that we are generally supportive of clauses 2 and 6 and do not wish to amend them in any way?

1125. Mr F McCann: As long as we are allowed to come back to it.

1126. The Chairperson: Yes, there are issues that can always be raised again. Nothing that we are saying now is closing down anything. I want to make that clear.

1127. The Committee Clerk: Before we launch into clause-by-clause scrutiny, it would be helpful to know that the majority of Committee members are content not to amend clauses 2 and 6, even though a minority of members may have very strong views on the subject and may table amendments at Consideration Stage. I think that that is the position.

1128. The Chairperson: I think that that is probably a fair reflection of the situation. It is down to the powers of persuasion that Fra may have. Everybody is free to raise any issue.

1129. Clause 3 concerns proof of age for licensed premises. The Committee expressed the view that it is generally content with the proof of age standards scheme (PASS) for licensed premises. The Committee does not wish to impose Challenge 25 as a statutory scheme or apply new entry controls for all licensed premises, nor does it wish to outlaw specifically the use of expired passports as meeting the due diligence requirements, as it accepts the Department’s assertion that the licensed trade does not generally accept that form of identification.

1130. Is that a fair summary of our view on that clause? Tom, do you want to say anything on the issue of expired passports?

1131. Mr Bowler: I do not think so. We raised that issue a couple of years ago when drafting the legislation. I think that the police said at the time that we should talk about valid passports and define further the proof-of-age cards. However, our legal advice was that we did not need to do that. Where the legislation states “a passport", it means a valid passport, which, in turn, should mean a current passport, not an expired one. On that basis, we are satisfied that the provision is fine.

1132. The Committee Clerk: Perhaps the Department will keep me right, but it appears to be indicating that the provision means that should someone underage get into licensed premises and get a drink using an expired passport, the bar could not use that as a due diligence offence. The bar would be in trouble if it accepted an expired passport with the corner cut off. I think that that is what the Department is saying.

1133. Mr Bowler: Yes, you are right.

1134. The Chairperson: That is fair enough.

1135. Mr Brady: Does the legislation not have to specify that it has to be a valid passport?

1136. Mr Bowler: That is what we were saying. Our legal advice was that “passport" means “valid passport".

1137. Mr Brady: It does not mean that in common usage. A passport is a document. It can be valid or invalid, or expired or current. If you are going to insist that it has to be a valid passport, however, that has to be stated. Somebody could go in with a passport that was cancelled and renewed, but it is still a passport to all intents and purposes.

1138. Mr Bowler: We said last week that we are happy to put that in the guidance, and to stress that point.

1139. Mr Brady: That would make more sense.

1140. The Chairperson: However, that does need to be in the Bill.

1141. Ms Lo: Tom, will you remind me again what a PASS card is?

1142. Mr Bowler: It is a hologram card with a picture of the card holder, which is said to be pretty much forgery-proof.

1143. Ms Lo: How do people get one?

1144. Mr Bowler: A number of different bodies will, for a price, issue you with a PASS card. I think that it originated from the British Retail Consortium, but I think that people can apply to other bodies for one. It is regarded as forgery-proof, but it has to be bought. Unlike the electoral card, it is not free.

1145. Ms Lo: How much does it cost?

1146. Mr Bowler: I am sorry, but I cannot remember.

1147. Ms Lo: I just do not understand why a student card cannot be accepted. I think that you said last time that the student card is excluded from the scheme.

1148. Mr Bowler: I am not sure about around Queen’s, but the licensed trade will not accept student cards, because they are so easy to forge. I know that there is a photograph on them, but that is the view taken in the trade.

1149. Ms Lo: A lot of shops accept student cards.

1150. The Chairperson: Students are not using them to buy drink, however.

1151. Mr Bowler: It is the alcohol element.

1152. The Chairperson: It is all right to get a newspaper for 10p using one.

1153. Ms Lo: No, you can get a discount on £100 or £200 dresses.

1154. The Chairperson: Do not give any names. We are not allowed to advertise.

1155. Ms Lo: All that students need to do in many shops is produce a student card to qualify for a 10% discount.

1156. The Chairperson: Not in Winemark, though.

1157. Mr Brady: Does it have to be a valid student card? I have one that dates back 35 years. [Laughter.]

1158. Mrs M Bradley: Aye right, Mickey.

1159. The Chairperson: He looks no older. He still has the long hair.

1160. Ms Lo: Student cards are also valid for concessions at the theatre or the cinema.

1161. The Chairperson: The Department’s point is that the student card is an easily forgeable document. I am trying not to be unfair, but it is well known, almost since time began, that student cards are more susceptible to forgery.

1162. Mr McCallister: That is especially the case now, given the printers that people have at home.

1163. The Chairperson: It was different 20 years ago. People can make student cards at home now.

1164. Mr McCallister: Unfortunately, they are now easier to forge. Not that I would be forging them. [Laughter.]

1165. The Chairperson: You could sell them for a good price, though, I am sure.

1166. Mr McCallister: At 38, I do not often get asked for ID.

1167. The Chairperson: Not with your hair going that colour.

1168. Ms Lo: Even on mainland Europe, I have produced my student card and got 10% discounts at museums and other places.

1169. The Chairperson: Yes, but you did not get a discount at the bar. There is a difference between getting a discount on a dress and getting a discount on drink.

1170. Mr F McCann: Was that your student card or your party membership card? [Laughter.]

1171. The Chairperson: The point was made about valid and invalid passports. The Bill obviously intends that passports must be valid. There was nothing like that in place before, so it needs to be in guidance, and it will be. Is everyone happy with that position?

Members indicated assent.

1172. The Chairperson: The Committee is generally content with the penalty points system for registered clubs, as well as for other licensed premises. Last week, we stated our belief that the courts have sufficient discretion in the application of points even for so-called trivial or bookkeeping transgressions and that licensees have sufficient opportunity to defend themselves and demonstrate due diligence in respect of underage sales, for example. The Committee believes that the Bill’s shelf life for penalty points will impress on clubs the significance of underage sales and is an appropriate means of tackling the important issue.

1173. The Committee also does not support any of the other proposed amendments that would, for example, limit the police’s ability to call to inspect a club’s accounts when a breach of the law is suspected. I went off on one earlier and talked about penalty points for clubs, but is there anything else that members want to on clause 6?

1174. The Committee Clerk: To be absolutely clear, are members content? Things are going really well, and we might start clause-by-clause scrutiny imminently.

1175. The Chairperson: The excitement is building.

1176. The Committee Clerk: Will members be able to agree the clause as it stands?

Members indicated assent.

1177. The Chairperson: We left out clause 5, which deals with the closure of registered clubs. Last week, the Committee said that it was content that the new police closure powers should be applied to registered clubs. However, the Committee notes the police’s evidence, which suggests that clubs are generally less likely to be the source of disorder. As with licensed premises closure provisions, the Committee is content that a requirement to consult with councils, and community groups where appropriate, will be included in the guidance to the police on closures.

1178. Mr F McCann: We had reservations about that also.

1179. The Chairperson: It is effectively a carbon copy of clause 1.

1180. Mr F McCann: We raised that during last week’s meeting.

1181. The Chairperson: Are you saying that your concerns also apply to the closure of licensed premises? Members have disappeared, so the majority is no longer quite so big. However, am I right to presume that it remains the case that the contrary view of the majority of the Committee is that it is supportive of the inclusion of the power? It is a similar position to that in clause 1.

Members indicated assent.

1182. The Chairperson: Clause 7 deals with proof of age for access to registered clubs. As with proof of age standards schemes for other licensed premises, the Committee said that it was generally content with the proof of age standards scheme that is applied to registered clubs. The Committee does not support an extension to the time periods during which children are to be allowed in a club’s licensed premises. Is that a fair summary of the views of the majority of Committee members?

1183. Members indicated assent.

1184. The Chairperson: Clause 8 deals with the accounts of registered clubs. The Committee said that it was generally content with the clause and agreed that the Bill will appropriately reduce the regulatory burden for smaller clubs. Are members happy enough?

1185. Members indicated assent.

1186. The Chairperson: Clause 9 deals with authorisations for special occasions. The Committee noted with concern evidence from the clubs that late licensing restrictions were not being adhered to by some clubs. There was some suggestion that the restrictions on advertising and the use of club premises by non-members were also not being adhered to. The Committee is to seek assurances from the Minister at the Consideration Stage about the enforcement of those restrictions.

1187. Although there was some debate about the number of late-night licences and the increase from 52 to 120, nothing was ever said about an exact number. The Committee does not support any other changes to clubs’ opening hours. There has been lengthy debate and discussion on those issues, and we need to start pinning down our rough views.

1188. Mr Brady: Clubs tend to be well run. They apply for licences but do not always use them. The rationale in the legislation seems to be that the police will be able intervene if the licences are not being used properly. Fifty two late licences is a relatively small number.

1189. I have talked to people from the clubs, and all that they are looking for is a level playing field, which they are not getting. Regardless of whether the increase in the number of licences is from 52 to 156 or whatever, most clubs do not use them all. However, having them gives them the opportunity to open late if they need to.

1190. All the presentations that we have received have been from bona fide clubs with long-standing memberships and long-standing reputations, and most of them are involved in the community. It seems that they are being penalised and are competing with pubs, which, in some cases, are not particularly well run.

1191. Mr Craig: We are back to the argument about what is fair. That is where everything becomes unstuck. We also had the hoteliers and the pub owners in explaining to us how there is not a level-playing field, because they cannot depend on volunteers to do the work for them. Those are the businesses that are paying the heavy taxes and the heavy rates. You are right that there is not a level playing field. Increasing the number of licences to 120 will not make it a level playing field for the clubs either. As they pointed out, they want an awful lot more late licences.

1192. My huge concern is about the message that is being sent out to the public. Everything in the Bill is geared towards making all the institutions more responsible. It contains controls to deal with premises that get out of control. That is happening on the one hand, yet on the other hand the clubs are asking, willy-nilly, for a 150% increase in late-night openings.

1193. We asked the PSNI whether that would cause a resource issue. The answer was a clear yes, because they will be left to enforce it all. I am not content with the 120 days. I made a suggestion, and I will make it a proposal, that a more reasonable increase would be to 75 days. That is a 50% increase for clubs, and is an awful lot better than nothing.

1194. Mr Brady: There is a counter argument. In my experience, and we can be parochial about this to a certain degree, clubs are extremely well run for the most part. There is no messing. In fairness, I cannot say that about a lot of pubs in the area where I live. There are employment issues, and I agree with what was said about that. However, given the choice, I would keep clubs open before some of the hellholes, for want of a better word, around Newry.

1195. I mentioned before that, in some places, it is like the ‘Thriller’ video at 1.00 am. Even taxis will not go into the streets. That has absolutely nothing to do with clubs but pubs. In fact, some of the other pubs beside those ones close early on a Saturday night when they could be making money. Again, employment is threatened, because people are not getting a full week’s work.

1196. It comes down to places being well-run and run responsibly. The majority of representatives of clubs said in their presentations that they would not use the 365-day provision. However, they should have some choice, rather than being given an arbitrary figure. When I was growing up, pubs closed at 10.00 pm and were closed on Sundays. That has changed, and pubs have been given a lot more leeway than clubs. It is a matter of people being responsible for what they are doing.

1197. Mrs M Bradley: Whether we stick to 52 days or move to 120 days, club owners will still be under the same rules as anyone else. I did not think that the police were concerned about the extra nights that were being given to the clubs, because they said that there was no problem with the clubs. We should give it a chance and go for the increase. They will not use them all anyway, and any club owners will tell you that they probably would not apply for more than half a dozen extra nights to use the club for different functions. Clubs are more family orientated, and I would not have a problem with giving them the 120 nights. Jonathan, what did you suggest? Sorry, I did not pick up on the number.

1198. Mr Craig: Seventy-five days, which is a 50% increase.

1199. Ms Lo: I have a dilemma. Being a liberal, I would like to be easy-going, but my gut is telling me that that is too big a jump. I would support, at most, doubling the number to two nights a week: Fridays and Saturdays. That would be quite liberal enough.

1200. The Chairperson: This is the clause that we concentrated on most, but other issues are quite wide-ranging. We are debating an arbitrary number. At least we understand why it is 52 days. The figures that are being discussed — 120 and 75 — are arbitrary, as is three. Those are just numbers that are plucked out, and there is no particular right answer.

1201. Mary is right: we put this to the police, and they did not say that they thought there was trouble with clubs. However, their argument is that more premises opening longer creates more potential for issues and could, therefore, stretch their resources.

1202. Ms Lo: They will open on the nights that cities and towns are busiest: Fridays and Saturdays.

1203. The Chairperson: The evidence that has been presented to us does not suggest that there is a huge demand. I understand Mickey’s point that, if you just let everyone go, those that have the demand will increase the amount of time that they are open. I was troubled by the evidence that we got that said clubs will probably go over 52 anyway but perhaps not 120. If the limit is increased to 120, 150 or higher, clubs will go to that level and further. That will pose societal problems and policing problems.

1204. Mr Brady: With respect, sometimes we can become fixated on the number. The biggest problem that we have in our constituencies is antisocial behaviour, and, in my experience, it is mostly due to underage drinking and drinking in the streets. It has nothing to do with clubs or pubs. It is due to people congregating in public areas. In a lot of cases, part of the difficulty is the non-enforcement of laws regarding drinking in public places, which, as far as I am aware, is under the remit of councils.

1205. I take the point about clubs having more opportunities to open, but it is worth making the point that the Minister has not made a decision. If any clubs abuse the later opening regulations, the PSNI have the right to refuse further applications. It will not happen in every area but, if the police feel that their resources are being stretched in particular areas, they have the power to stop it.

1206. The Chairperson: We talked about clubs and how well they are run almost as though everyone involved in running a club or drinking in one is an angel, but there are issues associated with clubs. If opening hours are trebled, the issues that exist will also be multiplied by three. If there is to be a level playing field, we have to go to 365. However, there is not meant to be a level playing field. Pubs and clubs are two entirely different entities that do completely different things. The only thing that they have in common is the sale of alcohol and the fact that people go there for a night out.

1207. Mr Brady: I absolutely agree that they are two separate entities. I know of very few clubs that are specifically drinking clubs, but pubs are somewhere where people go to drink. Unfortunately, the pub culture, and that form of socialising, is disappearing rapidly. In my experience, clubs are sports clubs, including snooker clubs, darts clubs or whatever. Other activities take place in clubs. Unlike pubs, they are not places where people go purely to drink. It may be stretching it a bit, but clubs can be a community resource.

1208. The Chairperson: I would probably be more relaxed about increasing the number if I did not think that some clubs would not go further again in respect of the number of nights that they open and what they do. As I said, I was troubled by the evidence that we were given. This is where the point about the level playing field and the two different entities comes in. Clubs are not meant to pitch for certain types of business, but we all know that they do. If clubs are able to open on more nights — Fridays, Saturdays and perhaps Sundays — they will start to encroach on the business of pubs and hotels.

1209. I saw an advert last week in which a sports club was touting for Christmas business from the general public. That is not meant to happen; clubs are not supposed to pitch their business to the general public. Do you know what sports club that was? It was the Northern Ireland Civil Service sports club down the road. It is pitching for business by offering Christmas dinners to all and sundry and every one of us here. I think that we are allowed to go in anyway.

1210. Mr Brady: As an ex-civil servant, I might just go.

1211. The Chairperson: That is what is happening under the current regime. There are other issues about enforcement.

1212. Mr Brady: I was at the opening of Castle Buildings, because I was doing a course. A bar was opened in Castle Buildings, but it lasted only about three months, because the staff could not be got back up the stairs once they had been to it.

1213. Mrs M Bradley: Clubs have licences to open every night of the week.

1214. The Chairperson: They do.

1215. Mrs M Bradley: So, they do not need to pitch.

1216. The Chairperson: No. In effect, they are not opening for all that time.

1217. Mr F McCann: I want to go back to the difference between pubs and clubs. Only for pubs and clubs feeling severe strain from the economic situation, we would not even be arguing about late licences. Until I heard some of the stuff that came up last week, I thought that, by and large, pubs and clubs coexisted quite happily. The hotel representatives were particularly scathing about clubs. However, as Mickey said last week, most of the nightclubs where many of the problems exist are located within hotel premises.

1218. Mr Brady: Many of them serve drink after hours to non-residents.

1219. Mr F McCann: That is right. We have to try to get a happy medium that allows people to coexist without anyone being penalised, because it is a difficult time.

1220. Although it was raised when we were talking about drinks promotions, a point that has been lost is that over 70% of alcohol that is sold is sold by supermarkets and large shopping centres. Therefore, there is a small percentage of trade to compete for.

1221. When we discuss legislation such as this, we need to take into consideration the changing nature of entertainment. Many young people go out at a different time of night and enjoy that. A lot of their entertainment is not centred in around clubs but around hotels and pubs. If you go into any town centre or Belfast city centre, there are places that are open until 3.00 am, 4.00 am and 5.00 am. Those are not private members’ clubs open at that time.

1222. We need to take that into consideration, because many of us around the table are 30-plus. We are a fair age. I am trying to be kind to everybody around the table. When we look at legislation, we have to consider the impact that it will have on those who are much younger than us, because the vast majority of young people who use premises go out just to have a good time. We need to ensure that some of the decisions that we make and some of the legislation that we pass not does not seriously curtail their way of life, because the way that they do things is completely different to the way that we do them.

1223. Earlier, Chairperson, you suggested that there is nearly a presumption that clubs that get late licences will change overnight and could become places of trouble. The facts of life and the record according to the PSNI and to most of us who know the history of clubs show that that is not the case.

1224. As I said before, some GAA clubs that may have five, six, seven and maybe 12 teams. It costs two fortunes to run those teams. If opening a couple of extra nights a week for members brings in the money, which allows such clubs to survive, so be it.

1225. The Chairperson: Your first point is correct: we are discussing an imperfect position. We are the referee and know that there are a lot of vested interests at play and that there are things that are happening that should not happen but will continue to regardless of what happens with the Bill. We are being asked to come to a definitive conclusion on a situation that is far from perfect now and will be far from perfect in the future. Our position is very difficult in that respect.

1226. Mr S Anderson: There has to be clear daylight between clubs and pubs for specific reasons. Clubs are for families, and that was well said, but they are not businesses. Pubs are businesses.

1227. Many pubs are finding it very difficult to stay in business. If we increase the number of nights for clubs too much, are we saying that clubs become the replacement for the pubs? There is no doubt that, in the present economic downturn, and even before that, pubs are going to the wall.

1228. Another issue is that licences are a big percentage of the cost for those who bought pubs. People may have taken out a big loan from a bank and, if those pubs go to the wall, those people may be left with a licence that they do not know what to do with. We need to be careful not to go down that road.

1229. My colleague Jonathan suggested an extension to 75. If all the available days or nights are not being used, 75 would be a fair reflection at this stage. We have to protect and be seen to protect the businesses that are pubs. The representatives of pubs said that they would be happy to move in the direction of 75 days and to work with clubs. That was movement by them. There has to that difference and clear daylight between the two.

1230. Mr Brady: I agree with some of what was said. The biggest threat to pubs and the closure of pubs is not clubs but Sainsbury’s, Tesco and Asda. The representatives of pubs said that, 10 years ago, 78% of alcohol consumed in the North was consumed in pubs. That is down to 23%, and that is not because of clubs. I keep saying it: Sainsbury’s in Newry sells more drink in the run-up to Christmas than any Sainsbury’s store in Britain. In Newry, it works out at approximately £1 million worth of drink every weekend, and not just for people from the South.

1231. Mrs M Bradley: That is because of special offers.

1232. The Chairperson: That is the biggest threat, but it does not mean that clubs are not a threat or that giving clubs more late licences a week would not make them a threat.

1233. Mr S Anderson: No one can dispute that that is part of the problem. However, as the Chairperson rightly says, if we allow more late nights for clubs, it will naturally take trade from the pubs. The difference is that pubs are businesses and clubs are not. That is what we have to define. We have to try to protect businesses.

1234. Ms Lo: A lot of the arguments are valid, and we are trying to balance it out. I challenge Fra’s comment that people join clubs because of sport. A lot of people join sports or private members’ clubs because they know that the drink and food is cheaper. Increasingly, people are also having weddings or thirtieth and fortieth birthday parties in clubs rather than pubs or hotels. I also share the concerns about the viability of some of our pubs. Having to make a judgement puts us in a difficult position.

1235. Mr Brady: Many garages have closed along the border simply because no action was taken to equalise. They were businesses, and some employed a lot of people. We can all put forward valid arguments. Anna made the point about clubs being cheaper and people wanting to have birthday parties in them because of that. That is a matter of choice and could happen regardless of whether there are 52 or 360 late nights.

1236. Mr S Anderson: If we allow too many late nights for clubs, we will end up with a situation in which clubs are replacing pubs.

1237. Mrs M Bradley: There are a couple of arguments against that. Pubs are businesses and are privately run, but the clubs are run by volunteers who do not want to be working every night of the week anyway. A lot of issues need to be taken into consideration.

1238. Mr Craig: I have listened with interest to all the arguments. Both sides have lobbied just about every member of the Committee on the issue.

1239. If we allow a 150% increase in late night openings, it will have an impact on the trade — it is not right to call it “the legitimate trade" — of the pubs and the hoteliers who have massive overheads compared with any of the clubs. There is no getting away from that. They have the wage bills to settle, the taxes and rates to pay, and they have to put the massive amounts of money up front to build their premises.

1240. I know that the idea behind a club is to help and support whatever sporting fraternity or other fraternity for that matter. We heard about the Civil Service club, and there might not be much sport going on there. There was also the infamous Welders Club, which I remember from my time in Shorts. There are all sorts of clubs.

1241. I can see the driver for the clubs: they want to increase their business. The difficulty that I have with that is that the entertainment market is spiralling downwards. As Fra rightly pointed out, the big winners are, unfortunately, the supermarkets, because they are offloading huge amounts of cheap alcohol on everybody. It is much easy to buy it, take it home and forget about everything. With increased competition in a decreasing market, it would be irresponsible of us to allow a two-and-a-half times increase in late night openings for clubs. That would skew the market.

1242. Unfortunately, there is not a level playing field, and there is no getting away from that. That is why I propose a more sensible 50% increase. I have sympathy for the argument from clubs, but I also have to be realistic and ask how it will impact on the business world, which is the other side of the equation. We have to strike a balance, which is what I am trying to do.

1243. Mrs M Bradley: We do not have to make decisions today.

1244. The Chairperson: I am keen to get the run-through done. It will probably to be too late to start clause-by-clause scrutiny after that, so we will come back fresh next Tuesday to do that.

1245. Mrs M Bradley: I was supposed to be in another meeting at 3.00 pm.

1246. The Chairperson: If you want to go, that is grand; you are not deserting your post. You will not be harangued later by representatives of clubs and pubs for not having voted.

1247. Mrs M Bradley: As I told you before, the pubs and the clubs do not get anything from me, because I do not drink.

1248. Mr F McCann: Anna said that people go to clubs to get cheap drink and food. In many areas across the North, the GAA is the heart and soul of the community. It runs a number of different sports, which costs two fortunes. That is what the GAA social clubs are run for. They do not operate to serve cheap alcohol and cheap food. In fact, many of them do not even serve food. Many soccer clubs do the same. Their teams may not survive but for the fact that they have a drinking element. In many areas, it is such a cut-throat business that pubs try to tap into the membership of clubs.

1249. Sydney mentioned the Harland and Wolff Welders club, which is 50 or 60 years old, maybe older than most pubs. The Foresters its 175th anniversary and the Hibs on the Falls is probably over 100 years old. Most of those clubs are far older than the pubs we are talking about. Many of them have hundreds of members on their books who socialise in clubs and pubs. Clubs do not complain because their members go into pubs to drink.

1250. Mr S Anderson: That is my argument: those clubs have been established for years have flourished through opening the number of nights that they do now.

1251. Mr F McCann: They are going down the tubes. The challenge to clubs and pubs comes from people buying their drink at supermarkets. That is the problem, not whether they drink in a pub or a club.

1252. Mr S Anderson: We agree, then, that those clubs have flourished with the restricted number of nights that they have had.

1253. Mr F McCann: If you went into many clubs and had a yarn with their committees, they would tell you that many are facing closure because of the changing nature of the way people drink alcohol.

1254. Mr Craig: We must not lose sight of what is important for a club. Whatever organisations clubs exist to support, they are not the be-all and end-all of those organisations. Someone does not join a club because they want a drink. They join because they are a member of the GAA or they support the football, cricket, or hockey team. Support for a club is the main reason.

1255. Frankly, the idea of spending 120 late nights out in a club is not something that people will want to do. They will continue to support that sporting organisation or whatever organisation, should its club be open 50 late nights a year or 120 nights. Will someone spend any more money on that organisation because there are more late nights? I doubt it very much. We are talking about clubs trying to organise themselves into businesses, which is getting onto very dangerous ground when there is not a level playing field for all the organisations that the legislation will affect.

1256. Mr F McCann: It is probably just a question of survival.

1257. The Chairperson: Although we may have a counter proposal, we are not a lot further on in the argument. We suffer as a Committee from being in the imperfect position of not having a terrible lot of hard and fast data or information to go on. Although we have the figures that we were told that we could not get about current usage, which mysteriously appeared, as the Minister himself said in the debate when he was asked for the information, it does not in itself tell us anything. It tells us roughly what current demand is, but is not conclusive. It is then certainly not conclusive when a representative of a registered club says that it is being flouted anyway.

1258. Mr F McCann: The Civil Service is leading the charge.

1259. The Chairperson: The Civil Service is in the vanguard of breaching those things. That is where we will have our Committee Christmas dinner. [Laughter.]

1260. A Member: Subsidised. [Laughter.]

1261. The Chairperson: We might as well get it while we can. [Laughter.]

1262. Maybe I am a bit old fashioned, but I like to have a wee bit more hard data to go on. We are effectively being asked to make a judgement call. That does not mean that anybody is right or wrong; it is a judgement call.

1263. Based on who has spoken and the parties of which they are members, is it fair to surmise that there may be a slight majority who are in favour of having fewer than 120 late licenses and may support Jonathan’s proposed amendment of 75 but that there is also a large and significant minority who want at least 120? Tom, if the Committee were to pursue the matter along those lines and support 75, for example, would the Department draft an amendment to that effect?

1264. Mr Bowler: If the Minister agrees with that, we will draft it. Mr Attwood has stated in a couple of recent letters that he awaits the Committee’s report with interest.

1265. The Chairperson: OK; that is fair enough. I will move on to the other suggested amendments. The Committee agreed that it will make limited comment on the proposed restrictions on irresponsible drinks promotions; it would be irresponsible to make too much comment on irresponsible drinks promotions. The Committee agreed that it is content, at this stage, to not pursue amendments, at this stage anyway, relating to minimum alcohol pricing, alcohol disorder zones and other public drinking controls, as those are expected to form part of possible other legislation. The Committee is content to not support various other changes to the Registration of Clubs (Northern Ireland) Order 1996. There was a whole slew of stuff. Although the Committee notes with interest the conversation about the use of community alcohol partnerships, it is content to not pursue amendments in that regard. Am I correct that it was said last week that that is not required in the legislation?

1266. The Committee Clerk: That is correct. In GB, those have not been operated as statutory partnerships.

1267. The Chairperson: Are there any other amendments that the Committee wants to discuss?

1268. Mr F McCann: I take it that you, as the Chairperson of the Committee, will put forward an opinion about drinks promotions.

1269. The Chairperson: Is it right to presume that the Committee’s view is one of general support for the Minister’s direction of travel but that, as we have yet to see any detail, it is hard to come to a hard and fast opinion? We support the principle, and we can talk individually about our examples, fears, concerns, worries and issues.

1270. The Committee Clerk: The Department’s consultation will conclude on 6 December. I expect the Department to brief the Committee before Consideration Stage. The Committee can take an overall view when it has received feedback from stakeholders.

1271. Mr Brady: Just to be on the safe side, in the meantime, we will keep an eye on ‘The Irish News’.

1272. Mr F McCann: A cynic to the end.

1273. The Chairperson: We should come to a hard and fast position at some stage, but there is no way in which we can do so for our report.

1274. It may seem like déjà vu all over again after last week. However, today’s meeting has been helpful to distil where we are on some of the key issues. That will hopefully allow us to skip through a significant portion of the clause-by-clause scrutiny next week and hone in on those areas in which there is some divergence of opinion. Indeed, even where there is divergence, the Committee’s overall view is quite clear. Are members content to pursue the matter along those lines?

Members indicated assent.

16 November 2010

Members present for all or part of the proceedings:
Mr Simon Hamilton (Chairperson)
Mr Sydney Anderson
Mrs Mary Bradley
Mr Mickey Brady
Mr Jonathan Craig
Mr Alex Easton
Mr Tommy Gallagher
Mr John McCallister
Mr Fra McCann

Witnesses:

Mr Tom Bowler Mr Liam Quinn

Department for Social Development

1275. The Chairperson (Mr Hamilton): Tom Bowler and Liam Quinn from the social policy unit in the Department for Social Development (DSD) are with us again. You are both very welcome. Proceedings are being recorded by Hansard, so mobile phones should be switched off. We are going to commence our formal clause-by-clause scrutiny of the Licensing and Registration of Clubs (Amendment) Bill. We are required at this stage to set out our final position on the clauses and any proposed amendments to the Bill.

Clause 1 (Closure of licensed premises)

1276. The Chairperson: Part 1 of the Bill deals with licensing. Clause 1 introduces additional closure powers relating to all licensed premises. It allows a Magistrate’s Court in a district that is experiencing or is likely to experience disorder to make a closure order for licensed premises. It allows a police officer of the rank of inspector or above to make a closure order of up to 24 hours if it is believed that there is public disorder on or near and related to the premises.

1277. The clause requires a police officer to apply to the relevant Magistrate’s Court to consider the closure order as soon as possible. There is a new offence relating to keeping premises open in contravention of a court order, which will attract a fine not exceeding £5,000 and/or up to six months’ imprisonment. The clause also sets out the circumstances in which premises are deemed to be open by listing those who may legitimately enter the premises, so as to help the police determine whether premises that should be closed are trading illegally. The Committee has previously indicated that it does not wish to pursue amendments A to I. Are we content with that position?

Members indicated assent.

1278. The Chairperson: However, some Committee members previously indicated that they may wish to propose amendments to the clause. If there are any members who wish to do so, I invite them to do it at this stage so that we can consider them as a Committee.

1279. Mr Brady: I know that Fra had concerns about some of the issues.

1280. The Chairperson: We had some expression of interest in proposing amendments by a member who is not here. That leaves us to make a decision on whether to wait or move on. The Committee’s position was quite clear. Of course, there is nothing to prevent any member from tabling an amendment at Consideration Stage if he or she so chooses.

1281. Mr Brady: I just do not want to upset anybody later by not flagging the matter.

1282. The Chairperson: You have done that. Do you want me to put the Question on the clause, to which you can dissent? That would register your party’s position and give you flexibility.

1283. Mr Brady: I do not like to dissent. However, in this case, I will make an exception.

1284. The Chairperson: I do not like to use the word “dissident" any more. Should I say “residual opposition"?

1285. Mr Brady: That is the in word now.

1286. The Chairperson: Tom and Liam, do you wish to make any final comment on the clause?

1287. Mr Tom Bowler (Department for Social Development): No.

Question put, That the Committee is content with the clause.

The Committee divided: Ayes 6; Noes 2.

AYES

Mr S Anderson, Mrs M Bradley, Mr Craig, Mr Easton, Mr Gallagher, Mr Hamilton.

NOES

Mr Brady, Mr F McCann.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Clause 1 agreed to.

Clause 2 (Penalty points)

1288. The Chairperson: Clause 2 introduces a penalty points system for licensed premises. Where a licensee is convicted of two or more offences on the same occasion, the court may restrict the points that are attributable to the highest number that is due for some of the offences. The Department is also empowered to amend the levels of penalty points by the affirmative resolution procedure. A Magistrate’s Court may suspend a licence for not less than one week or more than three months where 10 penalty points have been accumulated within a three-year period. The Committee has previously indicated that it does not wish to pursue amendments J to N. Is that still our position?

Members indicated assent.

1289. The Chairperson: Tom and Liam, have you anything more to add?

1290. Mr Bowler: No.

1291. The Chairperson: I had some unease — perhaps “unease" is too strong a word. Rather, we raised some issues and sought assurances on defences that could be made. There is flexibility that, at first glance, did not appear to be there. The Committee and I are content with that flexibility.

Question, That the Committee is content with clause, put and agreed to.

Clause 2 agreed to.

Clause 3 (Proof of age)

1292. The Chairperson: This is going too well. There must be something wrong.

1293. Clause 3 introduces a statutory proof of age scheme for licensed premises that deals with the prohibition of young people who are under 18 years of age from certain premises, and the sale and delivery of alcohol to them. The clause allows that, in court proceedings that relate to underage alcohol offences, “all due diligence" may be demonstrated by the licensee’s, or relevant member of staff’s, being shown certain documents that are specified for the purpose of proof of age by a customer. The documents include a passport; a photocard driving licence; an electoral identity card; and a proof-of-age standard scheme (PASS) card.

1294. The clause requires all licensed premises to display a notice that contains information on underage sales and acceptable documents as proof of age. The Committee indicated that it does not wish to pursue amendments O to S. Is that still the Committee’s position?

Members indicated assent.

1295. The Chairperson: If the Department has nothing more to add, I will put the Question.

Question, That the Committee is content with the clause, put and agreed to.

Clause 3 agreed to.

Clause 4 (Application to limited liability partnerships)

1296. The Chairperson: Clause 4 inserts new provisions that apply to licensed premises and clarify how the Licensing (Northern Ireland) Order 1996 applies to limited liability partnerships. The provisions provide that a reference to a director of a body corporate is a reference to a member of a limited liability partnership and that a reference to the secretary of a body corporate is a reference to any designated member of a limited liability partnership.

1297. Mr F McCann: That is a mouthful and a half.

1298. The Chairperson: It is. I would not want to say that too fast; it would be like a tongue-twister.

1299. The Committee did not indicate that it wants to amend clause 4. No amendments were suggested during evidence. Is the Committee content with that position?

Members indicated assent.

1300. The Chairperson: Nothing more from the Department? I will have to provoke you into saying something. [Laughter.]

Question, That the Committee is content with the clause, put and agreed to.

Clause 4 agreed to.

Clause 5 (Closure of registered clubs)

1301. The Chairperson: Part 2 of the Bill deals with registration of clubs. Clause 5 refers to the Registration of Clubs (Northern Ireland) Order 1996 and contains measures relating to the closure of registered clubs. The provisions are identical to the closure provisions for licensed premises in clause 1, which we have already discussed. The exception is that a Magistrate’s Court may only revoke a closure or order a registered club to close for a maximum of 28 days, not three months. The Committee previously indicated that it does not support amendments T to Z. Are we still happy to take that position?

1302. Mr F McCann: That we do not support the clause?

1303. The Chairperson: That we do not support amendments T to Z. To clarify, there is a distinction between amendments suggested to us during our evidence gathering and amendments that we might propose now. We had previously agreed that we did not want to pursue amendments T to Z.

1304. Mr F McCann: For clarification, I take it that we are still open to bringing amendments before the Assembly when the Bill comes before the House. I declare my interest in the Irish National Foresters and in Cumman na Méirleach on the Falls Road. I have some concerns about clubs. Even in the evidence given to the Committee, a clear distinction has been shown between antisocial activity associated with clubs and some of the other things that go on.

1305. The Chairperson: I wish to clarify the Committee’s position on amendments T to Z. You are making a different point. Are we happy enough not to pursue any of those amendments?

Members indicated assent.

1306. The Chairperson: Are you saying, Fra, that you are not going to propose an amendment now but that you reserve your right to table one at Consideration Stage?

1307. Mr F McCann: Yes.

Question put, That the Committee is content with the clause.

The Committee divided: Ayes 6; Noes 2.

AYES

Mr S Anderson, Mrs M Bradley, Mr Craig, Mr Easton, Mr Gallagher, Mr Hamilton.

NOES

Mr Brady, Mr F McCann.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Clause 5 agreed to.

Clause 6 (Penalty points)

1308. The Chairperson: Clause 6 amends the Registration of Clubs Order, which currently provides for a system of penalty points for clubs convicted of accounting offences. The clause will enable the system to encompass many more offences, and it mirrors the provisions in clause 2 for licensed premises. As with licensed premises, a registered club’s registration can be suspended where the club accrues 10 or more penalty points in a three-year period. The Committee indicated that it does not support amendments AA to LL. Are we still content with that position?

Members indicated assent.

1309. The Chairperson: Is there anything further from the Department?

1310. Mr Liam Quinn (Department for Social Development): No.

1311. The Chairperson: As for clause 2, some reassurance was sought on the flexibility and defences. The point made by the Department was that there were very few prosecutions for accounting offences anyway, so one would anticipate that there will be very few penalty points levied if that pattern continues.

1312. Mr Quinn: That is right, chairman.

1313. Mr F McCann: One of the issues that we raised over the months concerned the voluntary nature of club committees. Many of the committees are elected annually, meaning that many of their members have not got experience. Do you not believe that, if passed, the clause will penalise clubs and their committees and that that will frighten people off from volunteering for committees?

1314. Mr Quinn: The fact that there have been so few prosecutions over the past 10 years indicates that there is not really a problem.

1315. Mr F McCann: Never say never.

1316. Mr Quinn: Clubs have certain obligations to meet. I understand the issue about newly appointed committee members, but the club committee should make sure that the individual who has responsibilities has access to training or has somebody there to advise them during their first few months in office. There has not been an issue to date, and I do not foresee an issue arising. As we have said before, and have heard evidence to this effect, most of the clubs are well run and well organised, and, as such, can deal with those issues.

1317. Mr F McCann: As with the other clauses, we reserve the right to table amendments at another stage.

1318. The Chairperson: Does anybody else wish to comment at this stage? As with the previous clause, Fra, you will reserve your position and vote against it at this point.

Question put, That the Committee is content with the clause.

The Committee divided: Ayes 6; Noes 2.

AYES

Mr S Anderson, Mrs M Bradley, Mr Craig, Mr Easton, Mr Gallagher, Mr Hamilton.

NOES

Mr Brady, Mr F McCann.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Clause 6 agreed to.

Clause 7 (Proof of age)

1319. The Chairperson: Clause 7 amends the Registration of Clubs Order to introduce a statutory proof of age scheme. Its provisions mirror those that are set out in clause 3 for licensed premises. The Committee indicated that it does not support amendments to the clause. Is that still our position?

Members indicated assent.

1320. The Chairperson: If the Department has nothing to add, I will put the Question.

Question, That the Committee is content with the clause, put and agreed to.

Clause 7 agreed to.

Clause 8 (Accounts of registered clubs)

1321. The Chairperson: Clause 8 amends the Registration of Clubs Order to pave the way for regulations and guidance that will make the accounting requirements for registered clubs more flexible. The clause removes requirements to prescribe by regulations the manner in which clubs maintain their system of control of accounts. It gives small and medium-sized clubs the option to have their accounts audited by an auditor or independent examiner. The clause allows the Department to issue directions on the system of control of accounts and the selection of an independent examiner. The Committee indicated that it does not support amendments UU to YY. Are we still content with that position?

Members indicated assent.

1322. The Chairperson: If there are no further comments from members or the Department, I will put the Question.

Question, That the Committee is content with the clause, put and agreed to.

Clause 8 agreed to.

Clause 9 (Authorisations for special occasions)

1323. The Chairperson: This is where it all falls apart. This is where we hit the skids.

1324. Clause 9 amends the Registration of Clubs Order to increase the number of occasions, from 52 to 120 in any year, on which registered clubs may apply to the police for later opening to 1.00 am, or to midnight on a Sunday. A club must give at least seven days’ notice of the event and may, at the police’s discretion, include a number of occasions on the one application, which, I believe, is already practice.

1325. The Committee has indicated informally that it would support an amendment to the clause that would limit the number of special authorisations to 75 a year as opposed to 120. I have to take a formal position. At that stage, there seemed to be general support for such an amendment, although, I accept, that there was some dissent.

1326. Mr Craig: I want to propose that amendment formally.

1327. Mr Brady: That proposed amendment is prescriptive. Have there been any particular problems with clubs as a result of the number of late licences that they are already allowed?

1328. Mr Quinn: Do you mean with the 52 late licences that they are already allowed? No, not in particular.

1329. Mr Brady: Therefore, if there were 152, there probably would not be a problem. The proposed amendment seems to be based on the premise that the more late licences are granted, the more likely that it is that there will be problems. I cannot see the rationale or logic behind that. It is prescriptive. As it has been stated continually, clubs are well run. In general, there are few problems with them as opposed to other licensed establishments. I use the word “establishments" advisedly.

1330. Mrs M Bradley: I feel the same. The police have told us that they have no big problem with the number of late licences either. Had they told us that there were problems as a result of clubs having x number of late licences, we would be dealing with that accordingly. We should let the clubs have a go.

1331. The Chairperson: I know what Jonathan’s view is, as does the Committee, because we have debated it at length on previous occasions. I do not think that anyone’s argument will change. We have talked the issue through.

1332. I am sitting here looking at the number of members in attendance. At this stage, it does not look as though any amendment or the clause itself will be agreed because there are four members for and four against. That position will be replicated throughout. Therefore, we do not have anything. The clause will not be accepted. Opposition to 52 late licences would extend into opposition to the clause in totality. However, the Committee needs to take a position on the clause.

1333. The Committee Clerk: Chairman, as you know, the Committee will produce a Bill report, which is its advice to the Assembly. Therefore, the Assembly will be looking to the Committee for guidance. If the amendment, which has not yet been moved, falls, and the Question is put to the Committee as to whether it is content with the clause, it, too, would fall. Therefore, the Committee would neither be passing the amendment nor endorsing the clause.

1334. That might be a little confusing for the Assembly, so what the Committee could do is park the issue and return to it on Thursday, when we may have a full complement of members. We could vote on any proposed amendments and the clause then.

1335. Regardless of how clause 9 plays out on Thursday, I anticipate that members will be tabling amendments to it at Consideration Stage, so if the Committee decides to endorse 120 special authorisations a year, I would be surprised if members did not table an amendment to limit the number to 75 a year.

1336. The Chairperson: That is right. Similar to the position that was taken on the previous clause, members are not prohibited from tabling an amendment at a later stage stating any number of special authorisations. However, it would be preferable for the Committee to take a firm view one way or the other.

1337. Mrs M Bradley: I suggest that we park the clause in the meantime.

1338. The Committee Clerk: I propose Chairman, if the Committee is agreeable, to consider clause 9 again on Thursday. If there are more members present, we may come to an agreement.

1339. Mr Craig: I am quite happy to propose an amendment now.

1340. The Chairperson: Who knows who will be present on Thursday morning and whether we will be able to take any firm position. However, that option is always there. If no agreement is reached, the clause will not be voted down; rather, it will not be supported.

1341. Are members happy to the park the clause? Doing so does not prevent members from tabling an amendment at a later stage.

Clause 9 referred for further consideration.

1342. The Chairperson: Our tiebreaker has just arrived. Good timing, John.

Clause 10 (Ancillary provision)

1343. The Chairperson: Clause 10 allows the Department to make Orders to give full effect to the legislation. The Examiner of Statutory Rules suggested that subordinate legislation associated with the clause should be subject to draft affirmative, rather than negative, resolution. The Department accepts that and has agreed to amend the clause accordingly. Is that still the Department’s position?

1344. Mr Bowler: Yes.

1345. The Chairperson: Subject to the text, does the Committee support the proposed amendment, which will alter the level of Assembly scrutiny to subordinate legislation from negative to draft affirmative? That will give us some power.

Members indicated assent.

Question, That the Committee is content with the clause, subject to the Department’s proposed amendment, put and agreed to.

Clause 10, subject to the Department’s proposed amendment, agreed to.

Clause 11 (Interpretation)

1346. The Chairperson: Clauses 11 to 13 are minor clauses containing largely technical measures. Does the Department have any final comment to make on those clauses?

1347. Mr Quinn: No, Chairman.

Question, That the Committee is content with the clause, put and agreed to.

Clause 11 agreed to.

Clauses 12 and 13 agreed to.

Clause 14 agreed to.

Schedule 1 (Schedule to be inserted in Licensing Order as Schedule 10A)

1348. The Chairperson: Schedule 1 contains tables of offences and penalty points for licensed premises that are to be included in the Licensing (Northern Ireland) Order 1996 as schedule 10A.

1349. Are there any comments from the Department?

1350. Mr Quinn: No.

Question, That the Committee is content with the schedule, put and agreed to.

Schedule 1 agreed to.

Schedule 2 (Schedule to be substituted in Registration of Clubs Order for Schedule 6)

1351. The Chairperson: Schedule 2 contains tables of offences and penalty points for offences that apply to clubs to be included in the Registration of Clubs (Northern Ireland) Order 1996 as schedule 6.

1352. The Committee has indicated that it does not support amendments NNN to PPP, which would reduce the level of some penalty points for clubs. Are members content with that?

Members indicated assent.

1353. The Chairperson: Are there any comments from the Department?

1354. Mr Quinn: No.

Question, That the Committee is content with the schedule, put and agreed to.

Schedule 2 agreed to.

Schedule 3 (Amendments)

1355. The Chairperson: Schedules 3 and 4 contain miscellaneous amendments and provisions that are to be repealed. Does the Department have anything further to add?

1356. Mr Quinn: No, Chairman.

Question, That the Committee is content with the schedule, put and agreed to.

Schedule 3 agreed to.

Schedule 4 agreed to.

1357. The Chairperson: Stakeholders have proposed a number of other amendments. The Committee has indicated that it does not support amendments RRR to DDDD — that is how bad this is getting.

1358. However, the Committee may seek further clarity on the plans of the Minister or the Executive on alcohol pricing, public drinking controls and community alcohol partnerships at Consideration Stage. Are members happy enough with that position?

Members indicated assent.

1359. The Chairperson: We shall now discuss irresponsible drinks promotions. The Committee has agreed to defer consideration of measures set out in amendment QQQ to curb irresponsible drinks promotions until the Department reports on its consultation on the matter.

1360. I advise members that their packs contains a summary of the limited number of responses received from stakeholders on the irresponsible drinks promotions proposals. Those are the responses that we elicited during evidence sessions.

1361. The Committee Clerk: They include initial responses from the Wine and Spirit Trade Association (WSTA), the British Retail Consortium (BRC), the PSNI, the Public Health Agency and Queen’s University Belfast (QUB). The retailers oppose the proposed measures on curbing promotions, arguing that multi-buy sales from supermarkets are not linked to alcohol abuse, and that the measures would have unintended effects on retailers and other alcohol consumers; for example, wine consumers. The PSNI highlighted enforcement concerns and made some suggestions in that regard — for example, advertising bans — although it is generally supportive of the measures. The Public Health Agency is supportive but advocates minimum alcohol pricing, and QUB is generally supportive of the measures.

1362. The Chairperson: That is a summary of the responses that we have had. Is there any additional comment from the Department?

1363. Mr Quinn: We have nothing further to add at this stage.

1364. The Chairperson: Are we happy to indicate our general support for the measures to control irresponsible drinks promotions and to set that out in the Bill report? The report is being produced now in advance of Consideration Stage, when we will see the final detail, but we can probably get a draft that is sort of supportive, although we obviously cannot commit to anything, because we have not seen any detail. Are we happy to do that, and we can then take a more considered view before Consideration Stage?

Members indicated assent.

1365. The Committee Clerk: I hope that the departmental officials will appear before the Committee after the consultation closes on 6 December — hopefully before Consideration Stage, whenever that may be — to brief it again in order to allow members to form a joint Committee view.

1366. The Chairperson: It is an unorthodox way of doing it, but I think that we all understand the circumstances. Given that we are quite supportive of the thrust of the proposals, I do not think we will raise any objections.

1367. Mr F McCann: Last week, I raised the issues of changes in trends of entertainment and the way in which young people choose to entertain themselves. I notice that we have neither sought responses from young people or their representatives nor asked them to have an input into what we are doing. It may not be a bad idea, although it is at a late stage, to try to ascertain their opinion.

1368. Mr Quinn: As part of the consultation, we will contact all the groups representing young people, such as the Children’s Commissioner and similar organisations. I do not have a list of who will be consulted, but I can certainly provide that list.

1369. Mr F McCann: The Commissioner for Children and Young People represents a fairly high-level opinion, but there are thousands of young people out there who choose to entertain themselves differently from the way in which older people do, so it might not be a bad idea to contact them.

1370. The Chairperson: I am sure the Department will take that point on board. If members have nothing else to add, we will reflect our general support for the Department’s initiative in our Bill report, and then take a more detailed view at a later stage before the Bill’s Consideration Stage. Are we happy with that approach?

Members indicated assent.

1371. The Chairperson: I take it that there are no other amendments that we wish to propose to the Bill. Is there any final comment on the Bill from the Department?

1372. Mr Quinn: No.

1373. The Chairperson: This does not complete the clause-by-clause consideration, because we have to return to clause 9. Tom and Liam, thank you very much, and we will see you again. We are nearly there.

18 November 2010

Members present for all or part of the proceedings:
Mr Simon Hamilton (Chairperson)
Ms Carál Ní Chuilín (Deputy Chairperson)
Mr Sydney Anderson
Mrs Mary Bradley
Mr Mickey Brady
Mr Jonathan Craig
Mr Alex Easton
Ms Anna Lo
Mr Fra McCann

1374. The Chairperson (Mr Hamilton): We move to clause-by-clause scrutiny of the Licensing and Registration of Clubs (Amendment) Bill. At its meeting on 16 November, the Committee agreed to return to this today.

Clause 9 (Authorisations for special occasions)

1375. The Chairperson: Clause 9 is the only clause about which the Committee has yet to determine its view. The clause amends the Registration of Clubs (Northern Ireland) Order 1996 to increase the number of occasions, from 52 to 120 in any year, on which registered clubs may apply to the police for later opening to 1.00 am, or to midnight on a Sunday. A club must give at least seven days’ notice of the event and may, at the police’s discretion, include a number of occasions in one application.

1376. Some members have indicated that they would support an amendment to the clause that would limit the number of special authorisations to 75 a year as opposed to 120. There was support for and opposition to such an amendment. I take it that that remains the case and that no one has had an epiphany and changed their mind over the past couple of days.

1377. Mr F McCann: I propose that the Committee goes for 120 special authorisations.

1378. The Chairperson: Well, the Bill provides for 120 special authorisations. In the absence of any amendments, I will put the clause as drafted to the Committee. Does anybody else want to say anything at this stage? For the benefit of members who were not present on Tuesday, I recap that we debated the number of days to be stipulated in the clause. Jonathan proposed that it should be amended to 75 days, and we discussed that, but, to use an X Factorism, there was a deadlock.

1379. Ms Lo: The Alliance Party is thinking of proposing that it should be 104 days, just to be in the middle. In the case of Jonathan’s amendment failing, we will propose a limit of 104.

1380. The Chairperson: It is like an auction. I feel like David Dickinson without the tan here. [Laughter.] OK, so I will put Jonathan’s amendment. Jonathan, do you want to say anything? He is asleep.

1381. Mr Craig: It is basically as was. 75 days would be a 50% increase, and I honestly think that they would be doing quite well to get that, because it would be damaging to other trades.

1382. Mr F McCann: I understand where Jonathan is coming from. He has made it clear all along that, if he had his way, there would not be any increase at all. Obviously, 75 is a compromise for him. However, we should remember that the initial proposal was to allow 156 applications and that 120 was the compromise between that figure and no increase. That 120 falls somewhere between the maximum sought by the clubs and no increase, so accepting the clause as drafted is a fair compromise.

1383. At the start of this process, there was some confusion in the Committee about the nature of clubs. We got confused with the likes of nightclubs and the trouble associated with them. I declare an interest as a member of the Irish National Foresters and of Cumman na Méirleach on the Andersonstown Road.

1384. Mr S Anderson: It is still there.

1385. Mr F McCann: I have nine membership cards.

1386. The Chairperson: Was everyone in the Felons Club the other evening a member?

1387. Mr F McCann: I signed them all in.

1388. The evidence to the Committee clarified the clear difference that there is between a nightclub and a registered club. Everyone from whom we took evidence, probably with the exception of people from the pub trade and hoteliers, said that, in general, clubs run a good show and that there is no trouble or hassle. If we were to limit the number of special authorisations to 75 a year, we would be near enough penalising clubs because of what happens at other institutions.

1389. The Chairperson: Jonathan can speak for himself, but the thrust behind the idea is to increase it to acknowledge that there is a demand for some clubs to be open a bit more. It is not a matter of taking a pub’s side or a club’s side but of trying to be a bit flexible. If we were to set the limit at 75 days or, as Anna suggested, 104 days and that proved to be OK in that there was not any additional hassle or concern, the limit could always be increased at a later stage if there was continued demand for it.

1390. We all know where we are. We have thrashed the issue out, and opinions are pretty firm. I will put Jonathan’s amendment to the Committee.

Question proposed:

That the Committee recommend to the Assembly that the clause be amended as follows: In page 18, line 42, replace “120" with “75". — [Mr Craig.]

Question put.

The Committee divided: Ayes 4; Noes 4.

AYES

Mr S Anderson, Mr Craig, Mr Easton, Mr Hamilton.

NOES

Mrs M Bradley, Mr Brady, Mr F McCann, Ms Ní Chuilín.

Question accordingly negatived.

1391. The Chairperson: Anna Lo abstained. Do you want to put an amendment?

1392. Ms Lo: I propose a limit of 104 days. Last Monday, I talked to my colleagues. We thought that an increase to 120 days was excessive and that Jonathan’s amendment for 75 days was reasonable. The thinking was that, if his amendment were to fail, we would propose a limit of 104 days.

1393. The Chairperson: Of course, Jonathan and other members still have the right to table an amendment at Consideration Stage and to make an argument on the Floor of the House for a limit of 75 days. The Committee can take a position on Anna’s amendment now. You are effectively arguing that up to two special authorisations a week be allowed.

1394. Ms Lo: Yes, for a Friday and a Saturday.

1395. Mr Craig: I accept Anna’s argument. I do not want to be accused of being unreasonable, and I see the logic behind her amendment. I think that a limit of 120 days sends out the wrong message, and, for that reason alone, I will back Anna’s amendment.

1396. The Chairperson: There is more logic to it being 104 days than 120 days in that it is arrived at by multiplying the 52 weeks of the year by two.

1397. Mr S Anderson: We need to get the right balance, and I have always come from the perspective of business so as not to impact greatly on business. Especially in these economic times, we need to take that aspect into account.

1398. The Chairperson: I will put it to a vote.

Question proposed:

That the Committee recommend to the Assembly that the clause be amended as follows: In page 18, line 42, replace “120" with “104". — [Ms Lo.]

Question put.

The Committee divided: Ayes 5; Noes 4.

AYES

Mr S Anderson, Mr Craig, Mr Easton, Mr Hamilton, Ms Lo.

NOES

Mrs M Bradley, Mr Brady, Mr F McCann, Ms Ní Chuilín.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Question, That the Committee is content with the clause, subject to the Committee’s proposed amendment, put and agreed to.

Clause 9, subject to the Committee’s proposed amendment, agreed to.

Long title agreed to.

1399. The Chairperson: That concludes the clause-by-clause scrutiny. I thank the Committee for its diligence. I also thank everybody who gave evidence and the officials from the Department for being here throughout the process. Their help and support has been very much appreciated.

Appendix 3

Written Submissions

List of written submissions

Antrim Borough Council

Belfast City Council

British Retail Consortium

Caleb Foundation

Carrickfergus Borough Council

Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure

Department for Enterprise, Trade and Investment

Department of Justice

Dungannon and South Tyrone Borough Council

Golfing Union of Ireland

Law Society

Northern Ireland Drinks Industry Group

Northern Ireland Federation of Clubs

Northern Ireland Hotels Federation

Northern Ireland Judicial Appointments Commission

Northern Ireland Local Government Association

Northern Ireland Sports Forum

Police Service of Northern Ireland

Public Health Agency

Pubs of Ulster

Queens University Belfast

Sport Northern Ireland

The Wine and Spirit Trade Association

Ulster GAA

Antrim Borough Council
27 July 2010

Our Ref: DMcC/BD/KS

27 July 2010

Mr P McCallion
Committee Clerk
Committee for Social Development
Room 412, Parliament Buildings
Ballymiscaw
Belfast
BT4 3XX

By email: committee.socialdevelopment@niassembly.gov.uk
peter.mccallion@niassembly.gov.uk

Dear Mr McCallion

Licensing and Registration of Clubs (Amendment) Bill

In response to your letter dated 2 June 2010 I write to submit Council’s response to the above Consultation, the deadline having been extended to accommodate Councils’ committee structures, and trust the attached response as agreed by the Public Services Committee on 22 July 2010 will be given due consideration.

I should be grateful if you would acknowledge receipt and thank you for the opportunity to participate in the consultation exercise.

Yours sincerely

David McCammick
Chief Executive
Enc

Antrim Borough Council, Chief Executive: David McCammick
Antrim Civic Centre, 50 Stiles Way, Antrim, BT41 2UB

T: 028 9446 3113
F: 028 9448 1324
Textphone: 028 9448 1343

E: corporate@antrim.gov.uk
W: www.antrim.gov.uk

Director of Corporate Services Director of Development and Leisure
Catherine McFarland Geraldine Girvan

Council welcomes the opportunity to submit written evidence for consideration at the Committee Stage of the Licensing and Registration of Clubs (Amendment) Bill. Members wish to highlight concerns as to the Policing of the Scheme including having to reassign Police to remove late licences or close premises. Comments on the key provision area as follows:

Closure Provisions:

Council welcomes the introduction of this provision for closure powers and recommends that the level of fine of £1,000 introduced for knowingly keeping any licensed premises open during a period of a closure order should be increased to reflect the equivalent penalties imposed in England and Wales.

Penalty Points Scheme:

Council welcomes the introduction of a penalty points system.

Proof-of-Age Scheme:

Council welcomes the introduction of this scheme as it will assist in combating the problem of underage drinking. It is also requested that consideration be given to the introduction of a scheme that would make it ‘mandatory’ for patrons of licensed premises to produce ID if requested before they enter. If ID is not produced and there is suspected under-age then entry would be refused on those grounds.

Limited Liability Partnerships:

Council has no comment on this provision.

Accounts of Registered Clubs:

Council has no comment on this provision.

Authorisations for Special Occasions:

Council requests that where a late licence is applied for, the police shall notify the Council of the application to enable it in terms of discharging its statutory duties. It was felt that a return to pre-1997 legislation extending opening hours to 11.30pm would distinguish Public Houses from Clubs. Concern was expressed on how effectively the scheme extension from 52-120 licences per year could be policed.

Belfast City Council Email - 18 June 2010

The attached response to the Licensing and Registration of Clubs (Amendment) Bill was agreed by Belfast City Council’s Licensing Committee at its meeting on 16th June.

The response is subject to ratification by the Council at its meeting on 1st July. I will advise you shortly thereafter of any amendments to the document arising from that meeting.

Please contact Mrs Siobhan Toland, Head of Environmental Health, should you require clarification on any aspect of the response.

Her telephone number is 028 90320202 extension 3281.

Henry Downey
Democratic Services Officer

Chief Executive’s Department
Room G38,
City Hall,
Belfast
BT1 5GS

downeyh@belfastcity.gov.uk
Tel: 02890 270550 / 02890 320202 ext 6311

www.belfastcity.gov.uk

Belfast City Council

Licensing and Registration of Clubs (Amendment) Bill

Belfast City Council welcomes the opportunity to submit written evidence for consideration at the Committee Stage of the Licensing and Registration of Clubs (Amendment) Bill.

The Council’s responses to the key provisions of the Bill are as follows:

Closure Provisions

The Council welcomes the introduction of this provision for closure powers. The Council does have powers under entertainments licensing legislation to suspend an entertainments licence when there is a serious threat of public disorder. However we have no power for the immediate closure of premises.

Presently, if the Council wants to effect the closure of premises it has to seek an injunction to prevent the operation of licensed premises. Therefore it is our view that this proposed provision would introduce a more immediate and effective measure for dealing with matters of disorder relating to licensed premises that require closure.

The Council also considers there needs to be clarity as to whether the power for closure relates to disorder or nuisance which emanates from premises or if it extends to the vicinity of premises. Experience in relation to entertainments licensing shows that many objections relate to the nuisance and disorder caused by patron dispersal. If this was to be the case, it would then reflect the licensing system currently in place in England and Wales.

It is our opinion that the level of fine of £1,000 introduced for knowingly keeping any licensed premises open during a period of a closure order should be increased to ensure it is an effective deterrent and to reflect the equivalent levels imposed in England and Wales. Generally the Council welcomes the introduction of this power if it augments and strengthens the range of effective enforcement options which can employed by the Police in dealing with problem premises.

The Council would like to ensure that the protocols regarding these provisions are sufficient to allow the concerns of local communities/ residents, such as those within the Holylands and wider University area, to have an input on this and be able to liaise with local Police regarding their concerns. Closure provisions to ‘close nuisance premises’ was highlighted as a key action within the Holyland Action plan, developed following a Stakeholder Forum convened by the Minister for Employment and Learning, Sir Reg Empey MLA on 7th May 2009. This action has been carried through to the current Holyland Implementation Plan which is being taken forward by the Holyland Interagency Group, led by Belfast City Council.

Further detailed comments relating to specific clauses of Article 69 ‘Closure of licensed premises’ are enclosed.

Penalty Points Scheme

The Council welcomes the introduction of a penalty points system. This scheme may be useful in assisting the Council in making decisions relating to applications for entertainments licences for particular premises. The points against a premises is a matter which could be material to the Council in terms of making a decision on a premises entertainments licence application.

Proof-of-Age Scheme

The Council welcomes the introduction of this scheme as it will assist in combating the problem of underage drinking.

Presently there are a number of voluntary ID schemes across Northern Ireland, some of which have been successful and others have failed. The failure of many schemes may be as a result of the ‘voluntary’ element with the schemes. The Council is recommended to request that consideration be given to the introduction of a scheme that would make it ‘mandatory’ for patrons of licensed premises to produce ID if requested before they enter. If ID is not produced and there is suspected under-age then entry would be refused on those grounds.

Limited Liability Partnerships

The Council has no comment on this provision.

Accounts of Registered Clubs

The Council has no comment on this provision.

Authorisations for Special Occasions

The Council has concerns with the increase in the number of late licences which can be granted and the potential this may pose for increased nuisance, particularly in residential areas. The Council would also like it to be noted that should late licences be granted more frequently there will be a resource implication for the Council in terms of monitoring the premises if an entertainments licence is in place.

The anomaly in the Local Government Miscellaneous Provisions NI Order 1985 which permits the provision of entertainment to the latest hour that alcohol is permitted to be sold needs to be considered in terms of this increase in late licences. In effect this increase in late licences may exacerbate problems and monitoring requirements where there are currently restrictions on entertainments arising from complaints by local residents.

In this regard the Council would therefore request that where a late licence is applied for then the police notify the Council of the application to enable it in terms of discharging its statutory duties.

By increasing the number of late licenses there is provision to increase drinking duration time with associated potential health and public order issues. This could potentially lead to noise nuisance should patrons disperse in a rowdy fashion, causing sleep disturbance to nearby residents. Such disturbance is particularly difficult to control once patrons have exited the premises and especially if intoxicated they often have little consideration for any nearby residents who are trying to sleep. There may also be additional disturbance by related taxi pick ups - especially where drivers use their horns to alert customers.

The Council, however, notes and welcomes that this provision is a step back from the previous proposal to allow private members clubs to have the unfettered ability to operate late licences 7 nights a week if they so wished.

The Council’s full written submission is attached and a Council officer would be prepared to present evidence orally, if required by the Committee.

Council Response

Draft Licensing & Registration of Clubs (Amendment) Bill
Part 1 Licensing ‘Closure of Licensed Premises’

Article 69A (1) - Order to close premises for 24 hours

Under the terms of the draft Bill, it is an offence to knowingly keep a licensed premises open which is subject to a closing order. This is a serious offence in that it involves a person taking action which they know to be a breach of a Court Order. Despite the serious nature of this offence, the maximum penalty is only level 3 (£1,000). Belfast City Council would have concerns that this is not a sufficiently high enough penalty to act as an effective deterrent. By way of comparison, this is the same level of fine as the offence of failing to display a notice relating to age and the offences concerned with selling alcohol to a person under 18.

Article 69B (1) - Closure orders for identified licensed premises

The GB equivalent of this provision (Sec. 161 of the Licensing Act 2003) provides that the police can make a closure order where there is disorder or where the officer believes there is likely to be disorder. The power to close premises where there is likely to be disorder is granted to the Court but not the police. This is in contrast to the GB legislation which allows both police and the Court to take action if there is likely to be imminent disorder. It would seem perverse that the police are not granted the power to close premises where there is an imminent risk but must instead wait until there is actual disorder before they can act. This obviously gives rise to a real risk to public safety and it would therefore seem prudent to allow police to take a proactive approach so as to prevent disorder from actually taking place.

In addition, there is also provision for a closure order where a public nuisance is being caused by noise coming from the premises and the closure is necessary to prevent that nuisance. There is no equivalent provision in the draft Bill.

Article 69B (6) - penalty for opening premises in contravention of a closure order

This offence is in relation to a closure order made by police. In GB, the maximum penalty for this offence is 3 months imprisonment and/or a fine up to £20,000. In the draft NI Bill, the maximum penalty is £5,000. It is difficult to understand why the penalty is so much less in NI than it is in GB.

Article 69C - Extension of Closure Order made by police

Again, this provision does not allow the police to take into consideration issues around public nuisance or those where there is an imminent risk of public disorder.

Article 69E - Application to court of summary jurisdiction for a closure order

Under the provisions of this Article when the police make a closure order they must, as soon as reasonably practicable, apply to the Magistrates Court to consider the order and any potential extension of same. Under the GB equivalent provision (Sec. 164); the police must also notify the relevant local authority of that application. Obviously there could be implications in terms of entertainment licensing should a closure order be made.

Article 69F - Consideration of closure order by Magistrates Court

This Article details the options available to the Court when considering whether to make a closure order. Worryingly, this only allows the Court to either revoke the order or order the premises to remain closed for a period not exceeding 28 days. This again is in contrast to the GB provision (Sec. 165 (2)), which provides two further alternatives to the Court. These are that the premises remain closed subject to certain exceptions, or that it would remain closed until certain conditions are satisfied. It is difficult to envisage why these additional options are not provided for in the draft Bill, as they would allow the Court to impose some conditions on premises so as to ensure public safety without closing the premises and interfering with the licensees Convention rights in so doing.

Again, the penalty for permitting premises to be open in contravention of a closure order made by the court is £5,000. However, the maximum GB penalty is 3 months imprisonment and/or £20,000 fine.

Article 69J – Interpretation of Part 4A

This defines when premises should be considered to be open.

This states that premises are open when a certain class of person enters and consumes, buys or is otherwise supplied with food or intoxicating liquor. It does not however, extend the definition to premises at which entertainment is being provided. Given that entertainment frequently attracts large crowds, which can lead to public safety issues; it would seem prudent to extend the definition to include such premises. The draft Bill is again in contrast to the GB legislation which is extended to cover premises used for the purposes of entertainment.

Belfast City Council - Further information following 18 June 2010 Email

I refer to an email sent by Mr. Henry Downey on 18th June regarding a response to the above-mentioned consultation document which was agreed by the Council’s Licensing Committee on 16th June.

That decision was ratified by the Council at its meeting last night, therefore there are no amendments to the document.

Again, should you require any clarification on any aspect of the response, please contact Mrs Siobhan Toland, Head of Environmental Health on 9032 0202 ext. 3281.

Jim Hanna
Senior Committee Administrator

Chief Executive’s Department,
Belfast City Council,
Room G39,
Ground Floor,
City Hall
Belfast BT1 5GS

hannajim@belfastcity.gov.uk
Tel: 028 9032 0202 extension 6313

Belfast City Council - Health and Environmental Services Department

British Retail Consortium

BRC Response to the Committee for Social Development consideration of amendments to the Licensing and Registration of Clubs (Amendment) Bill

Introduction

The British Retail Consortium (BRC) is the trade association for retailers in the UK. Our membership includes a number of retailers who sell alcohol in Northern Ireland, including the major supermarket chains. In total our members are responsible for over 90% of grocery sales in the UK.

Our members take their responsibility for the sale of alcohol extremely seriously, but it is only one part of their overall sales. Alcohol typically makes up 10% of the overall turnover of a supermarket. Consumers typically buy alcohol as part of their grocery shopping, our members estimate only 1% of sales from their stores are only for alcohol.

We fully understand the public concern regarding excessive consumption of alcohol and their related problems. Our members have been at the forefront of activities to help change the cultural approach to alcohol. In particular, with the Wine and Spirits Trade Association (WSTA) we formed the Retail of Alcohol Standards Group (RASG) which has had a major impact in tackling under age sales. RASG membership covers the vast majority of off licence sellers and using common approaches to challenge under age drinking through the challenge 25 approach and sharing best practice has successfully tackled the problem.

Our main concern with the proposal is the way in which they may impact on our members’ businesses. Our members sell alcohol in a completely different way to clubs, the key point being it is not for consumption on the premises. It is clearly easy to link disorder to a club or pub but clearly unfair to penalise a shop that is selling responsibly to customers who may live some distance from it as there is general disorder in the area. There are, of course, already powers to review licences and seek closure of them within existing licensing legislation. We are also concerned that the provisions on proof of age do not conflict with the extremely successful approach retailers have taken through RASG, particularly the common approach of challenge 25.

Below are our specific comments on the clauses that appear to affect our members, but our suggestion would be to give more guidance on how these provisions might be applied to ensure responsible retailers with no connection to alcohol related problems are inadvertently caught by them.

Closure Provisions

The closure provisions would affect all premises both on and off. As explained above our members do not sell alcohol for consumption on their premises and cannot be blamed for disorder in an area which could be on another licensed premises or nothing to do with their alcohol sales. Our members operate to the highest level in their premises but cannot be penalised for wider social problems unconnected to their business.

We note the provisions that have been proposed in terms of a review by a magistrates court as soon as practicable but preventing alcohol sales even for 24 hours in a busy period would have a significant impact on our businesses. Consumers expect to be able to buy alcohol when they shop in a supermarket. Although it is only 10% or less of overall sales alcohol is bought largely as part of the weekly shop and if the licence is suspended it is likely customers will take away their whole shop for that week. That would mean our members being penalised not only by a loss of alcohol sales but potentially wider grocery sales, a major penalty for disorder, which as explained above they are not responsible.

We would suggest the proposed amendment is clarified to make it clear the closure provisions only apply to on licences where there is a proven link with disorder. .

Endorsement of Licences

We are concerned that the endorsement of licences and applying sanctions to the licence itself would be disproportionate to our members.

It is unfair to penalise a whole store where alcohol sales are only a proportion of its business for the actions of an individual. A suspension for 3 months could result in the closure of the whole store with the loss of access to a grocery store for customers and the loss of jobs for hundreds of employees.

Our members are not opposing targeted action to correct individual failures but need a failsafe method in terms of communicating that to know if there is a problem so they can take immediate action. Whilst licensing is a local issue, our companies operate throughout the UK from central headquarters and it is important they are made aware of problems that affect their businesses.

Proof of Age Controls

We recognise the concern to prevent sales to underage persons. As a sector we have been at the forefront of action to do this and through RASG have been extremely successful in changing the culture amongst young people where they now expect to be challenged for ID and will carry it with them when they wish to purchase alcohol.

We want to ensure that any new provisions do not compromise the standard messages we have successfully communicated to young people around challenge 25. Challenge 25 is a mechanism for ensuring some headroom for staff above the legal age of 18 to improve problems with age recognition. The posters for challenge 25 are a standard format for all members of RASG and are displayed inside and outside thousands of off licence premises throughout the UK. It is the common message that has changed the culture for young people who want to purchase alcohol. We want to ensure that any steps the Assembly takes to highlight the need for ID do not undermine the Challenge 25 message.

Caleb Foundation Response the Licensing and Registration of Clubs (Amendment) Bill

The Caleb Foundation welcomes the opportunity to consider and comment, albeit very briefly, on this Bill.

We remain concerned about the negative impact of alcohol on society and family life, but we are encouraged that, in general terms, the Bill seems to chart a more sensible way forward than that envisaged in the consultation exercise conducted in 2005.

We welcome the introduction of new powers for the PSNI and the courts (in clauses 1 and 5), a penalty points system (clauses 2 and 6) and the statutory proof of age scheme (clauses 3 and 7).

Although we feel that the main problem in relation to alcohol is its easy availability for purchase at a low price from various retailers, it is incumbent upon all to do whatever they can to control the sale of alcohol. We are therefore concerned about the proposals in clause 9 to increase the number of late licences for registered clubs from 52 to 120 per year. We further note that a number of occasions may be included on the one application. Would it therefore be possible for a club owner, in one application, to apply, say, to remain open until midnight on every Sunday in a particular year? We would favour tighter controls and greater clarity in this area.

We will watch the progress of this legislation through the Assembly, and its subsequent implementation and enforcement, with interest. We also note that it is part of a broader process of reform.

Robert McEvoy,
Secretary
The Caleb Foundation,
1 July 2010

Carrickfergus Borough Council

Department of Culture, Arts & Leisure

Issued on Behalf of DCAL Assembly Section-

Please record a ‘Nil Return’ from Department of Culture, Arts & Leisure re your letter of 4 June 2010 - Licensing and Registration of Clubs (Amendment) Bill.

Regards

Sandra McCaige
DCAL Assembly Section
Causeway Exchange
1-7 Bedford Street
BELFAST
BT2 7EG
0289051514 (75154)
assembly@dcalni.gov.uk

Department for Enterprise, Trade and Investment

Committee for Enterprise, Trade & Investment
Room 424
Parliament Buildings

Tel: +44 (0)28 90522 1230
Fax: +44 (0) 28 9052 1355

To: Peter McCallion
Clerk to the Committee for Social Development

From: Jim McManus
Clerk to the Committee for Enterprise, Trade & Investment

Date: 2 July 2010

Subject: Licensing and Registration of Clubs (Amendment) Bill

At its meeting on the 1 July, the Committee for Enterprise, Trade & Investment considered a letter from the Department to the Committee for Social Development regarding DSD’s Licensing and Registration of Clubs (Amendment) Bill.

I attach the letter which members agreed to forward to your Committee for information.

Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions.

Mr Peter McCallion
Clerk
Social Development Committee
Room 412
Parliament Buildings
Ballymiscaw
BELFAST BT4 3XX 30 June 2010

Dear Peter

Licensing and Registration of Clubs (Amendment) Bill –
Committee Stage

Thank you for your letters of 3rd and 4th June 2010 respectively seeking DETI and NITB comments on the above bill.

Please note that neither DETI nor NITB have any comments to make on the Bill.

However, I can advise that since the Bill was introduced in the Assembly the DETI Minister has received letters from both the Federation of the Retail Licensed Trade (now rebranded “Pubs of Ulster") and the Northern Ireland Hotels Federation. These letters raise those organisations concerns about the proposal in the Bill to increase the number of late licences that Clubs can apply for over the course of a year. I understand that both organisations wish to provide evidence on the Bill and in particular on this issue, to the Social Development Committee. Both DETI and NITB recognise the important contribution that the hotels and local pubs make to Northern Ireland Tourism. It would be appreciated if the Committee would agree to hear the concerns of the organisations on behalf of their members.

I have copied this letter for information to the DSD Private Office and the ETI Committee Clerk.

Yours Sincerely

David McCune

DAVID MCCUNE
DETI Assembly Liaison Officer
Tel: (028) 90529422
Email: david.mccune@detini.gov.uk

DETI Minister Letter 26 November 2010

Department of Justice

Minister’s Office
Block B, Castle Buildings
Ballymiscaw
Belfast
BT4 3SG

Tel: 028 90522704
Fax: 028 90528434
Teletext: 028 90527668
private.office@dojni.x.gsi.gov.uk

Your ref:
Our ref: SUB/698/2010

Peter McCallion
Committee Clerk
Social Development Committee
Room 412
Parliament Buildings
Ballymiscaw
Belfast
BT4 3XX

August 2010

Licensing and Registration of Clubs (Amendment) Bill

Thank you for your letter of 4th June seeking comments on the Licensing and Registration of Clubs (Amendment) Bill that was introduced to the Assembly on 17 May 2010. In your letter you outlined a number of provisions within the Bill and you asked the Department to submit written evidence that could be considered at the Committee Stage.

The Department of Justice is working with a range of organisations, including DHSSPS to reduce the level of underage drinking in Northern Ireland. There is public concern about the ability of young people under the legal age to secure alcohol. Consumption of alcohol may lead to anti-social behaviour within communities and tackling this issue is a key priority target for this Department.

Overall the DOJ supports the general policy approach associated with the details included in this Bill. For example, the Department welcomes the proposal to introduce a statutory proof of age scheme, with specific acceptable documents outlined, as this measure will assist with other proposals and activities to tackle the issue of young people’s access to alcohol. This legislation will impose responsibilities on all alcohol retailers to ensure that they do not sell any alcohol to an underage person. These are welcomed and, together with the introduction of test purchasing by the PSNI, will be significant contributors to reducing the sales of alcohol to those underage.

This Bill also proposes a penalty point system that could lead to premises losing their licence for a period between one week and three months. This should prove to be an effective deterrent to those alcohol retailers who are currently breaching Licensing laws.

As highlighted above, the DOJ supports these proposals. That said, we are aware of PSNI concerns that we understand may already have been brought to the attention of DSD. PSNI will pursue their concerns in the normal way through a written submission and oral evidence at Committee stage. The Department is awaiting the outcome of those discussions.

Your letter states that the DOJ will issue guidance on how these powers are to be implemented by the PSNI. The version of the legislation sent with the letter does not make any reference to the preparation and issuing of guidance, but it is understood that DOJ and DSD officials have agreed that DSD will prepare such guidance for DOJ to issue.

If you have any queries on the content of this response, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Jane Holmes
Departmental Assembly Liaison Officer

Dungannon & South Tyrone Borough Council

Northern Ireland Assembly
Committee for Social Development
Room 412
Parliament Buildings
Ballymiscaw
BELFAST
BT4 3XX

22 June 2010

Licensing and Registration of Clubs (Amendment) Bill

I am writing in response to your letter of 2 June, inviting responses to the above Bill by 2 July 2010.

Unfortunately, due to the structure of our committee/ council reporting process this timescale is insufficient for this council to provide a corporate response. Therefore, the views expressed below are representative of the views of the Environmental Health division only:

Closure Orders

It is agreed that this would be a useful tool in dealing with problematic licensed premises. Many of the complaints received by this division concerning licensed premises relate to anti- social behaviour and noise. It is therefore suggested that in any guidance in relation to closure orders that a consultation with local councils is included, who will be able to provide invaluable evidence in relation to complaints about specific premises. Likewise, information on closure orders should be filtered back to councils as such information could have a bearing on the decision making process in relation to, for example, issuing an Entertainment Licence. Clarification on how quick such a process of obtaining such an order would, however, be required.

Penalty Points Scheme

At the initial stage of reviewing liquor licensing in Northern Ireland this council agreed that penalty points would be a successful way of enforcing the legislation whilst diverting ‘less serious’ offences from the court system. Council expressed concerns at the time about the length of validity of penalty points and that there should be a limit on number of points that could be obtained before procedures to suspend the licence were instigated. These matters appear to have been addressed in the Bill.

Proof of age scheme

It is the view of this division that all means necessary are implemented to ensure that young people are protected from the harms that alcohol may produce such as the negative effects on physical, sexual and mental health and well being, and anti social behaviour.

The recent ban on smoking in public places has been successfully implemented across the province, which also requires mandatory displaying of certain signage – it is therefore envisaged that a high compliance rate for this requirement will be achieved (currently officers enforcing this requirement carry signage with them that ‘offenders’ are made erect before the officer leaves the premises – simple and effective).

Council Licensing officers have been championing proof of age schemes in relation to the sale of alcohol for some time now and it is welcomed that many premises involved in sale of alcohol for consumption off the premises have implemented such schemes. Therefore, it is agreed that publicans have an important role to play in preventing under age sales of alcohol in their premises – if they are able to discharge their liability by ensuring that young people prove their age this should encourage licensees to adopt policies that persons on their premises must provide proof of age before being allowed entry, let alone approach the bar. It is suggested that rigorous enforcement in relation to under age sales is undertaken to drive home the message to both licensees and young people that irresponsible drinking/ sale of alcohol will not be acceptable.

There are no comments on the other proposed amendments introduced by this Bill.

Yours sincerely

Rodney Gillis
Senior Licensing Officer

Golfing Union of Ireland

2 July 2010

Department for Social Development Committee
Room 412
Parliament Buildings
Stormont Estate
BELFAST
BT4 3XX
Email - committee.socialdevelopment@niassembly.gov.uk

Dear Sir/Madam

Re; Golfing Union of Ireland (Ulster Branch) Submission to DSD Committee

The following is the submission from the Golfing Union of Ireland (Ulster Branch) to the Department for Social Development Committee on the Licensing and Registration of Clubs (Amendment) Bill.

The Golfing Union of Ireland is the oldest Golfing Union in the world having been formed in 1891; the Golfing Union of Ireland (Ulster Branch) was founded at a meeting in the Grand Central Hotel Belfast on 10th January 1913.

The Ulster Branch currently represents 124 Golf Clubs in the Province (inc Cavan, Monaghan & Donegal) who in turn have over 40,000 male playing members.

Overview

In the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum issued by the Department of Social Development relating to the proposed legislation, it is interesting to note that 3 options were considered following restoration of the Assembly.

The first states the following;

Option 1 - Do nothing. This would leave government open to criticism that not enough is being done to combat the growing problems of breaches of licensing legislation, alcohol-related harm and public disorder. It would not help deter underage would-be drinkers from seeking to break the law or help licensees and registered clubs avoid inadvertently doing so. It would continue to place an unnecessary accounting burden on registered clubs, many of which are already coming under pressure from changing social and economic circumstances.

The question we would ask is what problems relating to breaches of licensing legislation, alcohol-related harm and public disorder have been identified as we have no knowledge or record of any such instances at any Golf Club within the province.

If the legislation is aimed at other sectors in particular the availability of low cost alcohol from supermarkets, off-sales and/or anti-social behaviour, it should not penalise those sectors which to date have shown that they do not contribute to the behaviour set out in this document.

The Golfing Union of Ireland (Ulster Branch) supports the concerns expressed by the Federation of Clubs and the N.I. Sports Forum on the proposed legislation and wishes to highlight the following matters which specifically relate to Golf.

Proof of Age Scheme;

The Golfing Union of Ireland (Ulster Branch) runs a number of Championships for Elite Golfers within various age categories but unlike the English, Scottish and Welsh Golfing Unions, run a number of inter-club competitions at Provincial and All Ireland level for golfers of all ages and handicap abilities.

It is the latter, in particular, that we wish to draw to the attention of the Committee when considering the proposed changes in the Registration of Clubs Bill especially those competitions which concentrate on Boys under 18 years of age.

In 1973 John Frazer of Balmoral Golf Club, a long time friend of Fred Daly, presented a trophy to the Ulster Branch to promote Inter-Club Junior Golf. This became known as the Fred Daly Trophy and is played between boys under 18 years of age representing their clubs in teams of seven. This trophy was competed for up until 1993 when, on the proposal of the Ulster Branch, the Trophy became an All Ireland Competition, played on the same basis in all 4 provinces.

Matches in this and the other inter club competitions are played from April to September and in the summer months matches can start as late as 4 or 5pm. The result of this means that boys from 11 to 18 (team members, caddies + supporters) will be on club premises well after that currently permitted by law, yet for a legitimate and reasonable cause. The legislation should not penalise clubs for their attendance in such circumstances.

Golfers who now represent Ireland & Ulster on the world stage such as Darren Clarke, Graeme McDowell and Rory McIlroy have all represented their own clubs in these competitions and this has been a fundamental part of their development in the game.

In addition to the Fred Daly Trophy / Fred Daly Plate, other competition are run on a county basis by various groups in the Province and by individual clubs themselves, therefore the Golfing Union of Ireland (Ulster Branch) supports the call for the extension of the hours that a juvenile can be on club premises from 9pm to 11pm.

Closure Provisions

The governance of almost every golf club in the province relies heavily on the time and effort of volunteers who are the elected members of the club – the day to day management of each club is either carried out by a paid employee or a volunteer elected to the role of Honorary Secretary. In the current economic climate the number of clubs running solely with volunteers has increased and therefore the potential for a technical breech in the law has increased regardless of the good intent shown by those who receive no remuneration for their work in the club

Whilst the introduction of penalty points may seem to be the answer, to allocate points for what may just be a technical breech where every effort is being made by the club to comply with the law is a step backwards, especially where no discretion is given to the residing magistrate in this regard.

In addition the threshold for the suspension of a clubs licence after 2 convictions in a 3 year period is too low in all of the circumstances outlined above, especially once again where any discretion under Article 44 (2) has been abolished.

Authorisations for Special Occasions

Clubs are run as not for profit organisations with income from all sources used to maintain and improve the playing facilities which are available for club members and temporary members (when paying a green fee to play the course) alike. This was ably supported by Sport NI in its recent capital funding programme aimed at improving sporting facilities which was and still is one of its key objectives.

When looking closely at the accounts of almost every club in the Province it is clear that income is derived from 3 main sources namely; Membership Subscriptions, Temporary Member Green Fees and Bar.

In a typical case this would be split as follows;

Membership Subscriptions 50%
Bar 25%
Temporary Members Green Fees 15%
Other 10%

You will note from these figures that the social element of the club is a fundamental part of the well being of the club itself, without which its very existence would be in question.

The Golfing Union of Ireland has seen a 5.35% drop in its membership across the Island of Ireland in the year 2008 to 2009 this was reflected in Ulster with as 5.22% reduction for the same period. The most dramatic reduction for the same period was found in Connacht which experienced a 12.58% reduction in its playing members. This dramatic change across the whole of Ireland is having an effect at club level with many clubs looking to attract new members in order to just stay in business.

In these circumstances clubs need the opportunity to maximise income from all sources and therefore the Golfing Union of Ireland (Ulster Branch) supported the original changes to the legislation which offered a late licence to 2am but are happy to support the Federation of Clubs request that the number of late licences to 1am be increased to 156.

We would highlight the fact that private members clubs are that, private members clubs and are not in direct competition with other types of licensed premises, which can advertise and then rely on trade from any member of the general public.

Summary

We thank the committee for the opportunity to express our views on this legislation and would welcome the chance to address the committee either separately or with others before a final decision is reached on this bill

Kevin Stevens
General Secretary

The Law Society

Our Ref:
Your Ref: LRC/10/LRCO

22/07/10

Peter McCallion
Clerk
Room 412
Parliament Buildings
Ballymiscaw
Belfast
BT4 3XX

Dear

Re: Licensing and Registration of Clubs (Amendment) Bill:

I refer to your correspondence regarding the Committee stage on the Licensing and Registrations of Clubs (Amendment) Bill. The Society welcomes the opportunity to assist the Committee and has a number of comments to make in relation to the proposed Bill.

The Law Society of Northern Ireland (“the Society") is the regulatory and professional body for solicitors in Northern Ireland and is invested with statutory functions in relation to solicitors (primarily under the Solicitors (NI) Order 1976, as amended).

The Society responds to a wide range of consultations relating to policy and law reform proposals. Solicitors are at the interface between the public and the justice system and, as a result, the Society is uniquely placed to comment authoritatively on law reform proposals and their practical implications for solicitors’ clients, who are the general public.

The Society does not wish to make any comments in relation to the proposed penalty points systems for licensed premises and clubs in general. However, the Society considers that the system should afford the court sufficient discretion to determine whether or not it is appropriate to impose penalty points. There may be exceptional occasions where penalty points should not be awarded due to the particular circumstances of the offence or offences, the Bill should reflect this.

At section 2 of the Bill proposals for the inclusion of a penalty points system within the Licensing Order (NI) 1996 are made. The Society suggests that after the words “attributed to the offence" at Article 71B(2)(c) that the words “unless for special reasons the court thinks fit not to do so" be inserted. The Society also suggests that these words be inserted following the words “on the licence" at Articles 71(B)(3) and 71(B)(4).

At section 6 of the Bill similar proposals are made to amend the Registration of Clubs (Northern Ireland) Order 1996. The Society suggest that after the words “attributed to the offence" at Article 44(2)(c) that the words “unless for special reasons the court thinks fit not to do so" be inserted. The Society also suggests that these words be inserted following the words “on the certificate of registration" at Articles 44(2A) and 44(2B).

The Society notes the proposal that Article 26 of the 1996 Clubs Order be amended to increase the current provision of 52 special occasions upon which a club may seek authorization to supply intoxicating liquor after normal drinking hours to 120. The Society notes that the legislative framework which provides protection to both those visiting clubs selling liquor and members of the public living in close proximity to clubs selling liquor may be considered to provide a lower levels of protection than the comparable legislative framework governing licensed premises currently provides. This is an issue the Committee will wish to investigate.

When reviewing further legislation or issues, please do not hesitate to contact the Society.

Yours sincerely

Colin Caughey
Policy & Research Officer

Northern Ireland Drinks Industry Group

Northern Ireland Drinks Industry Group
c/o 33 Meadowlands
Portstewart BT55 7FG

Mr Peter McCallion
Committee Clerk
Committee for Social Development
Room 412
Parliament Buildings
Ballymiscaw
Belfast BT4 3XX

24 Jun 2010

Dear Mr McCallion

Licensing and Registration of Clubs (Amendment) Bill

Thank you for your letter of 2 June 2010 inviting the Northern Ireland Drinks Industry Group (NIDIG) to make a submission on provisions of the Bill. NIDIG represents the largest alcoholic drinks producers and suppliers in Northern Ireland.

Whilst we appreciate the opportunity to respond, we have no comment to make on the Bill at this stage.

Yours sincerely
Nicola Carruthers

Northern Ireland Federation of Clubs

Foreword to Submission – 2nd July 2010

As requested we have prepared and attach our submission to the Minister’s Licensing Bill on behalf of the Private member sports, social and recreational clubs sector.

The Northern Ireland Federation of Clubs represents a sector comprising of almost 600 private member clubs with a respective membership estimated at approximately 257,000 of Northern Ireland’s adult population.

Furthermore, based on Volunteer agency research, 92% of sports clubs in Northern Ireland are led by and are dependent on volunteers. Though these clubs, many of which are governed under the 1996 Clubs (N.I.) Order, they largely delivered the sporting and physical recreation agenda in the province.

Volunteers in sport, represent over 30% of all volunteers, an essential work force which deserves maximum support from government.

At a time when government spending is high on the agenda, sport will have to find other means/sources of financial support and any additional income which can be generated through their related sports/social club will provide essential funding for the future survival of many sports in the province.

We believe that in considering the bill it is essential for the Committee Members to take into account the clear distinction between public houses, hotels & restaurants etc on the one hand, and private member sports, social and recreational clubs on the other. As you will be aware Clubs are governed by a separate legislative regime which recognises their association with sport, recreation and a substantial community dimension underpinned by a large volunteer base to fulfil their commitment to their sporting and recreational ethos and members.

As opposed to this, public houses, hotels and the like are entirely and understandably motivated by profit, running on a purely commercial basis.

While amendments have been introduced to the Clubs Order through this draft bill, which give the perception that the administrative burden on the club sector has been relaxed, this perception is wrong if the amendments are looked at as a whole and the impact of the penalty point system is taken into account. The net result of the bill as currently drafted is one of disadvantage to clubs rather than advantage.

Furthermore, we are aware that lobbying against the increase in late nights available to private member clubs is taking place on the basis that this represents unfair competition to pubs. Clubs are not in competition with pubs or other licensed premises. They are run by and for their members and not for commercial ends. Furthermore they are well run and it has been acknowledged by the N.I. Drinks Industry Group (NIDIG) that the private member clubs sector does not contribute to the problems associated with anti-social behaviour stemming from alcohol misuse and indeed they have just recently offered to support us in our submissions to you. We are also supported by the Sports Council and Sports Ni in this regard.

We feel that the Ministers statement that “this is good news for clubs. Clubs do excellent work in the community particularly with young people and in fostering voluntary effort which often depend on their social club revenues to fund their valuable community activities" is a clear indication of the fundamental importance of clubs in our society and the distinction between clubs and other licensed premises .

However this good news for clubs is overshadowed when one examines the attached submission which reveals what we believe to be a sinister element within the legislative which appears to have deliberately structured the penalty points system in such a way that can see penalty points being awarded for accounts issues only in regard to registered clubs.

In order for the Minister, department officials and members of the DSD Committee to be aware of the genesis of our current submissions, I would request that they consider the first submission presented by the Federation at the outset of the consultation process which outlines the views of Federation members on the wider range of issues affecting Clubs. From this the Committee should appreciate the level of disappointment felt by our members that only a few of our submissions have been taken on board in the current bill. Furthermore, and inexplicably, measures supported by the Federation which had been included in the last draft bill have now been omitted, and we would request that the Committee look again at reinstating these clauses before the bill is finalised.

I therefore urgently request your support in affording appropriate consideration to the issues of concern outlined in the attached submission. In that regard we would welcome the opportunity for a delegation, led by the Northern Ireland Federation of Clubs, to address the DSD Committee before they reach a decision on this bill.

Yours faithfully

John Davidson
Chairman
Northern Ireland Federation of Clubs

NI Federation of Clubs Poster

Northern Ireland Federation of Private Member Clubs

Submissions For amendments to the 1996 Clubs (N.I.) Order & Accounts Regulations

Suggested amendments to the 1996 Clubs Order and Accounts Regulations

Section 8 (3 D)

(1) That none of the officials of the club has an un-spent conviction under the Rehabilitation of Offenders (Northern 1978 NI 27. Ireland) Order 1978 for an offence of violence or an offence involving dishonesty.

Amendment

Should be amended to include only those guilty of sex offences or fraud.

It should be acknowledged that there are members of the Legislative Assembly who would be unable to hold office in their own clubs under the terms of the current legislation.

Section 8

Renewal of Registration by a Court

(2) On the hearing of an application for the renewal of registration of a club, the court may, before granting or refusing to grant the application, require the production of further information, particulars or documents such as are mentioned in paragraph 4(2) of Schedule 3 for the period from the date of the information, particulars or documents, as the case may require, which are attached to the notice served upon the clerk of petty sessions under paragraph 3(b) of Schedule 3 until such date as the court may specify; and paragraphs 3(b), 5 and 6 of Schedule 3 shall apply for the purposes of such further information, particulars or documents as if they were notice of the application, subject to the modification that in paragraph 3(b) for the reference to 4 weeks before the renewal date there were substituted a reference to 2 weeks before the time fixed by the court for the hearing of the application to be resumed.

Amendments

We question the required two week period stipulated in sub-section (2)

A period of four weeks would be more satisfactory, given the complexity of the data required.

Disqualification of premises on refusal of renewal or cancellation of registration

15.(1) Where a court of summary jurisdiction-

(b) cancels the registration of a club under Article 13(1) or 45(1);

the court shall make a disqualification order prohibiting the premises occupied by the club being used for the purposes of any registered club during a period of 2 years from the date on which the order takes effect or, if the court thinks fit, such greater period not exceeding 5 years as may be specified in the order.

Amendment

We would request that a disqualification order should apply only to the registration of the club and not to the actual premises, as there are numerous other bodies of a similar nature which could avail of the facilities provided by the premises.

Inspection of Register

17. A register of clubs may be inspected and copies of all or any part of any entry in the register may be taken, at all reasonable hours.

Amendment

We find this section difficult to comprehend, as clubs do not have a register of clubs, but rather a register of members.

Closing of Bar Outside Permitted Hours

23. (1) Any bar on the premises of a registered club shall be kept closed except during the permitted hours.

(2) If paragraph (1) is contravened the registered club shall be guilty of in offence and shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale.

Amendment

Level 5 would appear to be rather harsh for such an offence.

General Permitted Hours

24. (I) Subject to the succeeding provisions of this part, the permitted hours in a registered club other than a night workers club are the hours-

(a) on weekdays, other than Good Friday or Christmas Day, from 11.30 a.m. to 11.00 p.m.

Amendment

We request for bar opening hours to be established at 9.00 a.m. to 1.00 a.m.

For many the club is an extension of the home, in view of this an increasingly important role is being played by clubs within their respective communities. It is incumbent upon them to provide a facility to members and guests, more especially when one considers that life expectancy is increasing and that many are availing of earlier retirement, not to mention those affected by unemployment and redundancy.

Late bar extensions to run to from the Thursday at 11.00 p.m. to 1.00a.m. on Good Friday morning, and Saturday running into Easter Sunday and Christmas Eve running into Christmas day.

Authorisations for Special Occasions

26. (2) Not more than 52 authorisations shall be granted under this Article to any club in any year.

Amendment

This would depend on our request for bar opening hours to be established at 9.00 a.m. to 1.00 a.m. there would be no requests for late authorizations, except in the case of July, St. Patrick’s day and New Year’s Eve etc, for which we would request ten special authorisations be made available.

Young Persons Prohibited from Bars

32. (1) During the permitted hours a person under the age of 18 shall not be in any part of the premises of a registered club which-

(a) contains a bar; or

(b) is used exclusively or mainly for the supply, consumption or storage of intoxicating liquor.

(2) A registered club shall not allow a person under the age of 18 to be in any part of the club premises as mentioned in paragraph (1) during the permitted hours.

(3) A person shall not cause or procure any person under the age of 18 to go into, or to be in, any part of the club premises as mentioned in paragraph (1) during the permitted hours.

(4) Paragraphs (1), (2) and (3) shall not apply with respect to a person under the age of 18 who is in a part of club premises if

(a) the person under 18 is in the company of a person who is 18 or over; and

(b) the part of the club premises are premises for which a children’s certificate is in force; and

(c) where the premises contain a bar, the person under the age of 18 is seated at a table away from the bar; and

(d) the certificate is operational or paragraph (5) applies.

(5) This paragraph applies where-

(a) the person under the age of 18, or a person in whose company he is, consuming a meal purchased before the certificate ceased to be operational, and

(b) no more than 30 minutes have elapsed since the certificate ceased to be operational.

(6) A person under the age of 18 shall not be at the bar in a part of club premises for which a children’s certificate is in force and the certificate is operational or paragraph (5) applies.

(7) A registered club shall not allow a person under the age of 18 to be at the bar in a part of the club premises for which a children’s certificate is in force and the certificate is operational or paragraph (5) applies.

(8) A person shall not cause or procure any person under the age of 18 to go to, or to be at, the bar in a part of club premises for which a children’s certificate is in force and the certificate is operational or paragraph (5) applies.

(9) Any person acting in contravention of paragraph (1), (3), (6) or (8) shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on summary conviction-

(a) for a contravention of paragraph (1) or (6), to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale;

(b) for a contravention of paragraph (3) or (8), to a fine not exceeding level 4 on the standard scale.

(10) If paragraph (2) or (7) is contravened-

(a) the registered club; and

(b) every official of the club at the time of the contravention; and

(c) the person allowing the person under the age of 18 to be on the part of the club premises mentioned in paragraph (1); shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 4 on the standard scale.

(11) In any proceedings for an offence by reason of a contravention of paragraph (2) or (7) it shall be a defence for a person to prove-

(a) that he exercised all due diligence to avoid the commission of such an offence;

or

(b) that he had no reason to suspect that the person under the age of 18 had not attained that age.

(12) Where a person under the age of 18 represents himself to be the age of 18 or over for the purpose of being in any part of club premises as mentioned in paragraph (1) during the permitted hours, he shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale.

(13) Nothing in this Article shall apply with respect to a person under the age of 18 who is-

(a) in a part of sporting club premises as mentioned in paragraph (1 ) during the part of the permitted hours before 9 in the evening; or

(b) a person who has attained the age which is the upper limit of compulsory school age and is-

(i) employed by the registered club under a contract in writing; or

(ii) receiving training under a scheme approved by the Department of Economic Development; or

(iii) engaged in a placement scheme as part of a further or higher education course; in a part of sporting club premises as mentioned in paragraph (1) during the part of the permitted hours after 9 in the evening; or

(c) in a part of club premises as mentioned in paragraph (1) solely for the purposes of passing to or from some other part of the premises which is not a part as aforesaid and to or from which there is no other convenient means of access.

(14) Where a person under the age of 18 who is found in any part of sporting club

premises as mentioned in paragraph (1) after 9 in the evening is employed by, or in training or placement with, the registered club, that person or the secretary of the club shall, at the request of a constable, produce the written contract or other proof of training or placement within 7 days of the request to, or in accordance with the reasonable directions of, the constable for examination, and if it is not so produced that person or, as the case may be, the registered club shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 2 on the standard scale.

Amendment

See comments at end of section 33

Children’s certificates

33. (I) In respect of premises which are or include premises to which Article 32(1) applies,-

(a) a county court which grants the registration of a club, on the application of the secretary of the club, or

(b) a court of summary jurisdiction, at any time, upon the application of the secretary of a registered club made in compliance with the procedure set out in Schedule 5, may grant a children’s certificate in respect of any part of the premises to which Article 32(1) applies.

(2) A court shall refuse an application for the grant of a children’s certificate unless it is satisfied that-

(a) the part of the premises to which the application relates constitutes an environment in which it is suitable for a person under the age of 18 to bepresent; and

(b) and suitable beverages other than intoxicating liquor (including drinkingwater) will also be made available for consumption in that part when thecertificate is operational; and

(c) that part is equipped and furnished with an adequate number of tables and chairs; and

(d) any conditions prescribed for the purposes of this Article have been complied with.

(3) Subject to paragraph (4), a children’s certificate shall be operational at any time up to 9.00 p.m.

(4) A court which grants a children’s certificate may, on the application of the secretary of the registered club, by order direct that, on such day or days as may be specified in the order, the time when the certificate ceases to be operational shall be such earlier time as may be so specified.

(5) Where a children’s certificate is in force for any part of club premises the registered club shall keep displayed in some conspicuous place in that part a notice which-

(a) states that a children’s certificate is in force for that part; and

(b) explains the effect of the certificate and of the conditions under paragraph (2) or Article 32(4) which extend to it.

(6) Where paragraph (5) is contravened-

(a) the registered club; and

(b) every official of the club at the time of the contravention; shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level I on the standard scale.

(7) In any proceedings for an offence by reason of a contravention of paragraph (5) it shall be a defence for a person to prove that he exercised all due diligence to avoid the commission of such an offence.

(8) A children’s certificate may be revoked by a court of summary jurisdiction on the application of the secretary of the registered club.

(9) Where, upon complaint made under Part VIII of the 1981 NI 6. Magistrates’ Courts (N.I. Order 1981, a court of summary jurisdiction is satisfied-

(a) that the part of the premises for which a children’s certificate is in force does not constitute an environment in which it is suitable for a person under the age of 18 to be present; or

(b) in the case of a complaint made by the sub-divisional commander of the police sub-division in which the premises are situated, that any condition specified in paragraph (2)(b) to (d) or in

(c) Article 32(4) is not being complied with, the court may-

(i) revoke the children’s certificate; or

(ii) revoke any order under paragraph (4) which relates to the certificate; or

(iii) modify, in relation to the certificate, the time mentioned in paragraph (3) or in any order under paragraph (4) which relates to the certificate.

(10) A children’s certificate shall be in such form as may be prescribed.

Amendment

We feel it would be appropriate to abolish these sections in their entirety. However in the absence of this, it is our opinion that children should be permitted to be allowed on the premises of clubs of all types.

Furthermore they should be permitted to be on the premises of clubs for the duration of the club opening hours when partaking or as a spectator at a sporting event, such as golf, boxing, soccer, GAA etc, or when a function such as a wedding, birthday or anniversary is taking place, always providing they are accompanied by an adult/guardian.

A person who has attained the upper limit of compulsory school age, should be permitted to work in all types of club, accepting that they have the approval of their guardian.

Section 38

Restrictions on Advertising relating to Functions in Registered Clubs

Amendment

Due to the de-centralising of sections of the population it may be found necessary to place notices in the press, moreover it may also encourage individuals to apply for membership of respective clubs to avail of the sporting and social facilities.

Clubs should be permitted to place notices or advertise for the benefit of members in the local press and through other media sources.

This is available to the majority of clubs due to their sports social and recreational activities, thus making section 38 of the legislation applicable to only a small number of clubs. In view of this Section 38 should be abolished, as it burdens the PSNI with an unnecessary workload to monitor and apply the current law to what must surely, in these modern times, be considered a trivial matter.

Our request to abolish this restriction is supported by the comments of the then Minister David Hanson M.P. when he said that clubs should be encouraged to play an increasingly important role in respective communities. In view of the aforesaid, clubs should be permitted to promote through advertising, all activities provided by the club in order to finance the sport, recreational and social activities which are available to the wider community.

Accounts of Registered Clubs Etc.

40. (I) Every registered club and every club which has served a notice under paragraph 1(1)(a) of Schedule 2 shall-

(a) keep such vouchers with respect to its transactions and its assets and liabilities, and in such manner, as may be prescribed, and

(b) establish and maintain a prescribed system of control of its accounts, its cash holdings and all its receipts and remittances, and

(c) prepare an annual statement of accounts in such form and containing such particulars as may be prescribed, and

(d) cause those accounts to be audited by such person (“the auditor"), and in such manner, as may be prescribed, and (e) on being required by the auditor, produce any record or voucher and any other information or explanation which appears to the auditor to relate to those accounts and which the auditor requires to inspect, and(f) send a copy of those accounts and the auditor’s report thereon to the sub-divisional commander of the police sub¬-division in which the premises of the club are situated within 3 months of the end of the financial year of the club to which they relate, and

(g) on the demand of any member of the club, send a summary of those accounts and the auditor’s report thereon to that member, free of charge, as soon as they become available,

and

(h) cause a summary of those accounts and auditor’s report thereon to be displayed, for a period of 4 weeks ending on the date of the annual general meeting, in a conspicuous part of the premises of the club which is accessible to all members, and

(i) keep all original vouchers, books, accounts, reports and other documents which the club is required to keep under the provisions of this Order for a period of 6 years from the date of the auditor’s report on the accounts to which they relate, and notify, in writing, the sub-divisional commander mentioned in sub-paragraph (f) of the address or addresses at which the vouchers, books, accounts, reports and other documents to which sub-paragraph (i) applies, are kept.

(2) If paragraph (1) is contravened-

(a) the registered club; and

(b) every official of the club at the time of the contravention; shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale.

(3) In any proceedings for an offence under paragraph (1) it shall be a defence for a person to prove that he exercised all due diligence to avoid the commission of such an offence.

Amendment

Section 40 (1) a & b should not be prescribed, but rather be replaced by the accountancy practice approved by the Institute of Accountancy Body (Ireland), under which other businesses are permitted to operate.

We feel that consideration should be given to amending aspects of Article 40 ie: should be amended to 6 months (g) should be abolished (h) should be abolished (i) should be amended to 3 years.

Clubs with a gross turnover of £125K, should be self regulated, not being required to comply with Article 40. The rational behind this is that the net profit is likely to be in the region of £50K, when one considers the high cost of utilities, such as electricity, heating (oil/gas), insurance, rates, employment and maintenance of sports facilities and premises, ect.

In addition, stock control should also be self regulated.

It is understood that documentation should be maintained for PAYE, Income tax and

HM Custom & Excise (Vat) requirements.

Notification of Alteration of Rules, Etc., of Registered Clubs

41. (I) Where any alteration is made in the rules or to the committee of management or the governing body of a registered club, the secretary of the club shall, within 14 days of the alteration, giving particulars of the alteration.

Amendment

This period is too short and as committees usually meet on a monthly basis, we feel the time period should be extended to quarterly.

Provision for Inspection and Rights of Entry

42. (1) A constable may, at any reasonable time,-

(a) for the purpose of inspecting the accommodation, facilities and amenities of-

(i) the premises of a club which has served a notice of application under paragraph 1 (1)(a) of Schedule 2 for the grant of registration under this Order,

(ii) the premises of a registered club which has served a notice of application under paragraph 3(b) of Schedule 3 for the renewal of registration under this Order and which has since the last previous renewal of the registration of the club (or, where the renewal to be applied for is the first renewal of registration, since Registration was granted), changed the accommodation, facilities and amenities of the premises; enter and inspect the premises of the club or, as the case may be, registered club;

(b) for the purpose of ascertaining whether a contravention of this Order is being or has been committed or whether any conditions which are applicable under this Order are being or have been complied with, enter the premises of a registered club or any premises mentioned in Article 3(2) and-

(i) inspect the premises;

(ii) inspect any book or document which appears to the constable to relate to the club found on the premises;

(iii) upon production of a receipt, remove any such book or document for the purpose of having copies of it made or extracts taken from it;

(iv) ask of any person found on the premises such reasonable questions in relation to the club as he thinks proper.

(2) If any person-

(a) fails or delays without reasonable excuse to admit a constable who demands admission to the premises of the club under paragraph (1); or

(b) on being required by a constable to do so, fails without reasonable excuse to permit the constable to inspect the premises; or

c) on being required by a constable to produce any book or document in his possession or his control which appears to the constable to relate to the club and which the constable reasonably requires to inspect, fails without reasonable excuse to produce it to the constable and to permit the constable to remove the book or document for the purpose of taking copies of it or of any entry in it; or

(c) fails or refuses to answer to the best of his knowledge and ability any questions asked of him by a constable in exercise of the power conferred by paragraph (1)(b)(iv) or gives an answer to any such question which is to his knowledge false or misleading; then-

(i) in the case of a registered club, every official of the club at the time of the

(ii) contravention and, in the case of a contravention such as is mentioned insub-paragraph (c) or (d), the registered club,

(ii) in any other case, the person contravening and, in the case of a contravention such as is mentioned in sub-paragraph (c) or (d), every official or member of the club, shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 4 on the standard scale.

(3) If, on complaint on oath, a justice of the peace is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for suspecting that an offence under this Order is being, has been or is about to be committed on any premises, he may issue a warrant in writing authorising any constable to enter the premises, if necessary by force and to search the premises.

(4) Any constable who enters any premises under the authority of a warrant issued under paragraph (3) may-

(a) seize and remove any document, money or valuable thing, instrument or other thing whatsoever found on the premises which he has reasonable cause to believe may be required as evidence for the purposes of proceedings in respect of an offence under this Order, and

(b) search any person found on the premises whom he has reasonable cause to believe to be committing or to have committed any such offence.

(4) Without prejudice to paragraph (1) or (3), the sub-divisional commander of the police sub-division in which the premises of a club are situated may at any time serve on the secretary of the club a notice requiring him, in such manner and within such reasonable time as may be specified in the notice, to produce for inspection by that commander such information, books or documents relating to that club of any description as may be specified in the notice which that commander reasonably requires to inspect for the purpose specified in paragraph (1)(b).

(6) If without reasonable excuse the requirement imposed by a notice under paragraph (5) is not complied with-

(a) in the case of a club which is a registered club, the registered club and every official of the club at the time of the contravention; and

(b) in the case of a club which is not a registered club, the person contravening and every official and member of the club; shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 4 on the standard scale.

Amendment

(a) Section 42 should be amended to reflect the spirit of the Good Friday Agreement.

(b) No Constable should be permitted to call at will to request the information encompassed in article 42

(c) As specified, clubs are required to provide a full audit annually to the courts and the local PSNI Sub Divisional Commander. If any discrepancies are found within the audit, the PSNI retain the right to inspect all relevant documentation.

(d) The PSNI also retain the right, upon receipt of relevant information at any time throughout the year, to send an Inspector and a Constable to demand any documentation they require to assist with their investigations.

(e) The PSNI retain the right to enter club premises in pursuance of a crime.

With a substantial reduction in the number of PSNI personnel and the increasing problems related to anti-social behaviour, to include drug abuse, smuggling, paramilitary activity, child sex abuse, joy-riding, attacks on the elderly and a host of other serious crimes, it is our opinion that consideration should be given by the Government to place Section 42 under the control of another agency or alternatively become the responsibility of respective councils. In essence P.S.N.I. rights entry in respect of clubs should be in line with those rights afforded to other sectors within the leisure industry.

Penalty Points to be Attributed to an Offence

43. (I) Where a registered club or any official of a registered club is convicted of an offence under a provision of this Order specified in column 1 of Schedule 6 (the general nature of which offence is indicated in column 2) then, subject to the following provisions of this Article, the number of penalty points to be attributed to the offence is-

(a) the number shown in relation to the offence in column 3 of Schedule 6, or

(b) where a range of numbers is shown, a number within that range.

(2) Where a registered club or any official of a registered club is convicted (whether on the same occasion or not) of 2 or more offences committed on the same occasion, the total number of penalty points to be attributed to them is the number or highest number that would be attributed on a conviction of one of them (so that if the convictions are on different occasions the number of penalty points to be attributed to the offences on the later occasion or occasions shall be restricted accordingly).

(3) In a case where (apart from this paragraph) paragraph (2) would apply to 2 or more offences, the court may if it thinks fit determine that paragraph shall not apply to the offences (or, where 3 or more offences are concerned, to any one or more of them).

(4) Where a court makes such a determination it shall state the reasons for the determination in the order of the court.

(5) The Department may, by order made subject to affirmative resolution, alter a number or range of numbers shown in relation to an offence in column 3 of Schedule 6 (by substituting one number or range for another, a number for a range, or a range for a number).

Amendments

Penalty points should not be awarded for violations of Section 43. The decision of the court should be considered adequate in the event of a club being found guilty of an offence.

Exemptions

51. Nothing in this Order shall apply to the supply or consumption of intoxicating liquor to or in any club in which the supply of intoxicating liquor is carried on under the authority of the Secretary of State or the Police Authority for Northern Ireland or to, or in any authorised mess of members of Her Majesty’s naval, military or air forces.

Amendment

Bodies and premises exempted by this section are blatantly discriminatory.

Schedules

Schedule 1
Provisions to be included in Rules of Club

1. The business and affairs of the club shall be under the management of a committee or governing body consisting of a secretary, a treasurer and not less than 5 ordinary or life members who are elected to the committee or body for not less than I year by the general body of members having rights of voting in relation to the affairs of the club.

Amendment

This section should be amended to include a chairman.

Schedule 3
Applications for the Renewal of Registration
Part I

General Procedure

1. The Department shall, during the month of January in each year, cause notice that registrations which expire on 31st March in that year are due for renewal during the month of March to be published at least once in 2 newspapers circulating throughout Northern Ireland.

2. The clerk of petty sessions for each petty sessions district shall, not less than 6 weeks before the renewal date, cause notice of that date and of the provisions of paragraph 6 to be published in 2 newspapers circulating in that district.

Amendment

Clubs should have the right to advertise the renewal of their registration in local newspapers.

Schedule 5 Articles 33 And 52

Applications for Children’s Certificates

1. In this Schedule “application" means an application for a children’s certificate.

2. The secretary of a club which intends to make an application shall, not less than 3 weeks before the time of the court sitting at which the application is to be made, serve notice of the application upon the clerk of petty sessions and at the same time serve a copy of the notice upon-

(a) the sub-divisional commander of the police sub-division in which the premises to which the application relates are situated; and

(b) the district council for the district in which the premises to which the application relates are situated.

3. The notice mentioned in paragraph 2 shall be in such form and shall contain such information as may be prescribed by magistrates’ courts rules.

4. The sub-divisional commander mentioned in paragraph 2(a), the district council mentioned in paragraph 2(b) or any person owning or residing in, premises in the vicinity of the premises to which the application relates may appear at the hearing of the application and object to the grant of the certificate on any ground mentioned in Article 33(2).

5. A person intending to object under paragraph 4 shall, not less than I week before the time of the court sitting at which the application is to be made,-

(a) serve upon the applicant notice of his intention to object, briefly stating his grounds for so doing; and

(b) serve a copy of the notice upon the clerk of petty sessions.

6. The court may consider the application, notwithstanding that the procedure set out in this Schedule has not been complied with if, having regard to the circumstances, it is reasonable to do so.

Amendment

This schedule should be revised with consideration given to repealing it entirely.

Schedule 6

Table of Offences with Penalty Points

	Article of Order General nature of offence	Penalty points
	40 Failure to comply with requirements to-
(I)	Keep proper vouchers	5-10
(2)	Establish and maintain a satisfactory system of control	5-10
(3)	Prepare annual accounts	5-10
(4)	Have accounts audited	10
(5)	Produce required records, etc., to auditor	5-10
(6)	Provide copy of accounts to sub-divisional commander	5-10
(7)	Provide summary of accounts to members	5-10
(8)	Displaying accounts for 4 weeks	5-10
(9)	Retain records for 6 years	5-10
(10)	Notify addresses at which records are kept	5-10
42(2)	Failure to admit constable or produce books and records, etc	4
42(6)	Failure to comply with written notice to produce books, etc.	4
44(3)	Failure to deliver certificate of registration to clerk of court for endorsement	4

Amendment

We request that the current penalty points applied for violations of this schedule be replaced by the process of natural law through the courts.

Accounts Regulations

Bank reconciliation

23 (1) At least once each month a report shall be prepared setting out in respect of each bank account held by the club a reconciliation of the cash and bank balances due to or by the club as shown on a statement or certificate of balance supplied by the bank with the balance as shown by the vouchers and records kept by the club.

(2) The working papers shall be attached to any report prepared in accordance will sub-paragraph (1).

Monthly reports

24. Each month a report shall be prepared setting out for the period since the date of the last report or the commencement of these regulations whichever is the later-

(a) a summary of the receipts and payments of the club.

Amendment

These two sections should be abolished, as the cheque journal, petty cash book and income book are written up weekly, thus providing the required information. Sections 23 & 24 therefore create an onerous form of reconciling.

New Addition

We seek to establish a Federation/Union of clubs, which would permit members to hold a common pass card to socialize in other member clubs of the Federation. This would be similar to that which exists throughout the remainder of mainland Britain.

(a) A common pass card would only be available to a member through his own club secretary.

(b) The applicant would have to be a fully paid-up member of his own club.

(c) Despite holding a common pass card, a Federation/Union member club still retains the right to grant or refuse entry.

(d) A member must produce his own current club membership card together with his common pass card, to gain entry.

(e) The member must sign the common pass card on acceptance and in the presence of his club Secretary, who must also endorse the card.

(f) Holders of a common pass card would only be treated as associate members with the Rights attached to that status.

Schedule 1

Provisions to be Included in Rules of a Club

2. That a club management committee be permitted to nominate an associate non voting member to fulfill a vacancy which the committee are otherwise unable to fill from those members with full voting rights and that he said nominee be permitted to remain in office for the term specified in the club rule book, with full voting rights at all meetings of the club during that period

Reason for amendment

That it is embodied in the way in which ex-services clubs operate (under a Commonwealth covenant) prevents civilians from holding full membership. However ex-services clubs which must comply with the 1996 Clubs Order, permit non service personnel to join the social club.

It must also be considered that the ex-service membership within such clubs is of a more senior age grouping and as such would benefit greatly through this amendment.

Northern Ireland Federation of Clubs

Submission to the Licensing and Registration of Clubs (Amendment) Bill

Submitted 1 July 2010

Closure provisions

The Bill empowers a magistrates’ court within a district that is experiencing or is likely to experience disorder to make a closure order in respect of licensed premises at or near the place where disorder is occurring or imminent.

Provisions will also allow senior police officers to close licensed premises where actual disorder is occurring. The Department advises that the Department of Justice will issue guidance on how these powers are to be implemented.

• Penalty Points Scheme

The Bill introduces a penalty points system for licensed premises for a number of offences including underage sales. It is understood that the courts are to impose the points along with fines and will have some discretion with respect to the imposition of points associated with lower level fines. Schedule 2 of the Bill shows the points associated with different offences. Premises accumulating 10 points in a period of 3 years will be required to close for a period of from 1 week to 3 months.

Concerns

It is important to highlight that in regard to accounts issues the penalty points system only applies to registered clubs and not to licensed premises thus creating an increased imbalance which is discriminatory and oppressive and again reveals the historic divisive structuring of registered clubs legislation by the Minister’s department officials.

The removal of the discretion available to the court under Article 44 (2) for offences in Part 3 of Schedule 6, not to impose penalty points where the exercise of due diligence has been proven.

This could result in suspension of the club’s registration for two technical breaches of for example Article 40 (2), notwithstanding that the officials had exercised due diligence to avoid the commission of an offence.

It has to be remembered that those who manage private registered clubs are in the vast majority of cases part time unpaid volunteers.

The Minister promised a relaxation of the stringent accounts regime which has proven so onerous and expensive for clubs to operate since its introduction over 20 years ago. The way in which the penalty point system has now been framed is in effect introducing a similar level of stringency but by the back door.

All of the offences in the Order for breaches relating to accounts attract penalty points in the band 5-6 with NO discretion on the magistrate even if the breach is merely technical.

The inclusion of breaches of Article 40 in Part 3 of the Schedule instead of Part 1 or 2 means that no recognition can be afforded by the presiding magistrate to those officials of a club exercising due diligence in the performance of their duties if for some reason there is a small oversight resulting in a breach.

The inclusion of breaches of Article 40 in Part 3 of the Schedule is clearly wrong if the spirit of the legislation is to relax the accounting regime and make it less onerous, Consideration must be given to moving offences under Article 40 from Part 3 to Part 1 or Part 2.

The threshold for suspension of two convictions in a three year period is too low in circumstances where the discretion previously available to the Court under Article 44 (2) has been abolished.

Comments

Minister Ritchie in her press release of 17th May 2010 quotes “this is good news for clubs. Clubs do excellent work in the community particularly with young people and in fostering voluntary effort which often depend on their social club revenues to fund their valuable community activities."

Upon reflecting on the Ministers aforesaid quote her officials should have examined more positive means of assisting and developing the network of clubs via Legislation which is fit for purpose and which all stakeholders could sign-up to.

Furthermore if this legislation has been designed to target anti-social behaviour, (little or none of which emanates from private member sports, social and recreational clubs) how does the Minister intend addressing the availability of low cost alcohol available in supermarkets and off-sales at prices as low as 68p for a pint of beer.

It is of the utmost importance to highlight the fact that this penalty points system does not effectively target that sector of the trade which is feeding the stay-at-home drinking culture.

The attached correspondence to respective supermarkets indicates the lack of commitment by these outlets to address the well documented problems associated with the availability of low cost alcohol much of which is sold as loss leaders.

We are aware that stakeholders and the Ministers officials have been engaged in formulating a voluntary code of practice with no guarantee that it will deliver a positive outcome in addressing the problems associated with alcohol abuse and ant-social behaviour, but will rather simply give the perception that something is being done.

Proof-of-Age Scheme

The Bill allows license holders (and their staff) to discharge their duty in respect of preventing the commissioning of certain offences relating to underage drinking by seeing proof of age documents e.g. passport, photocard driving license; electoral identity card or a Proof of Age Standards Scheme (PASS) card etc. Premises will be required to display notices relating to the prohibition of the sale of alcohol to under 18s.

Concerns

The Federation are disappointed that the proposal to extend the hours for minors to be on registered club premises, from 9.00pm until 10.00 pm which had received considerable support has not been introduced. This is seen by the Federation as particularly vital for sports clubs with junior teams, many of whose activities continue beyond 9.00pm in the summer months.

This was included in earlier legislation and no explanation has been given as to why it has been omitted from the current draft. The Federation submit that it should be reinstated so that all clubs may have minors on the premises until 10.00pm and sporting clubs should be permitted to have minors on the premises until 11.00pm to fulfill the need of the clubs with junior teams who have events late in the evening

Limited Liability Partnerships

The Bill includes an amendment to existing licensing law apparently indicating that a reference to a director or secretary of a body corporate is equivalent to a reference to a member of a limited liability partnership.

Accounts of Registered Clubs

The Bill introduces regulation-making powers to introduce streamlined accounting practices for registered clubs.

See comment above - if this is the aim then breaches of Article 40 should not be included in Part 3 of the penalty points schedule.

Authorisations for Special Occasions

The Bill provides for an increase in the number of late licenses (i.e. where the bar closes at 1:00am or midnight on a Sunday) which the PSNI may grant to private members’ clubs from 52 to 120 per year.

Concerns

The Federation had requested 156 late nights per annum. They maintain that this position is eminently reasonable and furthermore is economically both necessary and desirable... 120 late nights is little more than two late nights per week (in comparison to most other licensed premises with 7). The choice of 120 appears entirely arbitrary and fails to take acc ount of the following matters which support the Federation’s proposal for 156 late nights.

The Federation are aware of other groups lobbying against an increase in late nights available to clubs to run functions on the alleged grounds of unfair competition, an argument which is without foundation as all premises, whether they be public houses or clubs have to have a source of revenue to met their overheads.

These recent years have been very difficult with the smoking ban, the recession and the availability of cheap alcohol from supermarkets to drink at home. In the case of clubs they not only have to meet basic overheads for their premises such as electricity, rates, insurances, staff wages etc but (unlike pubs, restaurants etc) they also have to fund all of the various activities provided to their members, in particular sports clubs with grounds to maintain, team kits and equipment, trainers, buses etc to pay for. In order for the cost of these to be met without imposing huge fees on members, which would be a clear disincentive to participation in sport, the club must be able to raise funds.

Functions in the evening are the main way of raising such funds and any limits imposed on the number of functions is a limit on the fund raising ability of the club. A club premises cannot be maintained to a high standard and with high class facilities if it does not have an income stream.

The business case for increasing the number of late nights to 156 is compelling. In these difficult economic times the legislature should be empowering and facilitating registered clubs in Northern Ireland to stay open thereby maintaining employment, payment of taxes and rates and contributing massively to sport in Northern Ireland rather than failing these clubs by limiting their ability to stay operational and solvent.

We are dismayed that the important issues outlined In our initial submission to the Liquor License Review under David Hanson M.P. and subsequently to Margaret Ritchie M.L.A. have not been afforded appropriate consideration against a background outlined in the Ministers statement that this latest Bill provides a new era for the club sector.

We therefore attach our entire submission to include those we feel should be included in the Minister’s Bill.

NI Federation of Clubs - Accountants Submission

O’Hara Shearer Chartered Accountants and Registered Auditors Submission to the Northern Ireland Assembly Minister’s Licensing Bill On behalf of Private Members Sports, Social & Recreational Clubs Sector Represented by the Northern Ireland Federation of Clubs

Accounts of Registered Clubs

As accountants for the the Northern Ireland Federation of Clubs I hereby present the following submission to the DSD Committee covering the following:

Statutory Audit Requirements

Northern Ireland Assembly: Licensing and Registration Bill Penalty Points Scheme

Penalty Points Scheme: Inequality of treatment of Treatment between Registered Clubs and the Licensed Sector

Statutory Audit Requirements

The Registration of Clubs (Accounts) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1997 introduced legislation governing financial regulation and control of the Northern Ireland Registered Club Sector.

The legislation introduced far reaching, onerous and costly implications for each registered club endeavouring to comply with this financial regulation and control. Each registered club is required to undergo a full statutory audit of it’s financial statements annually irrespective of it’s size.

Since the Regulations came into force on 1st September 1997 Clubs have found it necessary to recruit persons into finance and administrative functions to comply with the imposed statutory systems and controls. This has resulted in additional administrative and professional costs to the Club Sector.

The provisions embodied in the Regulations could be interpreted as discriminatory as no other corporate entity or business in Northern Ireland is subject to such wide ranging statutory constraints.

In fact, the Companies Act 2006, which governs all other companies in Northern Ireland has made provision under section 477 (Small Companies): Small Companies: Conditions for exemption from audit, to remove a company’s statutory obligation to have its financial statements audited.

The Companies Act 2006 Section 477 states:

A company that meets the following conditions in respect of a financial year is exempt from the requirements of this Act relating to the audit of accounts for that year.

The conditions are:-

a) that the company qualifies as a small company in relation to that year,

b) that its turnover in that year is not more than £5.6 Million, and that its balance

c) sheet total for that year is not more than £2.8 Million.

If these conditions were applied to the Registered Club Sector probably all clubs would qualify to claim exemption from audit as a small company.

Notwithstanding the Companies Act 2006 Small Company Exemptions, the Registered Club Sector is not seeking exemption from audit for all clubs.

However, there is a valid argument for the Licensing and Registration of Clubs Bill to make provision for Registered Clubs with income levels falling within stipulated parameters

A Registered Club could be classified as a Small Registered Club if its annual income was below say £100,000, and, would be entitled to claim exemption from audit.

The Northern Ireland Federation of Clubs is of the opinion that any registered club with income levels below £100,000 for that year, should be entitled to claim exemption from statutory audit, and, be categorised as a Small Registered Club.

Penalty Points Scheme

The Registration of Clubs (Northern Ireland) Order 1996 Article 40 “ Accounts of Registered Clubs, etc"

It is proposed that Breaches of Article 40 of The Registration of Clubs (Northern Ireland) Order 1996

will deem both the registered club and every official of the club guilty of an offence and shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale.

This would result in punishment of 5-6 penalty points for each offence.

Offences punishable with a level 5 fine on the standard scale relating to accounts are as follows:

Failure to comply with requirement to:-

a) keep proper vouchers

b) establish and maintain a system of control

c) prepare annual accounts

d) have accounts audited or examined

e) produce required records etc. To auditor or independent examiner

f) provide summary of accounts to district commander

g) provide summary of accounts to members

h) display accounts for four weeks

i) retain records for six years

If a registered club accumulates 10 points over a 3 year period it will be required to close for a period spanning 1 week to 3 months. These statutory powers appear draconian and discriminatory in nature when compared to HM Revenue & Customs guidance to companies outside the club sector.

HM Revenue & Customs states:-

The business records that a company or organisation must keep for corporation tax purposes include

the following:

a) annual accounts including a profit and loss statement and balance sheet

b) bank statements and paying in slips

c) a cash book and any other account books kept

d) purchase and sales books or ledgers

e) invoices and any record of daily takings such as till rolls

f) order records and delivery notes

g) a petty cash book

h) other relevant business correspondence

HM Revenue & Customs states further.... A company does not have to keep these records in a set way; just so the company’s records are complete and up to date

There is no requirement to maintain records in a certain “prescribed format".

There is no statutory requirement for a company to be closed if the accounting records are inadequate.

If a penalty points scheme is required for certain offences I am of the opinion that the penalty points levied for minor breaches of Article 40 of The Registration of Clubs (Northern Ireland) Order 1996 are severe in context of the offence committed and that furthermore they should discretionary and not mandatory.

It should be noted that in registered clubs all of the daily financial and administrative duties are carried out by elected committee members voluntarily.

The proposed onerous statutory penalty points and repercussions will only increase the burden and responsibility attached to the voluntary office holder within the club, and, will succeed in discouraging club members from putting themselves forward for election to club committees with the result that many clubs will experience problems with committee “succession"

It is entirely reasonable that Article 40 Breaches should carry reduced penalty points say 2-3 points attached to breaches accumulating over a 1 year period only with a maximum of 15 points allowable during that period.

Certain trivial breaches should be brought to the clubs attention to allow rectification without the imposition of any penalty points at all.

I support the Northern Ireland Federation of Clubs in seeking to establish that a specific Appeals Process be outlined allowing a Registered Club to appeal against any penalty points levied for breaches of Article 40 of The Registration of Clubs (Northern Ireland) Order 1996 (or as Amended).

Penalty Points Scheme:

Inequality of Treatment Between Registered Clubs and Licensed Sector

It is evident that there is inequality of treatment between Registered Clubs and the Licensed Sector.

As detailed above, a Registered Club is severely penalised for breaches of Article 40 of The Registration of Clubs (Northern Ireland) Order 1996.

There is no similar penalty points scheme for the Licensed Trade Sector operating as sole traders, partnerships or private limited companies.

I submit this submission on behalf of the Northern Ireland Federation of Clubs as part of its overall submission to the Northern Ireland Assembly Minister and the DSD Committee for due consideration during the drafting of the Northern Ireland Assembly Licensing and Registration of Clubs Bill.

Prepared by:

O’Hara Shearer
Chartered Accountants
and Registered Auditors

On behalf of:
Northern Ireland Federation of Clubs Date: 30th June 2010

Northern Ireland Hotels Federation - 24 May 2010

Dear Simon

The Northern Ireland Hotels Federation has noted the plans of tabled by Minister Ritchie to amend the Licensing (Northern Ireland) Order 1996 and the Registration of Clubs (Northern Ireland) Order 1996 and bring forward legislation which will increase the number of “late" licences available to clubs from 52 to 120 per year. This would appear to worsen an already fragile balance between clubs and other licence holders. As chairperson of the social development committee we are particularly keen to bring this to your attention.

Our members have expressed a number of concerns regarding the holding of events in and by clubs in recent times. There would appear to be an ability to stage social events such as weddings, dinners etc in club premises through a series of mechanisms including social membership. There are also instances of companies using such venues to hold business events which are of financial benefit but no apparent membership benefit to the club.

Our membership appreciates and supports clubs in the vital role they play in the infra-structure of local communities and in the wider social fabric of the province. However, on a commercial basis, hoteliers have concerns about the staging of events/functions in such venues. Hotels pay rates of £7.6m to local councils and have a cost structure which reflects a business that is open 24 hours per day, 7 days per week, providing a professional, regulated hospitality and tourism facility. Therefore the cost base upon which hotels quote for commercial events/functions will be substantially higher than those who do not have to meet such commitments.

Events and functions have always been a vital income stream for the hotel sector. However, current levels of business and a drop in visitor numbers have made the situation even more critical. We are not acting from a point of protectionism or in an anti–competitive manner but wish to ensure an even and fair playing field for those holding functions and events.

We would be keen for the following to be looked at in detail:

• The issue of membership of clubs to be looked at more closely in relation to the holding of functions and usage of facilities for licensed events.
• An analysis of the type of events being run which require a late licences
• The level of events of a social and ticketed nature which are being run at clubs and which are open to the public
• The rationale behind the level of licences being increased from 52 to 120 licences per year

We would welcome a meeting to discuss our concerns in greater depth with you in person and hope that you will be in a position to take our points into consideration. We will also be asking for the opportunity to speak with the DSD Committee in relation to this matter.

Janice Gault
Chief Executive

Northern Ireland Hotels Federation
The McCune Building, 1 Shore Road, Belfast BT15 3PG
Tel: 028 9077 6635 Fax: 028 9077 1899
Email: janice@nihf.co.uk Web: www.nihf.co.uk

NI Hotels Federation

Submission by the Northern Ireland Hotels Federation to the Licensing and Registration of Clubs (Amendment Bill)
June 2010

Northern Ireland Hotels Federation
The McCune Building, 1 Shore Road, Belfast BT15 3PG
Tel: 028 9077 6635 Fax: 028 9077 1899
www.nihf.co.uk

The Northern Ireland Hotels Federation (NIHF) is the representative trade body for the hotel and guesthouse sector. Whilst the Federation’s primary objective is to improve and influence in line with member needs, as an organisation we are keen to see tourism reach its true potential for Northern Ireland. The downturn in the global economy and the current lack of consumer confidence has presented significant challenges for the sector. Revenues are considerably down and costs appear to be rising. The NIHF is keen to ensure that businesses are able to offer an attractive cost-effective product for all aspects of the tourism sector. The province’s hospitality industry strives to reflect world-class international standards and has invested in excess of £500m over the last decade to ensure this objective. In order to maintain this standard the industry requires a broad business base including events, functions and overnight visitors.

The Government has set a target of 4.5m visitors and a spend of £1 billion from tourism by 2020 in the Draft Tourism Strategy for Northern Ireland. The NIHF welcomes these targets and sees growth of spend as one of the major priorities for the next decade. As an organisation we feel that tourism has a lot to offer and that hotels have an integral role to play in its success. In order to maintain a world class standard of property, we need to ensure that business flourishes and that it is conducted on an even playing field. Hotels contribute over £7.6m in rates and support a payroll in excess of £90m.

Authorisation for Special Occasions

Our primary concern in the proposed amendment is the proposed increase in the number of late licences to be granted to private members clubs. The proposed increase effectively allows clubs to offer late licensing every Friday and Saturday night with a number of additional licences to cover holiday periods.

The NIHF has a number of concerns regarding the holding of events in and by clubs in recent times. There would appear to be an ability to stage social events such as weddings, dinners, etc. in club premises through a series of mechanisms including social membership. There are also instances of companies using such venues to hold business events which are of a financial benefit but no apparent membership benefit to the club.

Our membership appreciates and supports clubs in the vital role they play in the infra-structure of local communities and in the wider social fabric of the province. However, on a commercial basis, hoteliers have concerns about the staging of events/functions in such venues. Hotels pay rates of £7.6m to local councils and have a cost structure which reflects a business that is open 24 hours per day, 7 days per week, providing a professional, regulated hospitality and tourism facility. Therefore, the cost base upon which hotels quote for commercial events/functions will be substantially higher than those who do not have to meet such commitments.

Events and functions have always been a vital income stream for the hotel sector. However, current levels of business and a drop in visitor numbers have made the situation even more critical. We are not acting from a point of protectionism or in an anti–competitive manner but wish to ensure an even and fair playing field for those holding functions and events.

We would be keen for the following to be looked at in detail:

• The issue of membership of clubs to be looked at more closely in relation to the holding of functions and usage of facilities for licensed events.
• An analysis of the type of events being run which require a late licence.
• The level of events of a social and ticketed nature which are being run at clubs and which are open to the public.
• The rationale behind the number of late licences being increased from 52 to 120 per year.
• The impact of such an amendment on the social structure and economy in the province including additional pressures on policing and the economic impact on others in the hospitality sector.

We would request that the number of licences proposed is reviewed and that the rationale behind this amendment is fully outlined. The hotel sector is delighted to play its role in the future of the tourism and feels that hospitality sector has much to offer. In order to fulfil our role we need to ensure that core areas of business are tendered and won on an equitable basis.

Proof-of age Scheme

The Federation is welcomes measures to ensure the responsible dispensing of alcohol and is fully committed to a proof of age scheme and is happy to comply with legislation to this effect.

General Commentary

As a tourism destination we need to become a more orientated towards a “café type society " with standards and legalisation reflective of the needs of the visitor. This in no way undervalues the need for responsible alcohol consumption and dispensing.

The current economic challenges and downturn in business levels will necessitate an innovative approach for all those operating in the hospitality industry. We require a framework of legislation which helps promote Northern Ireland as a tourism destination, is not cost prohibitive and allows us to grow as a high quality tourism product.

The Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment have set out targets of £1billion of spend for the tourism sector by 2020 with an increase in visitor numbers to 4.5m. There needs to be a cohesive approach to the industry in order to ensure we achieve these goals.

NI Judicial Appointments Commission

Headline Building
10-14 Victoria Street
Belfast BT1 3GG

Telephone: 028 9072 8551
Fax: 028 9072 8566
Textphone: 028 9072 8568

www.nijac.org
judicialappointments@nijac.org

Mr Peter McCallion
Committee for Social Development
NI Assembly
Room 412
Parliament Buildings
Ballymiscaw
BELFAST
BT4 3XX

7 June 2010

Dear Mr McCallion

Consultation on Licensing and Registration of Clubs (Amendment) Bill

Thank you for your correspondence of 2 June 2010.

I would like to thank you for forwarding details of this consultation. We have no comments to make on the proposals.

Yours sincerely

Edward Gorringe
Chief Executive

NILGA Email 12 November 2010

From: Claire Bradley [mailto:c.bradley@nilga.org]
Sent: 12 November 2010 15:29
To: McCallion, Peter
Subject: Licensing and Registration of Clubs - Evidence from NILGA

Dear Peter,

Re: Licensing and Registration of Clubs (Amendment) Bill

Thank-you very much for the opportunity to comment on the Licensing and Registration of Clubs (Amendment) Bill. I enclose our response, which was developed in liaison with the Licensing Forum Northern Ireland and endorsed by the NILGA Executive this morning.

I apologise for the delay in returning this to you and hope that our comments are useful to the Committee.

Yours Sincerely,

Claire Bradley

Claire Bradley
Policy Assistant
Northern Ireland Local Government Association (NILGA)
Unit 5B Castlereagh Business Park
478 Castlereagh Road
Belfast, BT5 6BQ

Tel: 02890 798972
Fax: 02890 791248
Email: c.bradley@nilga.org

NILGA Licensing and Registration of Clubs
12 Nov 2010

Licensing and Registration of Clubs (Amendment) Bill

Key Issues The introduction of the provision for closure powers proposed in the Bill is welcomed. Any decision to close a premises should be carefully considered, evidence based and proportionate. This should be made clear in any guidance that might be drawn up to assist with implementing such a measure. The decision to close a premises should be used as a measure of ‘last resort’. If such powers were to be introduced, it is recommended that a requirement to consult with local councils, prior to taking such action should be included in the Bill.

General Comments

• The introduction of the provision for closure powers proposed in the Bill is welcomed. However, it is pointed out that the proposal that power to close premises where there is likely to be disorder only being granted to the court is in contrast to legislation in Great Britain which allows both police and the court to take action if there is likely to be imminent disorder. It is suggested that providing police with the proactive measure of using closure powers to prevent disorder from taking place is extremely relevant in the context of minimising the risk to public safety.
• It is acknowledged that closure powers can be justified in exceptional circumstances where severe problems are experienced. In general any interference should be viewed as a last resort and taken in accordance with the principles of ‘Better Regulation’ so that any decision to close premises is carefully considered, evidence-based and proportionate.
• There is recognition regarding the levels of anti-social behaviour associated with alcohol misuse in our society. It is believed that the effective enforcement and meaningful sanctions will be critical to the success of any new measures introduced. It is important that the PSNI are given adequate resources and the full support of the judiciary if any of the proposals in the Bill are to bring about the desired changes.
• It is believed that the licensed trade should do more to ensure that persons who are already intoxicated are not served further alcohol and that enforcement of the existing provisions should be improved in this regard.
• It is noted that in an earlier consultation that there were proposals for closure powers to be provided where a public nuisance is being caused by noise coming from the premises and the closure of the premises is being caused by noise coming from the premises and the closure of the premises is necessary to prevent that nuisance. It is suggested that there is already adequate provision to control noise breakout from premises either through Entertainments Licensing Powers, as required under the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) (NI) Order, or more generally under the Pollution Control and Local Government (Northern Ireland) Order, relating to noise nuisance. In addition new powers proposed in the Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Bill will provide council’s with further recourse in responding to noise complaints.

Views on the possibility of using the proposed closure powers within the Bill to control excessive noise associated with patron dispersal from licensed premises.

Many of the complaints received by councils regarding licensed premises relate to the noise associated with disorder arising from patron dispersal and these complaints become more prevalent the later that premises remain open. Often local residents complain of noise disturbance from people fighting, from shouting and swearing or people causing damage to cars and property. Such low-level anti-social behaviour often does not take place directly at the venue but arises as a result of patrons leaving it. The Pollution Control and Local Government Order does not cover such noise nuisance nor will the Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Bill, leaving Entertainments Licensing as the only avenue through which local residents can pursue their complaints.

It is not a straightforward process to take action through Entertainments Licensing in these cases as the burden of proof remains with the council to be satisfied that the noise nuisance is being caused as a direct result of particular premises. This becomes more complex if, for example, there are a number of bars in a given locality, there are other popular venues within easy walking distance or in areas with a high student population.

Often where these problems arise the local authority will work to resolve them through negotiation with licensees and objectors and, in many instances, the police will also participate in these discussions. It is therefore only in the minority of cases where the licensee cannot or will not deal with the problem that the council will resort to actions such as restricting the days and hours when entertainment may be provided to help address the situation for local people.

In these cases, the council will have gathered evidence based on eye-witness accounts, often recorded over a number of months, along with information of reported incidents and complaints to the police and monitoring by their own officers prior to presenting a licence application to the council to consider such a decision. It is suggested that in some cases, particularly where the licensee has been given every opportunity but still shows unwillingness to co-operate with the council, a power of closure would be a useful remedy to address problems with noise from patron disorder when dispersing from licensed premises. It may well be that the threat of closure will be a sufficient deterrent to ensure co-operation and a greater willingness to address the problem.

Were powers of closure to control excessive noise associated with patron dispersal from licensed premises to be introduced, it is recommended that a requirement to consult with local councils prior to taking such action be included in the Bill. It must be re-emphasised that any decision to close a premises should be carefully considered, evidence based and proportionate and that this should be made clear in any guidance that might be drawn up to assist with implementing such a measure.

Finally, it is recommended that the DoE Local Government Policy Division review the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) (NI) Order to include a power of closure to address the problems of noise and anti-social behaviour associated with patron dispersal.

Additional closure powers for licensed premises where there are noise issues which may not be classified as actual disorder

In many cases, often coupled with the types of complaints outlined above, local residents complain to councils of noise nuisance caused by patrons in the vicinity of licensed premises such as shouting, singing, car doors banging and horns sounding. Again, the noise associated with patron dispersal is not controlled under the Pollution Control and Local Government Order nor will it be under the Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Bill and Entertainments Licensing is the main vehicle through which local residents can pursue their complaints.

There has been some concern expressed that giving the PSNI the power to use an Immediate Temporary Closure Order on premises purely on the basis that there might be noise outside the premises caused by patrons leaving would be an excessive power. As there is noise created outside almost every licensed premises when patrons leave, it is queried whether the PSNI are the most suitable authority to decide when this is disorder. It is imperative that these powers should only be taken as a last resort and can only be used after a body of evidence have been gathered. It is reiterated that local councils are heavily involved in these circumstances and would recommend that if a Temporary Closure Order was granted by the Magistrates Court, that the council should give evidence of such disturbance over a period of time.

How these complaints are dealt with mirror the measures outlined above and it is therefore suggested that where the licensee has been given every opportunity but still shows unwillingness to co-operate with the council, a power of closure would be a useful remedy to address problems with noise from patron dispersal where there are noise issues which may not be classified as actual disorder.

If such powers were to be introduced, it is recommended that a requirement to consult with local councils, prior to taking such action should be included in the Bill.

NILGA would like to thank the Committee for Social Development for this opportunity to comment on the issues raised. Please do not hesitate to contact Claire Bradley at the NILGA offices should you require anything further (c.bradley@nilga.org)

NI Sports Forum

Re: Northern Ireland Sports Forum Submission to DSD Committee on the Licensing and Registration of Clubs (Amendment) Bill

Dear Sir/Madam

The Northern Ireland Sports Forum wish to submit this document and a further attached document to the Department of Social Development Committee on the Licensing and Registration of Clubs (Amendment) Bill on behalf of our members. As the umbrella body for the Governing Bodies of sport in Northern Ireland and the voice of voluntary sport in Northern Ireland we feel it is essential we can contribute our feelings on this legislation which has significant impact on our members and their clubs. To note, the Golfing Union of Ireland Ulster Branch and the Gaelic Athletic Association will also be submitting submissions to this committee.

While on the face of it, it would appear that this legislation lessens the burden on sports clubs, and significantly the volunteers who predominantly run those clubs, we feel that this is not the case. When looked on as a whole the impact of the legislations in fact increases the burden on clubs and volunteers.

Based on Volunteer Development Agency research, 92% of sports clubs in Northern Ireland are led by and are dependent on volunteers. Through these sports clubs many of which are registered clubs, they largely deliver the sporting and physical recreation agenda in the province.

Volunteers in sport represent 30% of all volunteers, an essential work force that deserves maximum support from government. In a time when government spending cuts are high on the agenda, sports clubs will have to find financial support from other outlets /sources and any additional income that can be generated through their clubs will prove essential for the future survival of many sports clubs in the province.

The committee must also consider this legislation in light of the Volunteering Strategy (see DSD document ‘Investing Together’ – Resourcing the Voluntary and Community Sector and recent consultation). As noted the majority of sports clubs in the province are administered and run by volunteers. A system which applies what could be seen as a draconian penalty points system to clubs administered by volunteers goes against the ethos of the Strategy which aims: to promote the value and benefit of volunteering; to improve the volunteering experience and to support volunteers and organisations that involve volunteers.

When the Committee considers this Bill, it is important to make the distinction between public houses, hotels and restaurants and private members sports clubs. Clubs are different given the volunteer led community dimension of the associations as any profit they make is re invested back into the club, for the good of its members. Hotels, restaurants and public houses are purely profit making enterprises. As the former Minister, Margaret Ritchie stated, “Clubs do excellent work in the community, particularly with young people and in fostering voluntary effort which often depend on their social club revenues to fund their valuable community activities". This statement not only highlights the importance of any income generated by sports clubs, but the significance of their impact on communities in the province. It also makes the clear the distinction between clubs, whose profit is generated for the survival of the organisation and other licensed premises that are profitable organisations.

The Northern Ireland Strategy for Sport and Physical Activity 2009-2019 ‘Sport Matters’, was recently launched by DCAL and it endorses and recognises the dedication of volunteers. Government in turn picks up on their commitment ‘recognising that it extends beyond any single government department or organisation’. The document highlights key headings of Participation, Performance and Places with sports clubs highlighted as key ingredients to the delivery of this ambitious Strategy. Appendix 1 and 2 of ‘Sport Matters’ sets out the key the points of the importance of and the context for developing sport and physical recreation and highlights the key issues of community cohesion and sport in the community. It also highlights the crucial value of sport to the economy. Clubs are vital to this contribution.

We have attached to this contribution a review of specific points of the legislation were we wish to highlight some of our concerns.

We appreciate the opportunity to express our view on this Legislation which will have a significant impact on sports clubs in the province and we appreciate your consideration of the issues outlined above and in the attached summary. We would be also request the opportunity to address the DSD committee before a decision is reached on this Bill.

Kind Regards,

Richard Johnson, Treasurer, NI Sport Forum
And
Katie Nixon, Executive Manager, NI Sports Forum

Northern Ireland Sports Forum
House of Sport
Upper Malone Road
Belfast
BT9 5LA
028 90383825
www.nisf .net

NI Sports Forum - Penalty Points Scheme

Northern Ireland Sports Forum Comments on the Draft Bill

Penalty Points Scheme

Comments:

The removal of the discretion available to the court under Article 44 (2) for offences in Part 3 of Schedule 6, not to impose penalty points where the exercise of due diligence has been proven, has the potential to result in suspension of the club’s registration for two technical breaches of for example Article 40 (2), notwithstanding that the officials had exercised due diligence to avoid the commission of an offence.

It has to be remembered that those who manage private registered clubs are in the vast majority of cases part time unpaid volunteers.

The Minister promised a relaxation of the stringent accounts regime which has proven so onerous and expensive for clubs to operate since its introduction over 20 years ago. The way in which the penalty point system has now been framed is in effect introducing a similar level of stringency but by the back door.

All of the offences in the Order for breaches relating to accounts attract penalty points in the band 5-6 with NO discretion on the magistrate even if the breach is merely technical. The inclusion of breaches of Article 40 in Part 3 of the Schedule instead of Part 1 or 2 means that no recognition can be afforded by the presiding magistrate to those officials of a club exercising due diligence in the performance of their duties if for some reason there is a small oversight resulting in a breach.

The inclusion of breaches of Article 40 in Part 3 of the Schedule is clearly wrong if the spirit of the legislation is to relax the accounting regime and make it less onerous, Consideration must be given to moving offences under Article 40 from Part 3 to Part 1 or Part 2.

The threshold for suspension of two convictions in a three year period is too low in circumstances where the discretion previously available to the Court under Article 44 (2) has been abolished.

Proof-of-Age Scheme and minors on premises

Comments:

We are disappointed that the proposal to extend the hours for minors to be on registered club premises, from 9.00pm until 10.00 pm which had received considerable support has not been introduced. This is particularly vital for sports clubs with junior teams, many of whose activities continue beyond 9.00pm in the summer months.

This was included in earlier legislation and no explanation has been given as to why it has been omitted from the current draft. We submit that it should be reinstated so that all clubs may have minors on the premises until 10.00pm and sporting clubs should be permitted to have minors on the premises until 11.00pm to fulfill the need of the clubs with junior teams who have events late in the evening.

License Extensions for Special Occasions

Comments:

We understand that the NI Federation of Clubs had requested 156 late nights per annum which we believe is acceptable. They maintain that this position is eminently reasonable and furthermore is economically both necessary and desirable. 120 late nights is little more than two late nights per week (in comparison to other licensed premises with 7). The choice of 120 appears entirely arbitrary and fails to take account of the following matters which support the NI Federation of Clubs proposal for 156 late nights.

Clubs have been facing significant difficulties over the last number of years with the smoking ban, the recession and the availability of cheap alcohol from supermarkets to drink at home. In the case of clubs they not only have to meet basic overheads for their premises such as electricity, rates, insurances, staff wages etc but they also have to fund all of the various activities provided to their members, in particular sports clubs with grounds to maintain, team kits and equipment, trainers, buses etc to pay for. In order for the cost of these to be met without imposing huge fees on members, which would be a clear barrier to participation in sport, the club must be able to raise funds.

Functions in the evening are the main way of raising such funds and any limits imposed on the number of functions is a limit on the fund raising ability of the club. A club premises cannot be maintained to a high standard and with high class facilities if it does not have an income stream.

The business case for increasing the number of late nights to 156 is compelling. In these difficult economic times the legislature should be empowering and facilitating registered clubs in Northern Ireland to stay open thereby maintaining employment, payment of taxes and rates and contributing massively to sport in Northern Ireland rather than failing these clubs by limiting their ability to stay operational and solvent.

Police Service of Northern Ireland

Licensing & Registration of Clubs (Amendment Bill)

We would like to thank you for giving the Police Service of Northern Ireland (PSNI) the opportunity to submit written evidence to the Social Development Committee on a number of provisions as contained in the Licensing and Registration of Clubs (Amendment) Bill.

We would make the following comments: -.

Closure Provisions

Firstly, with regard to the Closure provisions we welcome the new closure power for a Superintendent or above to make application to a court for the closure of a number of licensed premises in an area where disorder is occurring or expected, in order to protect public safety. This power will replace the like power which is currently the responsibility of the Secretary of State.

It is also noted that a senior police officer (Inspector or above) can make a closure order in relation to any licensed premises if the officer reasonably believes that there is disorder on, or in the vicinity of and related to, the premises and their closure is necessary in the interests of public safety (actual disorder). However, when the PSNI were previously consulted on these proposals in September 2008, they contained three grounds on which a single licensed premises could be directed to close by a senior police officer, namely “actual disorder", “imminent disorder" and “noise nuisance". At that time, we fully supported these proposals. However, it is very disappointing to note that the Bill as it presently stands has removed two of the three proposed grounds on which a single licensed premises can be directed to close namely “imminent disorder" and “noise nuisance". Such imminent disorder and noise nuisance will more commonly arise in circumstances that cannot readily be anticipated.

As a result, the PSNI are strongly opposed to the removal of two of the three proposed grounds on which a single licensed premises can be directed to close i.e. “imminent disorder" and “noise nuisance".

Our main objection is that the ‘actual disorder’ now has to be occurring before a senior police officer can make an operational decision to close a licensed premises or club. Therefore on every occasion this power is to be used, there would be a requirement to deploy police officers into an ongoing public order situation which was already out of hand. As the Committee will appreciate, in most cases this will in fact actually inflame or escalate the situation and would most likely require additional resources and a higher level police response to safely deal with the situation, e.g. a Police Tactical Support Group (a Public Order Unit). Further to this, it could be alleged that the police closing of such premises contributed to the situation.

The police have a number of ‘Duty of Care’, Health & Safety and ECHR obligations which relate to protecting the lives and well being of both their employees and members of the public. For the police to allow such a situation to escalate out of control into ongoing disorder, before taking preventative action to protect life, property and prevent the commission of offences would be a failing of the highlighted obligations under Duty of Care, Health & Safety and ECHR. In all probability all such disorder may have actually been prevented if the police had been provided with the necessary additional grounds to consider the use of the closure power before the disorder had commenced. Therefore we can see no logic or rationale in waiting until disorder starts without taking action to prevent same using the relevant closure power.

We would also highlight the PSNI have additional key statutory duties under Section 32 of the Police Act (NI) 2000 to protect life and property, preserve order, prevent the commission of offences and where an offence has been committed, to take measures to bring any offender to justice.

Again the removal of ‘imminent disorder; and ‘noise nuisance’ as the other additional circumstances in which a police Inspector or above could consider the closure of a licensed premises or club would result in the police also failing in their duties under Section 32 of the Police Act (NI) 2000. Such failures would again relate to protecting life and property, preserving order and preventing the commission of offences, where these could have reasonably been prevented. In particular, this would be where it was evident to police at the time that such incidents were imminent or there was ongoing noise nuisance which suggested such incidents may actually take place.

In England & Wales, Section 161 of the Licensing Act 2003 provides a senior police officer to make such a closure order in relation to any relevant premises if they reasonably believe that:

1. there is, or is likely to be disorder on, or in the vicinity of and related to, the premises and their closure is necessary in the interests of public safety, or

2. a public nuisance is being caused by noise coming from the premises and the closure of the premises is necessary to prevent that nuisance.

Our understanding is that in Scotland, the Licensing (Scotland) Bill is broadly similar to the laws in England and Wales. Again in the Republic of Ireland, the Intoxicating Liquor Act provides a power to immediately close licensed premises. Our view is that what is being proposed for Northern Ireland is a diluted version of what is available to other police forces in the United Kingdom and Republic of Ireland.

It is important to point out that following the initial consultation launched by the then Minister of State for Northern Ireland, David Hanson, the original proposals on enforcement had widespread support from those groups/organisations who responded including political parties. In addition, in his Ministerial statement to Parliament on 20 July 2006, the Minister stated that as part of his plans to reform the law on liquor licensing in Northern Ireland, he was introducing six new objectives to underpin licensing policy, legislation and regulation. Included in these objectives were the promotion of public safety, the prevention of crime and disorder and the prevention of public nuisance. We would therefore highlight that the removal of the option to prevent both imminent disorder and noise nuisance from the closure powers significantly reduces the capability of the police to adequately enforce the proposed legislation. Consequently we feel that it is highly unlikely that the above licensing objectives can be met, if such substantially reduced closure powers are introduced.

However, we wish to emphasise that closure orders will only be made where they are absolutely necessary in the interest of public safety or to prevent noise nuisance as it may have serious consequences for the business affected by this action. In addition, we would also add that after any closure order is made by a senior police officer in respect of any licensed premises, the police will subsequently present the matter to the relevant court, in order that they may consider the closure order and any extension to it. This process also requires the police satisfy the court that their evidence and grounds for such closure was sufficient to demonstrate that such action was necessary, proportionate and thereby justified. It has also been noted that the Department of Justice will issue guidance on how these powers are to be implemented, which will assist senior police officers to interpret and apply the law consistently.

In our view the existing proposed mechanism whereby police are required to bring the matter before the relevant court combined with the Department of Justice issuing additional guidance on how the power should be exercised, provides sufficiently robust control measures are already in place to ensure that police actions are necessary, proportionate and justified.

As a result, the PSNI strongly recommend that the Bill be amended to include the additional two grounds on which a senior police officer can direct a licensed premises to close i.e. “imminent disorder" and “noise nuisance".

Penalty Points

The proposal to introduce a penalty points system is fully supported. This should see a greater focus by licensees to comply with the licensing laws with the sanction of closure for between 1 week and 3 months being a more effective deterrent than a fine. Currently a fine for selling after hours is not a deterrent as licensed premises can make more than that amount in the time they illegally stay open.

Proof-of-Age Scheme

The proposal to introduce a statutory proof-of-age scheme under which licensed premises and registered clubs will be encouraged, as a proof of ‘due diligence’, to insist on seeing specified documents as evidence of a young person’s age is welcomed. The new scheme will complement the existing Challenge 21 initiative, which encourages premises to challenge anyone who looks under 21 to provide proof-of-age. In addition, premises will be obliged to display specified signage at tills and counters, indicating that it is an offence to sell alcohol to anyone under the age of 18, for anyone under 18 to attempt to purchase alcohol or for an adult to buy alcohol on their behalf, and describing the new proof-of-age provisions. This action can then be used by a licence holder and staff (or a registered club) to contribute to a defence in any court proceedings arising from a charge of selling alcohol to an underage person.

It is noted that the specified documents as evidence of a young person’s age will be a passport; a photo card driving licence; an electoral identity card and any Proof of Age Standards Scheme (PASS)-accredited photo identity card. In this regard, we would make 2 comments. Firstly, when stating a passport is a valid form of ID, it should specify a valid passport. There is evidence to suggest that out of date passports are being doctored to allow underage people to insert their own photograph onto an older siblings ‘snipped’ passport. Secondly, it is our understanding that the electoral identity card is not PASS accredited and if this is the case, we would have a number of concerns. There are various types of Proof-of-Age (POA) cards in circulation, most of which are not PASS accredited and are usually fake. The use of such fake POA ID cards by minors to illegally obtain alcohol, particularly at licensed off sales premises has on occasions become an issue of concern in certain police districts. The Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO), the Home Office and the Trading Standards Institute currently give their support to the PASS standard. The introduction of any ID card that is not PASS accredited will lead to more confusion with retailers and is again another new open market product which the illegal online forgery businesses will no doubt be quick to take full advantage of.

Accounts of Registered Clubs

The current intense level of scrutiny as contained in the Registration of Clubs (Accounts) Regulations 1997 is no longer necessary. There is scope to simplify the auditing requirements and replace many of the other mandatory requirements of the regulations with a system of guidance and best practice.

The removal of the need for every registered club to forward club accounts and an auditor’s report to police will reduce the administrative burden on operational officers. However, that said, where police consider that a club may be problematic, a District Commander will be able to demand a summary of the accounts and an auditor’s report at any time.

Authorisations for Special Occasions

This relates to the proposed increase to the number of special occasions authorisations (late nights), which would potentially be available to registered clubs each year under Article 26 of the existing Clubs Order from 52 to 120.

Police have concerns that this increase is extreme, on the grounds that the majority of registered clubs would in all probability utilise such extra nights at the weekend. This could cause difficulties for our operational Districts whose resources are already stretched. Our view is that if it is decided to increase the number of late nights for clubs, then the police should have the two additional grounds on which a senior police officer can direct a licensed premises to close i.e. “imminent disorder" and “noise nuisance" as outlined in Point 1 above. If it is decided not to include these two additional grounds on which a senior police officer can direct a licensed premises to close, this further increases our concerns.

Although the PSNI are generally supportive of the majority of the provisions contained within the Bill, we are strongly opposed to the closure provisions as they currently stand.

We hope this helps to outline the current PSNI views on the Bill.

Public Health Agency

Pubs of Ulster - Cover Letter

Northern Ireland Assembly
Committee For Social Development
Room 412
Parliament Buildings
Belfast BT4 3XX

2nd July 2010

Dear Chairman and Committee members

Re: Licensing and Registration of Clubs (Amendment) Bill

I am writing to you on behalf of the members of Pubs of Ulster (formerly the Federation of the Retail Licensed Trade NI) and wish to thank you for the opportunity to respond to the proposals contained in Licensing and Registration of Clubs (Amendment) Bill.

Pubs of Ulster is the professional body of the Retail Licensed Trade in Northern Ireland, with members drawn from pubs and bars, restaurants and hotels that offer the famous Irish pub experience. We have a simple remit: To protect the integrity and sustainability of our unique pubs and heritage.

‘Pubs of Ulster’ is also at the forefront in promoting the Responsible Retailing of Alcohol. We recognise that in addition to the legal requirements that come with a Liquor Licence there is a moral responsibility to ensure that alcohol is sold and consumed in a responsible manner.

We also recognise that the Minister, his Department and the Committee share the same objectives as Pubs of Ulster, ensuring the responsible retailing of alcohol and in combating the misuse of alcohol and its consumption by minors.

Furthermore, Pubs of Ulster supports the Minister’s proposal to introduce additional powers as an effective measure to promote compliance with the law and his desire to see this legislation in place as swiftly as possible. We also support the previous DSD Minister Margaret Ritchie’s statement that “Licensing law alone cannot solve the problems" and believe that through improved self regulation the industry can play a major role, whilst also reducing the burden that increased enforcement will place on the resources of the PSNI and the Courts.

However, like the Minister Ritchie who in her statement to the Assembly (November 2008), outlining her proposals to amend the legislation stated “the devil is in the detail". We also recognise that “the devil is in the detail" and indeed in the additional proposal that until now was not in the public domain.

Therefore in the following evidence we wish to highlight our support for the measures aimed at combating the misuse of alcohol and its consumption by minors, and to promote compliance with the law. But we also wish to highlight our particular concerns in relation to the increased number of occasions on which registered clubs may apply to PSNI for later opening (to 1.00am) from 52 to 120 nights each year.

We would also welcome an opportunity to address the committee so that we may present our concerns in greater depth and hope that you will be in a position to consider our request favourably.

Yours sincerely

Colin Neill
Chief Executive

ENC; Written Summary of Evidence

Pubs of Ulster - Phase One

Licensing and Registration of Clubs (Amendment) Bill

Summary of individual proposals and Pubs of Ulster’s position;

Closure Powers & Penalty Points

Pubs of Ulster support the Minister’s proposal to introduce these powers as an effective measure to promote compliance with the law and to be used if necessary.

Like the previous DSD Minister Margaret Ritchie, we also recognise that “the devil is in the detail" and whilst the current lack of detail may cause our members some concern, we believe that the responsible members of the industry have nothing to fear. Also any concerns our members may have can be addressed by contributing to the development of the detail and by working in partnership with the Minister and his Department, to ensure that the outworking of these proposals is both effective and fair.

We also recognise that the industry has an obligation to self regulate and by so doing reduce the burden placed on the resources of the PSNI and the Courts. We are therefore actively working with the PSNI and other industry stakeholders to improve the effectiveness of self regulation within the industry.

Proof-of-age scheme

‘Pubs of Ulster’ supports the Minister’s proposal to introduce a Proof-of-age Scheme as an effective measure to combat the purchase and consumption of alcohol by minors.

The Minister, His Department, the Committee and Pubs of Ulster all share the same objectives in combating the purchase and consumption of alcohol by minors. Indeed Pubs of Ulster initiated and has lead the challenge 21 scheme based on the same proof of age documentation as proposed.

Limited Liability Partnership

Pubs of Ulster have no objection to this proposal at this time. However it should be noted that this position is based on the apparent indication of its impact supplied by the Department.

Accounts of Registered clubs

Pubs of Ulster recognise the changing environment in which the Clubs operate and fully support the Minister’s proposals in relation to Accounting Requirements for Registered Clubs.

Authorisations for special Occasions

Whilst we recognise that the bill has now advanced to the post consultation stage, we strongly disagree with the inclusion of proposals to increase the number of late licenses for clubs at this late stage.

Clubs and the licensed trade do share a number of common challenges within the current trading environment including reduced margins, increased overheads and costs in adapting to regulation changes, including the smoking ban; however each are very different entities, with very different cost bases. For example:

• Pubs pay corporation tax 21% - 28% - clubs don’t
• Pubs pay rates based on turnover (c30% higher) – clubs don’t
• Pubs pay capital gains tax – sports clubs don’t
• Pubs pay higher wage costs
• Pubs pay higher Security Industry Authority licensing costs
• Pubs pay higher Sky costs – ranging from £500 to £2,000 per month.

Pubs of Ulster and our members very much support clubs and their valuable role and important contribution to local communities, with many of our members also members of their local club. Indeed more often than not the local publican has played an active role in establishing clubs in their locality, often supplying occasional licenses for fundraising events.

However pubs also provide extensive benefits to the community, such as employment, both direct and indirect including those employed by suppliers and indeed local farmers. Also unlike many other industries, employees within the pub trade are often drawn from the local community. Thus providing direct employment in rural and disadvantaged areas where transport is often an inhibitor to employment.

Independent figures from PWC show that in Northern Ireland the Licensed Trade employs over 35,000 people and contributes an estimated £1 billion to the local economy each year.

Not to mention the role pubs play in attracting tourism (c80% visit a pub, c70% eat in a pub). With a third (33%) of the overall money spent by tourists in a year going on food and drink, even more than is spent on bed and board (NITB 2010).

Furthermore the DHSSPS estimates that local pubs contribute c.£2 Million annually into Northern Ireland Arts, Sports and Charity. Indeed many pubs are at the heart of their community and provide much more that a place to eat and drink.

Giving clubs additional late nights will have an impact on the communities in which they operate and will require additional police resources. Often spread over a greater area, given that clubs are often sited close to residential areas or in remote rural districts. Also clubs by nature of their location pay a very low level of rates, which do not take account of any social impact.

Unlike pubs, which are normally based in a commercial location such as village, town and city centres, allowing police to focus resources and due to their location pubs pay a much higher commercial rate. Also with pub rates based on their turnover, pubs pay on average 30% higher rates than any other commercial property in the same location, meaning pubs pay a substantial social levy within their rates. It is also worth noting that pubs are the only licensed retailers who pay this social levy, despite the fact that pubs only sell c23% of the alcohol in Northern Ireland.

Whilst we recognise that many clubs operate responsibly and within the law for the benefit of the community. There is a growing number of clubs that flout the existing regulations, ignoring access requirements and using loopholes in the legislation to run public functions and events which have no connection with the club and that are of no benefit to club members other than of a commercial value. These actions, although illegal are often seen as victimless crimes, going unchecked due to limited police resources and competing priorities. However Assistant Chief Constable Duncan McCausland is on record as stating: “Business Crime is not a victimless crime. It affects turnover, future prospects, staff morale and ultimately, people’s livelihoods". In short these crimes, although seemingly insignificant, can and will cost local people their jobs and local communities their amenities.

We believe that the majority of clubs do not use the existing 52 nights and that an additional 68 will, in the majority, only be used by those clubs who are already flouting the regulations and operating outside the law. Therefore increasing the number of late licenses for clubs will only introduce a level of unnecessary and unfair competition between pubs and clubs, placing additional pressure on the pub trade which is already struggling for its very survival. This is especially true outside Belfast where clubs and pubs operate side by side and where many pubs are now operating on a three day week, with growing numbers of publicans having to take additional daytime jobs to make ends meet.

It has been said that the clubs cannot compete against pubs, but clubs exist to serve their members whilst pubs exist to serve the public. As such they do not compete and therefore should not be placed in direct competition through this proposal.

We therefore request that the proposed increase in the number of occasions on which registered clubs may apply for late licenses be revised downward, until such times as robust measures which clearly regulate the appropriate use of club facilities for licensed events or functions are introduced to prevent inappropriate functions and events.

We would also request that the committee examine the following:

• The issue of membership of clubs to be looked at more closely in relation to the holding of functions and usage of facilities for licensed events.
• An analysis of the type of events being run which require a late licence
• The level of events of a social and ticketed nature which are being run at clubs and which are open to the public
• The rationale behind the level of licences being increased from 52 to 120 licences per year

Pubs of Ulster and our members recognise the valuable role and important contribution that clubs make to local communities. We also recognise the need for sports clubs to raise funds to support their activities. However their needs must be balanced against the benefits that pubs provide including tax, rates and employment. 35,000 people depend on the licensed trade to provide them with an income, some of which is spent in clubs, thus allowing clubs to provide the benefits to the community.

There is no doubt that both the Club and Pub Trade in Northern Ireland have faced some considerable challenges. As trends and social habits have altered, both have found themselves adapting to market needs, growing competition and increased legislation. In addition, recent times have brought some of the most significant and fundamental changes to both sectors. The last few years have seen the introduction of the smoking ban, a massive increase in legislation and supermarkets irresponsibly selling alcohol as a loss leader. All of which have had a serious impact on the sustainability of both sectors.

There is also no doubt that in the coming years a number of pubs and clubs will not survive these challenges, but it would be unfair to place the survival of clubs above the survival of pubs.

The Pub is truly part of the lifeblood of our culture, part of the very fabric of Northern Ireland. As such, it deserves our respect and support.

Pubs of Ulster

Comments on the Minister for Social Development’s plans to introduce legislation to ban irresponsible drinks promotions.

Interim Position Paper

9th October 2010

www.pubsofulster.org

Pubs of Ulster is the trading name of the Federation of the Retail Licensed Trade NI

Our Support

The following document has been prepared pre-consultation and is based on the limited information available at this time.

Pubs of Ulster and our members have taken the lead in many initiatives to promote the responsible enjoyment of alcohol, recognising that it is a controlled substance and misuse can have serious health implications for both individuals and the community. Any irresponsible sale of alcohol and the resulting misuse is of paramount concern to Pubs of Ulster and our members.

Pubs of Ulster welcomes and fully supports any regulation that will prevent the irresponsible sale of alcohol. Pubs of Ulster also recognises and supports the objectives of measures in the Bill to prohibit or restrict irresponsible alcohol promotions.

Pubs of Ulster supports a provision in the current Bill to include a power to allow the Department to make Regulations, which will be subject to affirmative resolution. Providing a new provision in the primary legislation to define what is meant by “a drinks promotion" and also specify what is considered “irresponsible".

Pubs of Ulster supports the provision of the power for the Department, by regulations, subject to affirmative resolution, to set out in detail the type and scope of the restrictions to be put in place so as to ban irresponsible promotions in both on-sales and off-sales premises licensed under the Licensing (NI) Order 1996 and clubs registered under the Registration of Clubs (NI) Order 1996.

Pubs of Ulster recognises the need to permit the Department to add or modify the list of activities counted as irresponsible therefore allowing the flexibility to deal quickly with new issues as they arise or new information that becomes available, including from other jurisdictions to tackle the many social and health issues associated with excessive consumption of alcohol.

Pubs of Ulster welcomes the position that all regulations would be subject to the affirmative resolution process thereby providing the opportunity for Assembly scrutiny and debate.

Pubs of Ulster supports the banning of the following alcohol promotions as detailed in the Bill under ‘Types of Alcohol Promotions That will be Banned’ when they encourage misuse or abuse of alcohol:

• The promotion relates to an alcoholic drink which is likely to appeal largely to under 18s
• An alcoholic drink is provided free or cut-price on purchase of one or more drinks (whether alcoholic or not)
• An alcohol drink(s) is provided free or cut-price on purchase of that particular drink – two for one
• An unlimited supply of alcohol is provided for a fixed charge (including any entrance fee) eg “all you can drink for £10", “pay your entry fee then drink for free until 10pm"
• A person is encouraged to buy or drink a larger measure of alcohol than they would otherwise have intended
• It is based on the strength of any alcohol
• It promotes, rewards or encourages drinking alcohol quickly ie drinking games
• It offers alcohol as a reward or prize - unless the alcohol is in a sealed container and consumed off the premises.
• A ban on alcohol dispensed directly by one person into the mouth of another (other than where that other person is unable to drink without assistance by reason of disability).
• Promotions which encourage specific groups to drink for free or at a discount e.g. “women drink for free", “ half price drinks for under 25s", discount nights for students or cheap drinks for fans of a specific sporting team.

With regard to the option to include ‘Other Specified Promotions’

(a) The supply of alcohol on licensed premises at a reduced price during a limited period on any day (“happy hours")

(b) Bans on differential pricing of alcoholic products.

Pubs of Ulster has a number of concerns

Our Concerns:

In relation to (a) The supply of alcohol on licensed premises at a reduced price during a limited period on any day (“happy hours").

Pubs of Ulster supports the objective of stopping irresponsible price promotions and recognise that some price/time based promotions, so called ‘Happy Hours’ may encourage or incite individuals to drink to excess, fuel drunkenness or anti-social behaviour.

On the other hand Pubs of Ulster also recognises that responsible well-managed promotions and sales practices are a wholly legitimate way of maintaining and developing business. Whilst providing the customer with a value opportunity.

For example; a promotion that offers all drinks, all night at £1.00 on a Saturday night may encourage consumers to drink excessively.

However, a promotion that reduces the price of a pint of beer from £2.70 to £2.00 from 5.00pm – 7.00pm on a Thursday evening to promote business and reward regular customers is unlikely to encourage customers to drink excessively.

Therefore introducing a blanket ban of price reduction for part of a trading day would severely limit the ability of the business to trade as a commercial operation and deprive the responsible customer of a value opportunity.

Especially when the ban in its current form would stop a modest price reduction carried out in a responsible manor. Whilst having no impact on an irresponsible promotion selling alcohol at extremely low prices all day, such as supermarkets selling alcohol below cost. Despite the fact that there is strong evidence that very low cost alcohol sold over long periods encourages misuse and abuse.

Pubs of Ulster therefore believes that issue of irresponsible time bound promotions should be addressed by focusing on the actual promotion and not restrict the ability of licensees to provide differential pricing during a single trading day. Especially when a can of beer can be bought for a little as 21p in the supermarkets all day every day!

There are also instances where the provision of a free drink to customers does not encourage misuse or abuse of alcohol, i.e. rewarding a regular customer with a complementary drink at Christmas.

In relation to (b) Bans on differential pricing of alcoholic products

Pubs of Ulster understands the objective of this proposal is to limit the sale of multi packs at a price that is less than the cumulative cost of the same quantity on the product bought individually, i.e. a bulk purchase price.

Pubs of Ulster recognise that a limited number of On-Trade venues offer irresponsible bulk purchase promotions and that this measure should stop this practise i.e. five shots for £5.00, where the normal price per unit is £3.00.

However the issue of bulk purchase leading to irresponsible consumption is in the majority an Off-Trade problem with supermarkets selling multi packs of canned beer cheaper that water, a problem that will not be addressed by this measure given that supermarkets do not sell beer in individual cans.

Ineffective in the Off-Trade

Whilst pubs of Ulster recognises the Minister’s good intent in stating that the legislation against irresponsible promotions will apply to both on-sales and/or off-sales licensed premises and registered clubs, as appropriate, we are disappointed that the measures outlined (above) will in the majority only effect the On-Trade and that irresponsible promotions will continue to be used a lost leader by the major supermarkets.

In relation to the Minister’s position on FURTHER MEASURES TO HELP TACKLE CONCERNS SURROUNDING EXCESSIVE CONSUMPTION OF ALCOHOL

Pubs of Ulster welcomes the statement that ‘The Minister is very concerned at how heavily discounted alcohol is a key contributory factor to unacceptable levels of alcoholrelated crime and disorder – in many cases as a result of “pre-loading" in preparation for a night out. Stating his intention to introduce further measures to target those retailers who sell alcohol below cost price in order to encourage higher footfall and therefore generate sales’.

Pubs of Ulster also recognises that the topic of pricing does not fall solely within Minister’s area of responsibility and will require consideration and agreement among a wide variety of stakeholders, in Whitehall & regional governments and in the private sector.

However Pubs of Ulster is disappointed that the Minister has opted for the wait and see approach to the introduction of minimum pricing. Given that the Scottish Government have carried out extensive research in this issue and that the only reason the Scottish Parliament has not been able introduce a minimum pricing bill is the lack of political will due to the structure of coalition and the lack of a majority vote.

Furthermore, the Minister has stated that restricting the sale of alcohol in supermarkets specifically raises complex questions to do with competition law and human rights, as well as customer demand and freedom of choice.

Pubs of Ulster believes that we could use the same argument of competition law and human rights, as well as customer demand and freedom of choice against any promotions legislation, but as a responsible organisation representing a responsible industry we believe that profit should not come before people.

Also the false argument of the majority having to pay extra on alcohol when it is only abused by the minority is flawed, given that the majority are actually paying higher prices on other supermarket products to subsidise the below cost sales of alcohol.

In fact it is the pensioner paying extra for his bread and milk or the mother paying extra on food to feed her children that is subsidising the price of alcohol in supermarkets.

Pubs of Ulster therefore call on the Minister and the Northern Ireland Assembly to lead the way in banning the irresponsible sale of alcohol below cost and introduce a minimum price per unit.

Advertising Ban

Pubs of Ulster also call on the Minister and the Northern Ireland Assembly to support a national advertising ban for price promotion of alcohol. Removing the ability of irresponsible retailers to use alcohol as a footfall driver.

Social Levy

Any new legislation, both on a national and local level, should proportionately reflect the responsibility of all alcohol retailers, compared to the present social levy which applies only to pubs (via rate payments). Such legislation would provide a considerable revenue stream to the Government, which could be used to fund health and education programs at a time when Government resources are constrained.

Conclusion

Pubs of Ulster will continue to support the Minister and the Northern Ireland Assembly to address the misuse of alcohol. However, we are extremely disappointed that the current proposals will in the majority only affect the on-trade, ignoring the continued irresponsible practices on the supermarkets, with very little effect on the growing health issues arising out of alcohol misuse.

Background

Founded in 1872, Pubs of Ulster is the trading name of the Federation of the Retail Licensed Trade NI and is the professional body of the Retail Licensed Trade in Northern Ireland. With membership consisting of pubs, bars, café-bars, restaurants and hotels that offer the complete customer experience.

Pubs of Ulster is also at the forefront in promoting the Responsible Retailing of Alcohol. We recognise that there is a moral responsibility to ensure that alcohol is sold and consumed in a responsible manner, in addition to the legal requirements that come with a Liquor Licence.

With Pub property rates based on their turnover, pubs pay on average 30% higher rates than any other commercial property in the same location, meaning pubs pay a substantial Social Levy within their rates. It is also worth noting that pubs are the only licensed retailers who pay this Social Levy, despite the fact that pubs only sell c25% of the alcohol in Northern Ireland.

The Licensed Trade in Northern Ireland is estimated to contribute c.£1 Billion to the Northern Ireland economy every year, employing over c.34,000* people.

(*PricewaterhouseCoopers)

The Pub Trade makes an important contribution to the Northern Ireland Tourism product, with visiting a pub rated as the most popular activity for visitors to Northern Ireland (c80%*). Pubs are also rated as the most popular place to eat (c70%*). In fact, a third (33%*) of the overall money spent by tourists in a year goes on food and drink, even more than is spent on bed and board! (*Northern Ireland Tourist Board) The DHSSPS estimates that local pubs contribute c.£2 Million annually into Northern Ireland Arts, Sports and Charity.

Queens University Belfast

Sport NI

Sport Northern Ireland

Response from Sport Northern to the Licensing and Registration of Clubs (Amendment) Bill

Issue Date: 02 July 2010

This Document is Available in Other Accessible Formats on Request
And On-Line at www.sportni.net

Contents Page

Page

1 Introduction

2 Background to Sport Northern Ireland

3. General Comments

4. Sni Response to Legislative Amendment

5. Conclusion

6. Contact Details

1 Introduction

1.1 This paper provides Sport Northern Ireland’s (SNI) response to the Licensing and Registration of Clubs Bill (hereafter “the Bill") currently under consideration by the Committee for Social Development.

1.2 SNI welcomes the opportunity to comment on the Bill particularly as it will build on and in some places replace the valuable contribution of existing provisions of the Licensing (Northern Ireland) Order 1996 and the Registration of Clubs (Northern Ireland) Order 1996.

1.3 This response provides general comment on the Bill and focuses mainly on the impact it would have for voluntary sports club and organisations.

2. Background to Sport Northern Ireland

2.1 SNI is a Non-Departmental Public Body (NDPB) of the Department for Culture, Arts and Leisure (DCAL) and is charged with the development of sport in Northern Ireland. DCAL’s vision is of: “a confident, creative, informed and vibrant community".

2.2 DCAL intend to realise this vision through the development of policies and resources to: “Protect, nurture and grow our Cultural Capital for today and tomorrow" (DCAL Mission).

For DCAL, Cultural Capital is manifested in three ways:

• People – the creators and consumers of Cultural Capital, including sportswomen and sportsmen;
• Infrastructure – the physical spaces within which culture is created and enjoyed, including sports grounds; and
• Products and Services – our cultural output, including sporting success.

2.3 SNI’s vision is embedded in DCAL’s vision: “A culture of lifelong enjoyment and success in sport which contributes to a peaceful, fair and prosperous society".

In practice, this means SNI designing and implementing programmes and partnerships that will contribute to the following strategic objectives:

• Increased participation in sport and physical activity;
• Improved sporting performances; and
• Improved efficiency and effectiveness in the administration of sport.

2.4 SNI’s business and the development of sport and physical recreation in Northern Ireland is dependent on an infrastructure of people, organisations and facilities, all of which need to be grown and sustained in the longer term.

3. General Comments

3.1 SNI recognise that everyone has a part to play if the unwelcome rising level of alcohol abuse and underage drinking in our society is to be addressed and ultimately eradicated. A recent SNI publication titled “Active People: Healthy Communities" highlights how SNI’s investment in community sport has contributed towards the achievement of public health outcomes (including addressing alcohol abuse and awareness). SNI therefore welcomes the amendments included within the legislative proposals and have included our recommendations and observations below.

4. SNI Response to Legislative Amendment

4.1 Firstly, SNI welcomes the fact that the proposals are future-friendly and can be easily aligned to the objectives and structure of any new dispensation as a result of the Review of public Administration. SNI is currently working with 11 consortia of district councils (based on Model 11b of the RPA Consultation of March 2005) to deliver its Active Communities Programme, an investment programme which seeks to employ, deploy and train a network of full-time and part-time sports coaches and leaders across Northern Ireland.

4.2 Given that legislation in this area has remained unchanged since the late 1990s, SNI agrees that change is important in order to address the rising levels of alcohol abuse and its effects of ill-health, disorder, crime and domestic violence. In addition, SNI believes that the proposed stricter enforcement measures will help tackle the highlighted issues above.

4.3 Closures Provision

Transferring responsibility for liquor licensing and clubs’ registration from the courts to the newly-formed district councils would provide ‘local solutions’ enabling ‘local decisions’ to address ‘local problems’.

4.4 Penalty Points Scheme

SNI agrees that a penalty points system for licensed premises for a range of offences will help to achieve the six proposed licensing objectives set out in the second stage of the planned reforms.

4.5 Proof-of-Age Scheme

SNI agrees with the proposal to introduce a statutory proof-of-age scheme and believes that this is extremely important in order to address alcohol abuse by young people. However, if this is to be as effective as the provisions in Scotland and the Republic of Ireland, it is imperative that it is reinforced by all.

4.6 Accounts of Registered Clubs

SNI supports the decision to introduce streamlined accounting practices for registered clubs especially considering the current bureaucratic burden on clubs. Nevertheless, SNI’s experience dictates that many clubs will require support to ‘modernise’ and would be mindful that this is unlikely to happen overnight. Furthermore, SNI would also be interested to understand how the new accounting requirements will ease the bureaucratic burden on registered clubs.

4.7 Special Occasions Authorisation

SNI welcomes the proposal to increase the number of late licenses to members’ clubs from 52 to 120 per year. Given the current economic climate sports clubs have been affected with a lack of sponsorship from the private sector. This change would provide additional fund raising opportunities for member clubs.

5. Conclusion

5.1 In conclusion, SNI agree and is committed to ensuring the law in this area complements the Department’s objectives and that it is robust, intuitive and fit-for-purpose. SNI is further also committed to seeing this legislation put in place as quickly as possible for the benefit of sporting clubs, young people and the community at large.

6. Contact Details

6.1 For further information contact:
Policy, Planning & Research Team
Sport Northern Ireland
House of Sport
2a Upper Malone Road
Belfast
BT9 5LA

Tel: 028 9038 1222
Email: pauldonnelly@sportni.net

The Wine and Spirit Trade Association

2 July 2010

Response To The Call For Evidence On The Licensing Amd Registration Of Clubs (Amendment) Bill

The Wine and Spirit Trade Association (WSTA) welcomes the opportunity to submit comments to the Committee for Social Development on the Licensing and Registration of Clubs (Amendment) Bill. Our brief comments are restricted to Part 1 of the Bill, the area of most relevance to us. The WSTA is the UK organisation for the wine and spirit industry representing over 320 companies producing, importing, transporting and selling wines and spirits. We campaign to promote the industry’s interests with governments at home and abroad. We work with our members to promote the responsible production, marketing and sale of alcohol.

General comments

We are fully committed to reducing the irresponsible consumption and sale of alcohol. The WSTA and its members have been at the forefront of initiatives to improve standards across the industry, particularly in relation to underage sales. However the drive to tackle alcohol misuse must not overlook the fact that the vast majority of businesses sell alcohol responsibly and most people consume alcohol responsibly.

The WSTA believes that the most successful approach is a combination of targeted policies to address problem drinkers, proper enforcement of existing laws and local partnership working with businesses in problem areas. Businesses act as the first line of law enforcement in relation to alcohol sales and working with them in genuine partnership can achieve real change. We would like to highlight two particular industry-led initiatives which have successfully tackled under-age sales- Challenge 25 and Community Alcohol Partnerships.

Challenge 25 scheme

Challenge 25 is a retailing strategy that encourages anyone who is over 18 but looks under 25 to carry acceptable ID (a card bearing the PASS hologram, a photographic driving license or a passport) if they wish to buy alcohol. Challenge 25 builds on the highly successful Challenge 21 campaign developed by the Retail of Alcohol Standards Group (RASG) in 2005. RASG is a committee of highstreet off-trade alcohol retailers, coordinated by the WSTA, whose aim is to exchange best practice in the responsible retailing of alcohol.

Challenge 21, which encouraged anyone who looked under 21 to carry ID, became an industry standard that has lead to a cultural change whereby young people expect to be challenged for identification when buying alcohol.

Challenge 21 proved an effective tool to tackle underage purchase but with levels of sales to minors still not low enough and the serious personal consequences of illegal sales for shop staff, retailer employees requested a program to give them greater backing and protection. RASG therefore moved the retail industry norm to Challenge 25.

In 2009, Challenge 25 signage began to be introduced in RASG member stores across the UK, examples of which are below. The uniform RASG look ensures recognition and awareness by consumers up and down the country. Retailers adapt their training, processes and IT systems to the Challenge 25 approach.

Community Alcohol Partnerships

Community Alcohol Partnerships were developed by the Retail of Alcohol Standards Group and local partners to address underage drinking. Community Alcohol Partnerships aim to tackle the problems caused by underage access to alcohol through co-operation between alcohol retailers and local stakeholders, such as Trading Standards in England and Wales, police, local authorities, schools and health networks.

What began as a pilot project in St. Neots, Cambridgeshire, has developed into a tried and trusted method of local partnership working which delivers results. Central to the operation of CAPs is the sharing of information between partners to combat purchase and possession of alcohol by those under 18 coupled with rigorous enforcement of laws designed to tackle anti-social behaviour. A total of 12 schemes are now in operation in England and Scotland. Initial discussions have taken place in Northern Ireland with City of Derry Council about the potential for a CAP to be introduced there.

In 2009, Kent University evaluated CAPs in three areas of Kent. It found that from March to September 2009 CAP pilot areas saw a decline in offences of criminal damage some 6% greater than in non pilot areas.

Specific comments

1. Closure of licensed premises

The WSTA does not oppose the introduction of powers to close premises in an area experiencing or likely to experience disorder, as long as they are used proportionately. It is vital to ensure that there is not scope for retailers selling alcohol to be unfairly penalised for wider alcohol-related disorder in their area unconnected to their business.

2. Penalty points scheme

There has to be appropriate sanctions in place to deal with the minority who persistently breach the law. However punishment must be fair and proportionate and we question whether the level of proposed penalties in the penalty scheme meets this criteria. According to the Bill, licence holders accumulating 10 points in a period of three years will have their licence suspended for up to three months. Schedule 1 makes clear that a license holder convicted of selling alcohol underage for example, will automatically incur 5-6 points on their licence with the court unable to exercise any discretion over this. This suggests that an off-licence or supermarket found selling underage just twice in three years would meet the 10 points threshold for suspension of licence. Given the size of some stores and the daily volume of alcohol sales, this would seem an unduly severe penalty.

This level of sanction is significantly out of step with law on underage selling in England and Wales. The Policing and Crime Act 2009 amended the offence of persistently selling alcohol to children, so that the offence is committed if alcohol is sold to an individual under the age of 18 on two or more occasions within three months- a vastly reduced time scale.

We would urge the Committee to consider whether the level of points to be endorsed on conviction for each offence, the 10 point threshold and the three-year time period within which offences are taken into account is proportionate and fully conducive to successful partnership working with businesses to tackle alcohol-related offences.

3. Statutory proof-of-age scheme

The overwhelming majority of retailers take their responsibility to prevent underage sales seriously. As set out above, the Challenge 25 proof-of-age scheme has proven extremely successful in reducing underage sales and has helped foster cultural change whereby young people carry identification if they wish to buy alcohol. We want to ensure that the proposed statutory scheme will not undermine the successful operation of Challenge 25 in any way.

The Bill will introduce a requirement for all licensed premises to display a notice containing information on underage sales and listing acceptable proof of age documents. However details of the format and content of notices will only be set out in secondary legislation, so we do not have the opportunity to scrutinise these requirements at this stage.

The Challenge 25 scheme accepts a passport, photographic driving licence or a card bearing a Proof of Age Standards Scheme (PASS) hologram as acceptable identification from a young person wishing to buy alcohol. The proposed statutory proof of age scheme would also allow an electoral identity card or possibly some other form of ID, which would be prescribed by regulations. We would question whether these additional forms of identification are necessary in addition to a passport, driving licence and PASS document. Extending the range of acceptable forms of identification makes it more difficult for licence holders to spot fake documents and existing Challenge 25 training for shop staff would need to be revised.

Regulations which would require revisions to the existing Challenge 25 scheme in one region would not only incur costs to businesses, but would risk undermining it. The strategy is based on the consistent enforcement of a single set of standardised signage and messaging used throughout the UK.

ENDS

For further information please contact:

Laura Davies
The Wine and Spirit Trade Association
International Wine & Spirit Centre
39-45 Bermondsey Street
LONDON, SE1 3XF
t +44 (0)20 7089 3882
f +44 (0)20 7089 3870
laura@wsta.co.uk

WSTA Email 12.10.10

Further to your email, please find attached responses to the following requests for information:

• the Department for Social Development’s proposals to control irresponsible drink promotions.

Now that the consultation on tackling irresponsible promotions has been formally launched, the WSTA will be developing a response to this. We will ensure that Committee receives a copy of this submission when complete.

• the Scottish Government’s proposals for minimum alcohol pricing.

Please find attached a paper setting out the WSTA’s approach on minimum pricing.

• information on the number of licensed premises which have undergone mandatory closures as a consequence of breaching underage alcohol sales rules.

According to the latest statistics from the Department for Media, Culture and Sport, 151 premises licences or club premise certificates in England and Wales were revoked in 2009-10 following a completed licence review and 187 were suspended. These statistics collect the number of licences revoked or suspended, but do not indicate why. Licences may be revoked by the licensing authority for a number of reasons, including selling of alcohol to children.

In 2009-10, the main reason for completed reviews (as reported by the licensing objectives and the stated grounds of the review) was crime & disorder (72 %), this was followed by protection of children (36%) and public nuisance (33%).

The persistent sale of alcohol to children is a specific criminal offence under section 147A of the Licensing Act 2003. In 2009-10, 2 licences in England and Wales were suspended by a court for this specific offence (DCMS, Alcohol, Entertainment and Late Night Refreshment Licensing Statistical Bulletin 2010, October 2010).

Please also find attached some further material Jeremy Beadles referred to in his evidence and which he would like the Committee to be aware of. These are:

• A presentation outlining the work of Community Alcohol Partnerships.

http://www.wsta.co.uk/images/stories/cap_presentation_latest.ppt

• A paper setting out the WSTA position on below-cost selling (attached).

Many thanks,

Laura

Laura Davies
Policy Manager

WSTA Assessment Minimum Pricing Alcohol

WSTA Below Cost Selling

Ulster GAA

2nd July 2010

The Committee for Social Development

Room 412

Parliament Buildings

Ballymiscaw

Belfast

BT4 3XX

Response to the Licensing and Registration of Clubs (Amendment) Bill

Dear Sir/Madam,

Please find enclosed the Ulster GAA’s response the committee on the above legislation. We would appreciate the opportunity to discuss this issue.

Yours Sincerely

Comhairle Uladh CLG
Ulster GAA

Cennaras Uladh
8-10 Market Street
Armagh
Co. Armagh
www.ulster.gaa.ie

Response to the Committee for Social Development on the
Licensing and Registration of Clubs (Amendment) Bill

Introduction

Ulster GAA is the Provincial Council and governing body for the GAA in Ulster. The GAA is the world’s largest amateur sporting, cultural and community organisation. Ulster GAA oversees the work of nine County Committees and almost 600 GAA Clubs as well as GAA activity in over 1,500 schools and Colleges. Some 250,000 volunteer members are actively involved in the GAA in Ulster.

Ulster GAA is very aware of how it has to do its work within the frameworks set by others. That reality is made very clear in our new strategic vision and action plan 2009-15, “Teaghlaigh agus Pobail: An Fabraic an CLG" (“Family and Community: The Fabric of the GAA"), launched in March 2009. But the Council also holds firmly that it has a role in inputting to and influencing those frameworks. The GAA is above all else community-based: therefore what happens in or is planned for those communities is of pivotal concern to the GAA.

Volunteering is a vital in every aspect of all the activities undertaken by Ulster GAA. In 2005 the Economic and Social Research Institute of Ireland report titled “Social and Economic Value of Sport in Ireland" highlighted that the GAA accounts for over 40% of all volunteer activity in Ireland.

Ulster GAA would highlight its concern that there was no representative from the sports sector on the Volunteering Strategy Steering Group.

Ulster GAA welcomes the opportunity to respond to the Department of Social Development’s ‘Consultation Paper on a Volunteering Strategy’, as volunteerism is at the heart of everything Ulster GAA stands for as Ulster GAA’s mission is: ‘To foster and grow the GAA across Ulster, strengthening its position as the Province’s leading amateur sporting, cultural; community; and volunteer-driven movement.’

As part of the GAA, Comhairle Uladh is unequivocally value-driven. The values which guide its plans and its day-to-day work are:

• Community
• Volunteerism
• Identity
• Inclusion
• Excellence

Volunteerism is a one of Ulster GAA five guiding principles:

‘The GAA offers an involvement that people are in turn free to take or leave: the Association is based on choice. It also believes in cherishing its volunteers and supporting them to reach their full potential in terms of how they contribute to the GAA and their communities. The GAA’s current strength is largely down to an unwavering practice of contributing to this generation whilst re-investing for the next one: Ulster GAA will continue that practice. We share our work and our benefits in the proven belief that shared benefits endure. Where it needs to buy in expert help or support it will do so in open and transparent ways which conform to best purchasing and recruitment practice.

Ulster GAA Strategic Vision and Action Plan 2009-2015

Consultation Response

The Licensing and Registration of Social Clubs Bill if enacted in current form will have a detrimental effect on the governance and status of 87 GAA Social Clubs.

Our GAA Social Clubs are not profit bodies rather they are vital income-generators that allows them to provide a social support to the community and which allows the GAA Club to re-invest its income back into local communities through the work of the GAA – providing sports and recreation for people of all ages and abilities and gives people an opportunity to participate in activities to promote sport, culture, heritage and the Irish language.

GAA Social Clubs are controlled environments which allow members of GAA clubs to socialise and enjoy alcohol before and after games. All social clubs are run by GAA volunteers and are run with the best interests of the community. Ulster GAA believes that the provision of GAA Social Clubs helps reduce the high intake of alcohol in uncontrolled environments, such as the home, public places and in the precincts of Off Licensed premises.

The legislation proposed has been designed to combat issues around anti-social behaviour -none of which involve GAA Clubs or indeed for any registered sports Clubs.

Penalty Points System

Ulster GAA understand the penalty points system but are unsure that Social Clubs will be better run as a result of their application. We believe that the proposed penalty points are too high consequent on the stated infringement, the operational threshold is too high given the volunteer basis of the management of the GAA Clubs and the consequences for a breach of regulation is too high in respect of its impact to the GAA Club and status in its’ community.

We would recommend that there should be discretion available to the courts on the matter of the application of penalty points were a GAA Club or its’ Officers believe that the circumstances are incorrectly applied.

It is worth highlighting that GAA Social Clubs are run by volunteers, and we are extremely concerned that the penalty points system could result in volunteers, who give of their time and experience freely, facing prosecution or receiving criminal records because of a technical infringement. We have no doubt this will put volunteers under serious stress and will result in many people being put off from getting involved in the committees set up to run our GAA Social Clubs. We believe that the last amendment contained in 1996 Registration of Clubs (N.I. Order) was draconian and placed substantial thresholds on the operation of our Social Clubs. We believe that Article 3.1.2 of our Club Constitution stipulates that ‘The Club is defined as a Sporting Club within the terms of the Registration of Clubs (N.I.) Order 1996 which states ‘Sporting Club’ means a Club occupying a hereditament to which Article 31 of the Rates (N.I.) Order 1997 applies (Rates Relief) being a hereditament which is used solely or mainly for the purposes of physical recreation’. We are satisfied that all our Clubs are covered by this GAA imposed requirement.

As highlighted in a submission made by our colleagues in the NI Federation of Clubs with which we concur:

“The removal of the discretion available to the court under Article 44 (2) for offences in Part 3 of Schedule 6, not to impose penalty points where the exercise of due diligence has been proven.

This could result in suspension of the club’s registration for two technical breaches of for example Article 40 (2), notwithstanding that the officials had exercised due diligence to avoid the commission of an offence.

It has to be remembered that those who manage private registered clubs are in the vast majority of cases part time unpaid volunteers.

The Minister promised a relaxation of the stringent accounts regime which has proven so onerous and expensive for clubs to operate since its introduction over 20 years ago. The way in which the penalty point system has now been framed is in effect introducing a similar level of stringency but by the back door.

All of the offences in the Order for breaches relating to accounts attract penalty points in the band 5-6 with NO discretion on the magistrate even if the breach is merely technical.

The inclusion of breaches of Article 40 in Part 3 of the Schedule instead of Part 1 or 2 means that no recognition can be afforded by the presiding magistrate to those officials of a club exercising due diligence in the performance of their duties if for some reason there is a small oversight resulting in a breach.

The inclusion of breaches of Article 40 in Part 3 of the Schedule is clearly wrong if the spirit of the legislation is to relax the accounting regime and make it less onerous, Consideration must be given to moving offences under Article 40 from Part 3 to Part 1 or Part 2.

The threshold for suspension of two convictions in a three year period is too low in circumstances where the discretion previously available to the Court under Article 44 (2) has

Volunteers

Ulster GAA is proud of our amateur ethos. All our work is driven by volunteers, who give of their time, experience and knowledge freely. Our organisation could not operate without our volunteers. The same must be said for our social clubs. GAA social clubs are run by volunteers, however many do provide employment opportunities to the local community, as most GAA Social Clubs are professional staffed.

The responsibility of the running and organisation of social clubs however falls to the Social Club Committee, which is made up of volunteers.

Ulster GAA believes it’s important to protect volunteers where possible and to also provide necessary training, advice and support to help volunteers carry out their very important roles. We do not support proposals which put volunteers at risk of prosecution over technical infringements. We believe this possibility could put many potential volunteers off from volunteering, and it’s worth noting that this goes against DSD Volunteering Strategy.

Ulster GAA believes it’s essential that volunteers are protected and would urge that the Bill takes this into account.

Child Protection and Minors on Premises

Ulster GAA has an excellent record on child protection and we believe that it’s important that children, young people and vulnerable adults are protected at all times. All our volunteers who work with children and vulnerable adults are required by the Association and by law to be vetted. We would therefore point out that we have already good practices in place regarding this issue. Ulster GAA would recommend an extension in the hours for minors to be on registered club premises, from 9.00pm until 11pm. This would take into account that many under-age matches finish up after 9pm in summer evenings and as such would allow families an opportunity to spend some time in the social club together.

Extensions to Opening Hours

Ulster GAA would urge that there should be extension to Sunday Night opening to 12am as many GAA games are held on Sunday evening and this would give members time to enjoy some time in the social club after the games and events.

There is no reason why GAA Social Clubs should be denied the same opening times as licensed premises. It is not a level playing field, and could result in members leaving the GAA Social Club and heading to late-night pubs and clubs, and therefore is not achieving anything, other than increasing expense on members of GAA (especially those from rural areas who may have to travel considerable distance to late-night pubs).

Authorisations for Special Occasions

Ulster GAA welcomes the proposal to increase the number of nights for late licenses, however we feel 156 per year would be more reasonable than 120.

This would mean that GAA Social Clubs could operate 3 nights a week on a late license which is essential to enable GAA Social Clubs to operate in difficult economic times and to compete with licensed premises.

This would provide GAA Social clubs with the option of running more events in their clubs and thus increasing the income generated, which would directly benefit Gaelic Games and the community.

For Further Information please contact:

Sharon Haughey
Volunteer Development and Research Officer
E-mail: sharon.haughey.ulster@gaa.ie
Tel: 028 37 517 180

Appendix 4

DSD Submissions

Content list

Briefing Paper dated 18th May 2010

Delegated Powers Memorandum 16th June 2010

Examiner of Statutory Rules’ response 30th September 2010

Letter dated 15th July 2010

Letter dated 15th October 2010

Letter dated 1st November 2010

Email dated 8th November 2010

Letter dated 19th November 2010

DSD Correspondence 18 May 2010

Peter McCallion Committee Clerk Committee for Social Development Room 412 Parliament Buildings Belfast BT4 3XX

Social Policy Unit 4th Floor, Lighthouse Building 1 Cromac Place Gasworks Business Park Ormeau Road BELFAST BT7 2JA Tel: (028) 90829249 Fax: (028) 90829539

Date: 18 May 2010

Dear Peter

Licensing and Registration of Clubs (Amendment) Bill:
Briefing Paper for Social Development Committee

The Minister introduced the Licensing and Registration of Clubs (Amendment) Bill in the Assembly on 17 May. Officials are due to brief the Committee on the Bill’s contents on 27 May at 4.30pm in the Slieve Donard Hotel. In order to assist the Committee in this process we have attached a briefing paper in the Annex. It is hoped that the paper will help give the Committee a better understanding of the legislative objectives of the Bill and how it will deliver on policy which has previously been the subject of consultation with them.

Yours sincerely

Liam Quinn
Social Policy Unit
Lighthouse Building
Tel. 90 829249 int. 38249

Annex

Licensing and Registration of Clubs (Amendment) Bill – Briefing Paper for Social Development Committee

Introduction

Northern Ireland law on liquor licensing and clubs has remained largely unchanged since 1997, despite significant changes in people’s expectations and attitudes and in social and economic circumstances during that time. As a result it needed to be examined to see if and how it should be updated to take into account of developments in that period.

Margaret Ritchie’s predecessor, David Hanson, carried out a review which began in 2004. After consulting in November 2005 on policy proposals he decided to introduce reforms in two stages, before and after RPA. He consulted in 2007 on a draft Order in Council to give effect to the first tranche but the Order was not enacted due to the return of the Assembly. His review provided comprehensive information on which to build.

Objective of Review

In carrying out her review the Minister wanted to learn how new legislation could contribute positively to achieving our social, economic and regeneration objectives and, more specifically, how liquor licensing law could contribute to the management of alcohol in our society. During the course of that work she considered the issues arising from the Hanson review and a range of additional policy options. She also noted developments in Northern Ireland, Great Britain, the Republic of Ireland and further afield and the approaches taken in those jurisdictions to concerns we have in common.

Among major issues that emerged from the Minister’s review were the growing level of alcohol abuse in our society and its effects in terms of health, disorder, crime and domestic violence. Licensing law cannot solve these problems but, in conjunction with other initiatives by the public, private and community sectors, the Minister felt that its contribution could make a difference.

Objectives

The Minister decided to introduce her reforms in two stages. The first stage which concerns us today is, the Licensing and Registration of Clubs (Amendment) Bill which is a short Bill amending the Licensing (Northern Ireland) Order 1996 and the Registration of Clubs (Northern Ireland) Order 1996.

The Licensing and Registration of Clubs (Amendment) Bill was approved by the Executive on 29 April and will be introduced in the Assembly on 17 May with the Second Stage debate on 1 June. The Bill will make provision for stricter enforcement measures which the Minister believes will help combat the problems of alcohol misuse, disorder and underage drinking. In relation to registered clubs, it will make provision for more appropriate accounting requirements and an increase in opportunities for later opening.

Key Features of Bill

The Bill will provide for:

• New closure powers to allow the closure, for up to 24 hours in the first instance, of licensed or club premises, where there is actual or likely disorder;
• A system of penalty points to be levied by courts on premises which break the law;
• A statutory proof-of-age scheme specifying, for the first time, acceptable proof-of-age documentation for the purposes of licensing and registered clubs;
• A minor amendment to the Licensing (Northern Ireland) Order 1996 in relation to limited liability partnerships as a result of the Limited Liability Partnerships Act (NI) 2002;
• An increase in the number of occasions each year on which registered clubs may keep their bars open to 1.00am rather than the earlier closing time of 11.00pm; and
• More appropriate accounting requirements for registered clubs.

Closure Provisions

Clauses 1 and 5 of the Bill make largely identical provisions for a new closure power to allow the courts to close licensed premises and registered clubs in a district in order to protect public safety in situations where disorder is occurring or imminent. They also provide for a new closure power for a senior police officer to immediately close premises, for up to 24 hours in the first instance, where it is adjudged that actual disorder is occurring.

Although not provided for in the Bill, agreement between officials has been reached that the Department of Justice will, prior to the provision coming into effect, issue guidance on how they expect the power to be carried out in practice. The objective of the guidance will be to help senior police officers interpret and apply the law consistently and will, inter alia, indicate that in coming to a decision, the officer will; have regard to prevailing legislation and guidance, including public order legislation, and the terms of their force orders.

The Bill also provides for new offences and penalties for licensed premises and registered clubs that fail to comply with the new closure order provisions.

Penalty Points

Clauses 2 and 6 of the Bill make largely identical provisions for a court, following conviction, to endorse penalty points on a licence or certificate of registration. Courts will have some discretion on whether to endorse penalty points for offences attracting level 3 (£1000) or level 4 (£2500) fines but for the more serious level 5 (£5000) offences such as underage sales, the endorsement of penalty points will be mandatory. On the accumulation of 10 or more penalty points within a period of 3 years, a licence or certificate must be suspended for not less than 1 week or more than 3 months.

Although the concept of penalty points for breaches of licensing law is unique to Northern Ireland, it is not new as penalty points exist in the Registration of Clubs (Northern Ireland) Order 1996 for financial offences. Now, by extending these provisions to licensed premises and applying them to most offences, premises who flout the law face more than just a fine.

Proof-of-Age Scheme

Clauses 3 and 7 of the Bill make identical provision for the introduction of a statutory proof-of-age scheme. Under the scheme licensed premises and registered clubs will be encouraged, as a proof of due diligence, to insist on seeing specified documents as evidence of a young person’s age. The specified proof-of-age documents are a passport, photocard driving licence, a Northern Ireland Electoral Card and any PASS-accredited photo identity card. Delegated powers in these clauses will allow the Department to make regulations specifying other age cards if necessary. Although the new law does not compel licensed premises and registered clubs to insist on seeing one of the above documents, it will define the term “due diligence" in the Licensing (NI) Order 1996 and the Registration of Clubs (NI) Order 1996 to include asking for one of these documents. This can be used by a licence holder and/or staff, and by a registered club, as a defence in any court proceedings arising from a charge of allowing an underage person to be on the premises or at a bar illegally or selling alcohol to such a person.

Licensed premises and registered clubs will be required to display notices describing offences relating to the sale of alcohol to young people under the age of 18 and the purchase of alcohol by, or for, under 18’s. The notice will also refer to the documents prescribed for the purposes of proving age. The size and content of the notice will be specified in regulations made by the Department. There will be new offences and penalties for licensed premises and registered clubs that fail to display the proof-of-age signage.

Limited Liability Partnerships

Clause 4 of the Bill inserts a new Article 2B in the Licensing (NI) Order 1996 to provide that a reference to a director of a corporate body is a reference to a member of a limited liability partnership and the reference to the secretary of a body corporate is a reference to any designated member of a limited liability partnership. This amendment arose from the implementation of the Limited Liability Partnerships Act (NI) 2002 which was revoked by the Companies Act 2006. However the Department for Business Innovation & Skills (responsible for Companies Act) advised that the required amendment to the Licensing Order was not consequential to any provision made by or under the Companies Act 2006, hence this amendment carried in the Bill.

Accounts of Registered Clubs

Clause 8 of the Bill provides for amendments to Article 40 of the Registration of Clubs (Northern Ireland) Order 1996 to create a more flexible accounting system for registered clubs. It paves the way for new regulations which will recognise the differing auditing requirements for small, medium and large clubs and will introduce guidance on a system of control for accounts, cash holdings and receipts.

The PSNI has acknowledged that the financial mismanagement which existed in some clubs in past years is no longer in evidence and has recommended a modernised approach, in recognition of the clubs’ work in recent years to improve their accounting practices.

Clause 8 of the Bill also makes provision for a new offence for registered clubs that fail to adhere to the regulations, attracting a penalty of a level 3 (£1000) fine. At present, most of the accounting requirements are contained in regulations and the offence of failure to comply with them attracts a level 5 (£5000) fine. While some of these level 5 fines will be retained, most of the accounting requirements will in future be contained in new regulations and failure to comply with them will be reduced to a new level 3 fine. In taking account of the differing auditing requirements of small, medium and large clubs the new provisions will go some way in easing the bureaucratic burden on them.

Authorisations for Special Occasions

Clause 9 of the Bill provides for an increase in the annual number of possible special occasions’ authorisations (late bars) for registered clubs from 52 to 120. The Minister carefully considered representations from politicians and others in relation to clubs’ late extensions and decided that there was a case for a modest increase in the number of occasions each year on which the police may decide to allow a bar in a private members’ club to open to 1.00am.

The Minister believes that the modest increase is justified and it will now provide a greater deal of equity between clubs and the licensed trade in these difficult economic times. It will also help clubs maintain profitability by better meeting members’ expectations, thereby enabling them to continue providing sporting and other activities which offer valuable social opportunities in our communities, particularly to our young people.

Conclusion

The Minister believes that the Bill will command strong public support and that its new enforcement measures in particular will help combat the problems of alcohol misuse, disorder and underage drinking in our society.

Letter to Committee Clerk with DPM
16 June 2010

Peter McCallion Committee Clerk Committee for Social Development Room 412 Parliament Buildings Belfast BT4 3XX

Social Policy Unit 4th Floor, Lighthouse Building 1 Cromac Place Gasworks Business Park Ormeau Road BELFAST BT7 2JA Tel: (028) 90829249 Fax: (028) 90829539

Date: 16 June 2010

Dear Peter

Licensing and Registration of Clubs (Amendment) Bill:
Delegated Powers Memorandum

Please see attached Delegated Powers Memorandum for the Licensing and Registration of Clubs (Amendment) Bill.

Yours sincerely

Liam Quinn
Social Policy Unit
Lighthouse Building
Tel. 90 829249 int. 38249

Delegated Powers Memorandum
Licensing and Registration of Clubs (Amendment) Bill

Introduction

1. The Licensing and Registration of Clubs (Amendment) Bill amends the Licensing (Northern Ireland) Order 1996 (“the Licensing Order") and the Registration of Clubs (Northern Ireland) 1996 (“the Clubs Order"). In the main, the Bill provides for stricter enforcement measures to address the problems of alcohol misuse, disorder and underage access to alcohol.

2. The Bill contains the following provisions for delegated legislation:

• Clauses 2 and 6 amend the Licensing and Clubs’ Orders respectively to enable the Department to make regulations amending the number of penalty points allocated to the offences listed in Schedule 1 for licensed premises and Schedule 2 for registered clubs;
• Clauses 3 and 7 amend the Licensing and Clubs’ Orders respectively to provide for regulations specifying additional documents suitable for the purposes of proof-of-age;
• Clauses 3 and 7 also provide for regulations under which licensed premises and registered clubs will be required to display a notice describing offences relating to the sale of alcohol to, or purchase of alcohol by or for, young people under 18;
• Clause 8 permits the Department to make regulations providing for more flexible accounting provisions for registered clubs; and
• Clause 10 provides for the making of incidental, supplementary, consequential, transitional, transitory or saving provisions as appropriate in order to give full effect to the Bill.

Delegated Provisions

Clauses 2 & 6: Penalty Points

Purpose of delegated legislation

3. Any licensed premises or registered club convicted of an offence listed in column 3 of Schedule 1 (licensed premises) or Schedule 2 (registered clubs) to the Bill will be liable to have penalty points endorsed on the licence or certificate of registration. The delegated powers in 71A(5) of clause 2(1) and in clause 6 (1)(b) will permit the Department by order subject to affirmative resolution, to amend the points allocated to the offences listed.

Reason for delegated legislation

4. A penalty points scheme has been in operation for financial offences by registered clubs since 1997. The Bill will amend these provisions to include most offences, financial or otherwise, and extend them to include licensed premises. The delegated powers will enable the Department to amend the points allocated to offences by altering the number or range of numbers listed, should the need arise. The Department considers regulations a more flexible and practical option than primary legislation if any future amendments are required to the number of points allocated to offences.

Assembly Control

5. The Department considers that any delegated power made under clauses 2 and 6 should mirror the existing delegated power for registered clubs which is subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. The Social Development Committee will be consulted on the detailed policy content of any future subordinate legislation on this issue through the existing “SL1" procedure.

Clauses 3 & 7: Proof of Age (Documents)

Purpose of delegated legislation

6. The amendments to Articles 58 and 60 of the Licensing Order in clause 3 and Articles 32 and 34 of the Clubs Order in clause 7 will introduce a new statutory proof-of-age scheme which will specify acceptable proof-of-age documents for the purposes of licensing and registered clubs law. Licensed premises and registered clubs will not be compelled to seek evidence of age before permitting a young person under 18 to enter the premises or be at the bar - rather, the amendments will provide a defence for licensed premises and clubs who, in the event of court proceedings, will have an opportunity to prove that they used all due diligence to avoid the commission of the underage offence by virtue of having been shown one of the specified proof of age documents. The documents specified are a passport, a photo card driving licence, a Northern Ireland Electoral Card and any PASS-accredited photo identity card. The delegated powers are in (11B)(e) of clause 3(1), in (7B)(e) of clause 3(2), in (11B)(e) of clause 7(1) and in (5)(e) of clause 7(2). These will allow the Department by order subject to negative resolution, to make regulations specifying other age cards if necessary.

Reason for delegated legislation

7. These delegated powers have been provided as a safeguard in case other suitable proof-of-age documents are identified in the future. This could accommodate, for example, the introduction of a national identity card without the need to engage in the time consuming process of amending the primary legislation.

Assembly Control

8. The Department considers that the delegated powers under clauses 3 and 7 should be subject to the negative resolution procedure as the specified proof-of-age documents are not compulsory for licensed premises or registered clubs. They are there for the benefit of all concerned in the event of a court case arising from a young person under 18 being in premises or at the bar illegally, but are nevertheless voluntary. The Social Development Committee will be consulted on the proposed detailed policy content of any future subordinate legislation on this issue through the “SL1" procedure prior to it being made.

Clauses 3 & 7: Proof of Age (Notices)

Purpose of delegated legislation

9. The provisions in clause 3(3) and clause 7(3) will amend the Licensing and Clubs Orders by requiring licensed premises and registered clubs to display a notice describing offences relating to the sale of alcohol to young people under the age of 18 and the purchase of alcohol by, or for, young people under-18. The notice will also describe the documents prescribed for the purposes of proving age. While provisions on the production of proof-of-age documents are not compulsory, the requirement to display a notice is, and any premises failing to display the notice will be guilty of an offence and liable to a fine not exceeding £1000. The delegated powers are contained in 60A(2) of clause 3(3) and in 34A(2) of clause 7(3). These permit the Department by order subject to negative resolution, to specify the size and content of the notice.

Reason for delegated legislation

10. The Department considers a delegated power is needed to permit future amendments to the size and content of the notice in the light of experience. The notice draws attention to a range of offences involving underage sales and to the documents specified as suitable for the purpose of proving age. It is designed to increase awareness of the problem of underage access to alcohol and to encourage the licensed trade and young people to take responsibility for their actions. The Department will be working in partnership with PSNI and the trade to monitor the impact of the notice and future changes to the size or content of the notice cannot be ruled out.

Assembly Control

11. The Department considers that the delegated powers under clauses 3 (3) and 7(3) should be subject to the negative resolution procedure as the offences listed in the notice and the references to proof-of-age documents are simply a description of provisions already contained in the primary legislation. Any future changes to the notice will, therefore, be presentational and the Social Development Committee will be consulted on these through the usual procedures.

Clause 8: Accounts of Registered Clubs

Purpose of delegated legislation

12. Clause 8 amends Article 40 of the Clubs Order by introducing accounting provisions aimed at relaxing some of the existing controls in Article 40 and in the Registration of Clubs (Accounts) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1997. The Accounts Regulations were introduced at the request of the police to tackle financial mismanagement in registered clubs. Their deterrent value, allied to significant work by PSNI to encourage compliance with the system, has been such that few clubs have been prosecuted for accounting offences. In light of the improvements made by clubs in recent years the police have recommended relaxations to the accounting system. The Department intends to work closely with PSNI and the Northern Ireland Federation of Clubs to develop more flexible regulatory controls and the delegated power in clause 8(3) will permit this to happen by providing for a system of control and the selection of a person to be appointed as an independent examiner to be directed by the Department.

Reason for delegated legislation

13. The Accounts Regulations were developed in partnership with PSNI to provide a basic framework for the financial management of registered clubs and prescribe the form in which the annual financial statements should be prepared, who may conduct the audit and the manner in which that audit should be carried out. The regulations were introduced in 1997 and reviewed in 1999 following representations from registered clubs - certain provisions were relaxed or removed but clubs have continued to lobby for changes. The Department considers a delegated power is necessary to cater for the continual monitoring of, and planned changes to, the regulations.

Assembly Control

14. The Department considers that the delegated power under clause 8 should be subject to the negative resolution procedure as is the case with the existing accounts regulations. The Department intends to work closely with PSNI and the Northern Ireland Federation of Clubs to develop new accounting regulations which will introduce relaxations to the form in which the annual financial statements should be prepared, who may conduct the audit and the manner in which that audit should be carried out. The primary legislation already requires registered clubs to maintain proper accounting systems and the Department feels that the Assembly would not wish to debate the finer details of those processes. The Social Development Committee will be consulted on the proposed detailed policy content of the planned subordinate legislation through the “SL1" procedure.

Clause 10: Ancillary Provision

Purpose of delegated legislation

15. Clause 10 permits the Department by order subject to negative resolution, to make such incidental, supplementary, consequential, transitional, transitory or saving provisions as it considers appropriate for the purposes of, in consequence of, or for giving full effect to this Act or any provision of it. Such an order may modify any statutory provision or document.

Reason for delegated legislation

16. This delegated power is a standard safeguard which is used in order to prevent the need for minor changes to primary legislation. For example, it could be used where a minor amendment is needed to the current Licensing Order or any regulation made under it, provided the amendment was consequential on any of the provisions of this proposed Licensing and Registration of Clubs (Amendment) Act, or was needed to make the Act operate more effectively.

Assembly Control

17. The Department considers that subordinate legislation under clause 10 should be subject to the negative resolution procedure as the need for any minor amendments related to this Bill is not a matter for Assembly debate.

18. A full list of all 14 substantive provisions in the Bill, along with a brief description of the provisions and indicating whether a delegated power is relevant to each provision is contained in Annex A.

Department for Social Development
Social Policy Unit
May 2010

Annex A

Clause	Description of Provision	Delegated Power?	Type of Control Mechanism
Clause 1: Closure of Licensed Premises	This provision introduces a new part 4A to the Licensing Order containing Articles 69A to 69J in relation to the closure of licensed premises.	No	N/A
Clause 2: Penalty Points (licensed premises)	This provision introduces new Articles 71A to 71C and Schedule 10A to the Licensing Order in relation to a penalty points system and repeals those existing provisions on suspension of licences which are no longer necessary as a result of the new provision.	Yes	Affirmative Resolution
Clause 3: Proof of Age (licensed premises)	This provision introduces a statutory proof-of-age scheme by amending Articles 58 and 60 of the Licensing Order. The amendments will specify acceptable proof-of-age documentation for the purpose of licensing and registered clubs law and introduce provisions which will require licensed premises and registered clubs to display notices describing offences relating to the sale of alcohol to young people under the age of 18 and also refer to the necessary documentation for the purposes of proving age.	Yes	Negative Resolution
Clause 4: Limited Liability Partnerships	This provision introduces a new Article 2B in the Licensing (NI) Order 1996 to provide that a reference to a director of a body corporate is a reference to a member of a limited liability partnership and the reference to the secretary of a body corporate is a reference to any designated member of a limited liability partnership.	No	N/A
Clause 5: Closure of Registered Clubs Clause 5 cont.	This provision introduces a new part 4A to the Clubs Order containing Articles 41A to 41J in relation to the closure of Registered Clubs. These provisions are virtually identical to the closure provisions for licensed premises in clause 1. The only exception relates to Article 41F (Consideration of closure order by court of summary jurisdiction) where a magistrates’ court may only revoke a closure order and any extension to that order or order a registered club to close or remain closed for a maximum of 28 days.	No	N/A
Clause 6: Penalty Points (registered clubs)	The provision will amend Article 43 and 44 and replace Article 45 and schedule 6 of the Clubs Order which currently provide for a system of penalty points for clubs convicted of accounting offences. The system will now mirror clause 2 for licensed premises.	Yes	Affirmative Resolution
Clause 7: Proof-of Age (Registered Clubs)	The provision will amend Articles 32 and 34 of the Clubs Order to introduce a statutory proof-of-age scheme. These mirror the provisions set out in clause 3 of the Bill in relation to licensed premises regarding proof-of-age documentation and the displaying of notices in licensed premises and registered clubs describing offences relating to the sale of alcohol to young people under the age of 18 and also referring to the necessary documentation for the purposes of proving age.	Yes	Negative Resolution
Clause 8: Accounts of Registered Clubs	The provision will amend Article 40 of the Clubs Order to pave the way for regulations and guidance which will make the accounting requirements for registered clubs more flexible.	Yes	Negative Resolution
Clause 9: Authorisations for special occasions	This provision will amend Article 26 of the Registration of Clubs Order (authorisations for special occasions) to introduce a new provision to increase from 52 to 120 each year the number of occasions on which a registered club may apply to open the bar to 1.00am.	No	N/A
Clause 10: Ancillary provision	The Ancillary provision provides a power for the Department to make any orders necessary to give full effect to the draft Bill.	Yes	Negative Resolution
Clause 11: Interpretation	The interpretation provision provides for the Interpretation Act (Northern Ireland) 1954 to apply to the Bill.	No	N/A
Clause 12: Minor and consequential amendments and repeals	This provision introduces schedules 3 and 4 which set out the provisions to be amended or repealed.	No	N/A
Clause 13: Commencement	This provision empowers the Department to make a commencement order naming the day or days on which the Act will come into operation.	No	N/A
Clause 14: Short Title	This provision gives a title to the Act.	No	N/A

Advice on Licensing and Registration of Clubs (Amendment) Bill delegated powers

Scrutiny of Delegated Powers
Advice to the Committee for Social Development

From the Examiner of Statutory Rules
On the Licensing and Registration of Clubs (Amendment) Bill

1. I have considered this Bill, in conjunction with the Delegated Powers Memorandum submitted by the Department for Social Development,

in relation to powers to make subordinate legislation.

2. The Bill contains powers to make subordinate legislation. They are as follows:

• the two parallel powers in clauses 2 (new Article 71A(5) of the Licensing (Northern Ireland) Order 1996) and 6 (Article 43(5) of the Registration of Clubs (Northern Ireland) Order 1996) allowing the Department to make orders subject to affirmative resolution altering the number of penalty points allocated for offences listed in the respective Schedules;
• the parallel powers in clauses 3 (Articles 58(11B)(e) and 60(7B(e) of the Licensing Order) and 7 (Articles 32(11B)(e) and 34(5)(e) of the Registration of Clubs Order) allowing the Department to make regulations subject to negative resolution in prescribing documents showing proof of age;
• the two parallel powers in clauses 3 (Articles 58(11B)(e) and 60(7B(e) of the Licensing Order) and 7 (new Article 60A(2) and (3) of the Licensing Order and new Article 34A(2) and (3) of the Registration of Clubs Order) allowing the Department to make regulations subject to negative resolution prescribing requirements in respect of notices which must be displayed relating to age;
• clause 8(3)/Article 40(1A) of the Registration of Clubs Order allowing the Department to make regulations subject to negative resolution in relation to clubs’ accounts;
• clause 10 allowing the department to make orders subject to negative resolution containing ancillary provision; and
• clause 14 allowing the Department to make commencement orders subject to no Assembly procedure in accordance with the standard practice.

3. Subject to one provision which I draw to the Committee’s attention, all the powers to make subordinate legislation seem to be subject to an appropriate level of scrutiny. The provision which I draw to the Committee’s attention is the power in clause 10(2) which allows the Department to make orders subject to negative resolution modifying any statutory provision. This seems to be sufficiently wide to call for draft affirmative procedure, and that would accord with precedents in other legislation.

4. There are no other matters to which I draw the attention of the Committee for Social Development in this regard.

Gordon Nabney

Examiner of Statutory Rules
30 September 2010

Letter from Minister

DSD Licensing Bill - reply to letter from Committee 15.10.10

Peter McCallion Committee Clerk Committee for Social Development Room 412 Parliament Buildings Belfast BT4 3XX

Social Policy Unit 4th Floor, Lighthouse Building 1 Cromac Place Gasworks Business Park Ormeau Road BELFAST BT7 2JA Tel: (028) 90829249 Fax: (028) 90829539

Date: 15 October 2010

Dear Peter

Licensing and Registration of Clubs (Amendment) Bill

I am replying to your letter of 11 October to Margaret Sisk in which the Committee asked for information on a number of issues.

Existing closure powers relating to actual or imminent disorder in the vicinity around licensed premises

The current power is contained in Article 49 of the Licensing (NI) Order 1996 which previously enabled the Secretary of State but now enables the Department of Justice, by order, to restrict opening hours or close premises completely for up to 3 days for the preservation of public order. Only one order has been made in recent years when trouble was expected outside a pub as a result of a football match. An order could relate to actual or imminent disorder but would appear to be more effective in dealing with imminent disorder due to the time it would take to make an order.

Existing fines and closure powers relating to proxy purchases

It is an offence liable to a fine not exceeding £5000 and/or up to 6 months imprisonment for a licensee or a member of staff to sell or deliver alcohol to any person for consumption by a person under 18. This offence also applies to any other person purchasing alcohol for an under 18. However, in proceedings against a licensee or member of staff, it will be a defence to prove that all due diligence was exercised to avoid the commission of the offence or that there was no reason to suspect that the customer was under 18. Finally, where the licensee is convicted of such an offence twice within 5 years, a court must, unless satisfied by reason of extenuating circumstances that the licence should not be suspended, suspend the licence. The period of suspension is not less than 1 week or more than 3 months.

Existing fines and closure powers relating to sales of alcohol to intoxicated persons

It is an offence liable to a fine not exceeding £2,500 for a licensee or member of staff to sell alcohol to a drunken person. If a licensee is convicted of this or any other offence, a court may suspend the licence for not less than 1 week or more than 3 months.

Department’s involvement with Community Alcohol Partnerships

The Community Alcohol Partnership model was developed in GB by the Retail of Alcohol Standards Group (RASG) which is a group of high street retailers targeting underage sales. The model involves co-operation between alcohol retailers and local stakeholders and RASG activities are coordinated by the Wine and Spirit Trade Association (WSTA). WSTA made a presentation to Derry City Council recently with a view to operating the first such scheme in Northern Ireland and it is understood that the council is considering the matter. There has been no Departmental involvement as yet.

Effectiveness of bottle marking schemes in GB

Bottle marking schemes, under which retailers volunteer to place indelible markings or ultra violet codes on certain bottles particularly those popular with underage drinkers, are in operation in many areas of GB. We understand that opinion is divided on the effectiveness of the schemes. They are aimed at tackling underage drinking and anti-social behaviour and at reducing on-street drinking. It is understood that a number of adults and parents have also been charged with buying alcohol for children.

Noise issues – distinction between noise associated with patron dispersal and actual disorder associated with premises

The closure provisions on noise originally contained in the Bill related to public nuisance caused by noise coming from premises. England & Wales have such provisions but Scotland does not. The guidance in England and Wales states that the noise must be emitted from the premises and noise nuisance arising solely from people in the street outside the premises would not be sufficient to justify the use of the closure powers. It recommends that liaison with local government enforcement officers with existing powers for controlling noise nuisance would be beneficial. It is likely that our guidance would have been along the same lines.

Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Bill – noise issues associated with patron dispersal

This DoE Bill deals only with noise emitted from premises and introduces a fixed penalty notice of £500. However, if the land on which the dispersal noise is taking place is owned by the premises, for example the pavement or car park, then this Bill would apply. Councils do not have the power to close premises.

I hope you find this information helpful.

Yours sincerely

Liam Quinn
Social Policy Unit
Lighthouse Building
Tel. 90 829249 int. 38249

DSD Correspondence 1.11.10

Peter McCallion Committee Clerk Committee for Social Development Room 412 Parliament Buildings Belfast BT4 3XX

Social Policy Unit 4th Floor, Lighthouse Building 1 Cromac Place Gasworks Business Park Ormeau Road BELFAST BT7 2JA Tel: (028) 90829249 Fax: (028) 90829539

Date: 1 November 2010

Dear Peter

Licensing and Registration of Clubs (Amendment) Bill

I am replying to your letter of 20 October to Margaret Sisk in which the Committee asked for information on a number of issues.

The advertising ban relating to events organised by registered clubs

Registered clubs are private members’ clubs and should not operate as commercial enterprises. A club cannot legally open club events to all and sundry and advertise the fact in a local newspaper as to do so would imply that the club is not operating as a bona fide members’ club. Advertising a function to be held on club premises for members and guests is an offence unless it takes the form of a notice displayed inside club premises or relates to a function involving any sport, game or physical recreation.

The Committee may also be interested to know that it is an offence for a registered club to hold a function in the premises unless:

• It is for the benefit of the club as a whole;
• It is related to the objects of the club;
• It is organised by the club; and
• Only members and their guests are present.

These conditions for functions do not apply where the whole proceeds, minus expenses, are devoted to charitable or benevolent purposes or where a function is organised by the club for a member and only the member and their guests are present.

The late licensing rules for so-called nightclubs

The word “nightclub" does not exist in licensing law. In reality, a nightclub is a pub or a hotel with a late licence to 1.00am approved by a court. However, a court may terminate or restrict an order for 1.00am opening if it is satisfied that undue inconvenience is being caused to local residents. Typically, a pub will use the ground floor for normal business during the day and open the upper floor as a nightclub later in the evening, charging for entry - the bar must close at 1.00am and there is an additional 30 minutes drinking up time.

All licensed premises providing entertainment require an entertainments licence which is provided for in DoE legislation and issued by district councils. These allow the premises (but not the bar) to remain open after 1.00am for the sole purpose of providing entertainment and I understand that there are a number of premises with entertainments licences as late as 6.00am.

Restrictions on alcohol advertising generally

Controls on advertising are a reserved matter and the rules applying to the UK are set by the Advertising Standards Authority. Specific rules relating to alcohol have been in the advertising codes for many years but they were significantly tightened by the advertising industry in 2005 in response to public concern about underage drinking and anti-social behaviour. The rules are designed to ensure alcohol is advertised in a socially responsible way. They place a particular emphasis on protecting young people and alcohol advertisements must not be directed at people under 18 or contain anything that is likely to appeal to them by reflecting youth culture or by linking alcohol with irresponsible behaviour or social success.

I hope you find this information helpful.

Yours sincerely

Liam Quinn
Social Policy Unit
Lighthouse Building
Tel. 90 829249 int. 38249

Department Email - 8 November 2010

From: Bowler, Tom [mailto:Tom.Bowler@dsdni.gov.uk]
Sent: 08 November 2010 12:29
To: McCallion, Peter
Cc: Quinn, Liam; Diver, Eamonn
Subject: Emailing: Secretary of State Guidance on closure - Licensing Act 2003

Peter

England & Wales closure guidance as requested. Our closure provisions are largely the same but there are some differences.

Tom Bowler
Department for Social Development
Social Policy Unit
Level 4, Lighthouse Building
1 Cromac Place
Gasworks Business Park
Ormeau Road
Belfast BT7 2JB

Secretary of State Guidance on closure -
Licensing Act 2003

11 Police Powers to Close Premises

11.1 Part 8 of the Licensing Act 2003 significantly extends the existing powers of the police (a) to seek court orders to close licensed premises in a geographical area that is experiencing or likely to experience disorder; and (b) to close down instantly individual licensed premises that are disorderly, likely to become disorderly or are causing nuisance as a result of noise from the premises by making these powers available in relation to premises licensed for the provision of regulated entertainment and late night refreshment and to premises in respect of which a temporary event notice has effect. Ministers have previously given undertakings to Parliament that guidance would be issued to police officers about the operation of those powers. This Chapter therefore constitutes that guidance.

General

11.2 This guidance has no binding effect on police officers who, within the terms of their force, orders and the law, remain operationally independent. The guidance is provided to support and assist police officers in interpreting and implementing Part 8 of the 2003 Act in the interests of public safety, the prevention of disorder and the reduction of anti-social behaviour. Part 8 of the 2003 Act can assist in the overall strategy to reduce anti-social behaviour.

11.3 It is recognised that this guidance cannot cater for every circumstance and that instances may arise where officers will determine the need to operate in ways which will not wholly conform to it. However, at all times, senior police officers deploying the powers in question should seek to ensure that their actions are appropriate, proportionate and necessary in all the circumstances.

11.4 Police officers reading this guidance may also find it beneficial to familiarise themselves with the terms of:

• The explanatory notes accompanying the 2003 Act;
• Part 3 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990; and
• The Noise Act 1996.

11.5 Since 1872, the right of licensees to sell and supply alcohol to the general public has co-existed alongside a number of offences which may be committed in the course of exercising that right, and the licensed trade has long understood these social responsibilities. Part 7 of the 2003 Act provides that licensees, designated premises supervisors, members or officers of clubs, premises users who have given a temporary event notice under Part 5 and certain staff of licensed premises commit offences if they allow disorderly conduct on licensed premises or if they sell alcohol to a person who is drunk. These offences may also be committed by such persons not necessarily themselves selling alcohol but allowing sales or supplies to take place. Running alongside these offences, however, are powers afforded to licence holders and such other persons to expel from premises those who are drunk and disorderly.

11.6 The extended police powers in Part 8 of the 2003 Act underline the social responsibilities and requirement to maintain order at their premises which fall on those in the hospitality, leisure and entertainment industry; and the need to enforce the new provisions will usually arise where there has been a failure to comply with the duties referred to above.

11.7 The arrangements in section 160 of the 2003 Act (orders to close premises in an area experiencing disorder) will generally be used by the police, with the sanction of the courts, where contingency planning is possible, though may be used in an emergency too. The arrangements in sections 161 – 170 will generally be used only where unanticipated events arise and emergency action proves necessary.

11.8 The Government intends that the extended police powers contained in sections 161 – 170 of the 2003 Act should place licence holders, those giving temporary event notices and designated premises supervisors, who will usually have day to day management control of the premises, under pressure to maintain order and minimise anti-social behaviour on licensed premises, and thereby to deter disorder and nuisance behaviour often caused by excessive consumption of alcohol. The powers are intended to make these individuals more alive to their responsibilities to the wider community. As such, the potential as well as the actual use by the police of these powers should itself be beneficial in terms of preventing disorder on and noise nuisance from the relevant premises. The powers therefore have significant deterrent value. In addition, an effective police licensing policy, promoting good crime prevention strategies and professional practice among holders of premises licences and designated premises supervisors, should result in the extended powers being used minimally. It will be noted that in relation to those premises which do not sell or supply alcohol there will be no individual identified as a designated premises supervisor for the purposes of the 2003 Act. However, the provisions in Part 8 of the 2003 Act include the manager of the premises within the definition of “appropriate person" who must be given notice of a closure order so that these powers can be effectively used without obstacle. Good practice should involve an effective working liaison and system of communication between the police and managers of licensed premises. It is recognised that a great deal will depend on the willingness of licensees, managers, designated premises supervisors and premises users to involve themselves in a partnership approach, but those licensees who fail to take a socially responsible attitude will place themselves at greater risk of police action under these powers than other licensees, managers, designated premises supervisors and premises users who actively co-operate.

Orders to close premises in an area experiencing disorder

11.9 Section 160 of the 2003 Act replaces and extends the longstanding powers of section 188 of the Licensing Act 1964. Under section 160 a police officer of the rank of superintendent or above may ask a magistrates’ court to make an order requiring all premises holding premises licences or subject to a temporary event notice which are situated at or near the place of the disorder or anticipated disorder to be closed for a period up to 24 hours. The court may not make such an order unless it is satisfied that it is necessary to prevent disorder. A constable may use necessary force to close any premises covered by such an order.

11.10 Such orders should therefore normally be sought where public order problems are anticipated, as a result of intelligence or publicly available information, which may very often be fuelled by the ready availability of alcohol. Examples of future events which might justify action by the police under section 160 of the 2003 Act could include football fixtures with a history of public order problems; and political demonstrations which are thought likely to be hi-jacked by extreme or violent groups. Accordingly, if a football match is taking place on a Saturday, and intelligence is received on the preceding Thursday, which indicates that fans may cause disorder, a senior police officer should not rely on the powers in sections 161 – 170 of the 2003 Act (instant closure without court involvement) on that Thursday specifying closure of premises near the football ground during the following Saturday. This is because the orders under sections 161 – 170 must be made and served at the time the senior police officer forms his or her reasonable belief that the disorder is happening or is imminent, or that the noise nuisance is being caused, and such orders will come into force as soon as they are served. However, where it is possible to anticipate disorder in this way, the courts should be involved and make the decision on the application of a police officer of the rank of superintendent or above as to whether widespread closure is justified.

11.11 When seeking an order under section 160 of the 2003 Act, the burden of proof will fall on the police to satisfy the court that their intelligence or evidence is sufficient to demonstrate that such action is necessary. Police officers should recognise that such action may do serious damage to the businesses affected (and in circumstances where those businesses are being conducted properly) and disrupt the activities of consumers and other law-abiding citizens. It is therefore essential that orders are sought only where necessary to prevent disorder.

11.12 Where serious disorder is anticipated, many holders of premises licences and premises users who have given temporary event notices will want to co-operate with the police, not least for the protection of their premises and customers. So far as possible, and where time is available, police officers should initially seek voluntary agreement to closure in an area for a particular period of time. The courts should therefore only be involved where other alternatives are not available.

Closure orders for identified premises

11.13 Disorder and noise nuisance will more commonly arise in circumstances that cannot readily be anticipated. Section 161 of the 2003 Act provides that a senior police officer of the rank of inspector or above may make an order closing individual premises covered by premises licences or a temporary event notice for up to 24 hours where disorder is taking place, or is likely to take place imminently or a nuisance is being caused by noise emanating from the premises. Such orders may only be made where it is necessary in the interests of public safety or to prevent the nuisance caused by noise coming from the premises. These powers should not be used where it has been possible to anticipate the disorder arising, for example, in connection with intelligence about likely future disorder at a football fixture or in connection with a demonstration. The appropriate course then is to seek a court order in respect of an application under section 160 of the 2003 Act.

Conduct of the premises licence holder

11.14 Section 161 of the 2003 Act also provides that the senior police officer must consider the premises licence holder’s conduct and that of the manager or designated premises supervisor or premises user who has given a temporary event notice in respect of the premises before making a closure order. This means that if the licence holder or manager or designated premises supervisor or premises user has acted incompetently, inadequately or has actually provoked or caused the problems, the officer may take that into account when deciding whether to make a closure order. On the other side of the coin, if the licensee, manager or designated premises supervisor or premises user has called the police in promptly and acted sensibly in his or her attempts to prevent disorder or noise nuisance, that good conduct should also be taken into account.

11.15 In this context, it must be understood that the powers to close licensed premises are not a penalty to be imposed on the licence holder. Part 7 of the 2003 Act contains offences of allowing disorderly conduct on licensed premises for which, on conviction, a court may impose an appropriate penalty on a licence holder. Similarly, the Environmental Protection Act 1990 and the Noise Act 1996 provide for penalties to be imposed by the courts on those who are convicted of causing a statutory noise nuisance. The powers in sections 161 – 170 of the 2003 Act are, first and foremost, designed to protect the public whether a licensee or manager or any other person is at fault or not. This means that even if the licence holder, managers or other persons have done all they can to prevent the disorder or noise nuisance, a senior police officer may on occasions, still believe that closure is necessary to safeguard the public or to prevent the public nuisance. These will be fine judgements, appropriately pitched at a senior police rank. But the police’s overriding consideration should always be the public interest.

11.16 However, police officers should bear in mind that decisions to close licensed premises, or premises where a temporary event notice has effect, will almost always have a seriously damaging commercial impact on the business involved, and possibly on the livelihoods of licence holders, managers, premises users and members of staff or disrupt a community or charitable event that has been planned for a considerable period of time. It should be noted in this context that premises where a premises licence or temporary event notice has effect will normally be legitimate outlets carrying on the sale and supply of alcohol, providing regulated entertainment or late night refreshment in accordance with their authorisations. The 2003 Act therefore requires the senior police officer to consider whether good or bad practice on the part of the licensee/manager/designated premises supervisor/premises user has been exhibited in the context of the problem being investigated. It is therefore important that not only bad practice is considered; good practice, conduct and intentions should normally weigh in favour of a decision not to proceed by compulsory closure of the premises under a police order. On many occasions, other options will be available to the police, some of which are discussed below.

Voluntary co-operation

11.17 The police should, whenever possible, seek the voluntary co-operation of licensees, premises users, designated premises supervisors and managers in resolving incidents of disorder, potential disorder and noise nuisance rather than move directly to a decision to use a closure order.

11.18 Police officers should be aware that any decision to deploy the powers available to them to make a closure order under the 2003 Act in respect of premises to which a premises licence relates will almost inevitably lead, after an initial hearing before the courts, to a review by the licensing authority of the licence which involves determining whether or not it is necessary for the promotion of the licensing objectives to exercise its powers to take any steps in relation to the licence including its revocation. A decision by the licensing authority to proceed on that basis will therefore involve police attendance at the hearing and the preparation of material relating to the review. Senior police officers will only want to commit such resources if necessary and justified in the public interest.

11.19 If police officers are aware that any premises are showing signs of problematic behaviour relating to disorder, excessive drunkenness or noise which is disturbing local residents, it is sensible to provide early warnings and reminders to licensees, managers and designated premises supervisors of their responsibilities and duties under licensing law; and of the police powers of closure. It should also be underlined that if the police are obliged to deploy their powers, the ultimate consequences could include revocation of the premises licence, and the continued closure of the premises until the conclusion of any appeal proceedings before the courts.

11.20 Similarly, where despite warnings, licensed premises exhibit problems over a period of time, but no single instance is sufficient in itself to justify closure action, it is open to the police to seek a review of the premises licence under Part 3 of the 2003 Act in the normal way.

11.21 Where the police attend an incident, following complaints about disorder or noise nuisance to local residents, or attend at the request of the licensee, and a senior police officer of inspector rank or above reasonably believes that closure is necessary under the terms of the 2003 Act, police officers should advise the licence holder, designated premises supervisor, premises user or manager of the premises immediately. Wherever possible, police officers should then give the licence holder, manager, designated premises supervisor or premises user an opportunity to close the premises voluntarily, on police advice, until the following day. A closure order will normally only have to be made if police advice is disputed or rejected and it becomes necessary to take action to impose closure. When giving advice to close voluntarily, police officers should make clear that they are not engaging in a negotiation. The view of the senior police officer will be final until a court decides otherwise.

11.22 However, even if the licensee, designated premises supervisor, manager or premises user is willing to close voluntarily, it will remain open to the senior police officer to decide to serve a closure order, if he or she judges that to be the right course of action in all the circumstances. It is recognised that circumstances could arise which necessitate such action.

11.23 Against this background, police officers should also note that a decision not to make a closure order or to agree to voluntary closure will not prevent a later decision by the police to seek a review of the premises licence by a licensing authority, if that course of action is judged appropriate.

“In the vicinity" of licensed premises

11.24 A closure order may be made on grounds of disorder on or in the vicinity of and related to the premises. A question therefore arises as to how far from the premises incidents can take place which relate to the premises and still fall within the term “in the vicinity of ". Whether or not an incident is “in the vicinity of " and “related to" the licensed premises are ultimately matters of fact to be decided by the courts. However, it is important to note that the provisions require a causal connection between any disorder or likely disorder and the licensed premises themselves. The senior police officer cannot close the premises under this provision unless “closure is necessary in the interests of public safety". Accordingly, closure of those particular premises must directly impact on the danger to the public safety being caused by the disorder, or likely disorder, taking place or expected imminently to take place on or in the vicinity of and related to the premises. The disorder and the premises must therefore be connected. This issue also arises in the context of any extension of a closure order.

11.25 Some licensees, premises users, designated premises supervisors and managers of licensed premises may consider it unfair that they should be held accountable for incidents taking place outside their immediate control. However, as explained elsewhere, closure orders were not designed as penalties but as a means of ensuring public safety and the prevention of public nuisance.

11.26 It should also be noted that the interpretation of “in the vicinity" does not arise in the context of “nuisance caused by noise coming from premises" because section 161 of the 2003 Act requires that the noise is emanating from the premises rather than any other source. In other words, noise from the premises itself is relevant: noise from customers in the street beyond the premises cannot be taken into account.

“Likely" disorder

11.27 A further question arises as to when any future disorder is likely to take place to justify a closure order being made. The 2003 Act requires that the disorder should be likely to be imminent. As said in the geographical context, there also has to be a causal connection between the likely disorder and the particular licensed premises involved, which makes closure of those particular premises under this provision necessary in the interests of public safety. This means that the expected incident must be happening or be imminent in which case, closure of the licensed premises should actively diminish the probability that disorder will take place in the immediate future.

“Public nuisance caused by noise coming from the premises"

11.28 The 2003 Act does not define the term “public nuisance". Parliament has decided not to constrain the interpretation of the term by providing a more restrictive definition. Whether or not there is “public nuisance" will depend upon the circumstances of the particular case. Ultimately any questions of interpretation will be decided by the courts. However this means that senior police officers are required to judge reasonably whether the noise is causing a nuisance. Such judgements will inevitably have a subjective quality and officers will need to bring their experience to bear in making them. However, it is important to note that the “noise" in question must be emitted from the licensed premises. Noise nuisance arising solely from people in the street outside licensed premises would not be sufficient to justify the use of these powers. In addition, the power should only be used where the senior police officer reasonably believes that a nuisance is being caused to the public. Accordingly, the senior police officer should normally have cause to believe that particular individuals in the vicinity are being annoyed by the noise from the licensed premises. Liaison with local government enforcement officers with existing powers for controlling noise nuisance would therefore be beneficial. It will ultimately be for senior police officers to decide, in the circumstances of any case, whether it is appropriate for them to deploy these powers, which are likely ultimately to lead to the review of the premises licence for the premises affected with the possibility of a licensing authority determining that it is necessary for the promotion of the licensing objectives to take steps in relation to that licence, which may include its revocation.

Enforcing a closure order

11.29 The 2003 Act does not require the licence holder or the police to clear the premises of customers following the service of a closure order. It is assumed that normally premises would empty, there being no purpose to the presence of customers if items, licensable activities or facilities normally sold, supplied or provided on the premises may no longer be sold, supplied or provided. However, a customer commits no offence if he is not asked to leave and remains on the premises. The closure relates to the carrying on of the licensable activities. The licence holder, premises user, designated premises supervisor or manager of the premises similarly commit no offence arising from the mere presence of such an individual. However, if an individual who is drunk or disorderly is asked to leave by a constable, a licence holder, premises user, designated premises supervisor or manager and then refuses to leave, he or she does become liable to prosecution. Where a police officer is asked for assistance to remove such a customer, the officer is under a statutory duty to afford that assistance.

11.30 The lack of any duty on customers to leave the premises automatically following the service of a closure order is important. The police have existing powers to clear an area if disorder is taking place, and need no additional powers under the 2003 Act to do so. However, it would be equally open to the police to propose a phased emptying of larger premises for the purpose of dispersing, for example, disorderly gangs separately or because it is in the interests of public safety to keep law-abiding customers inside for a temporary period while troublemakers outside are dispersed by the police.

11.31 It should also be noted that “premises" for the purposes of the Act includes any place. Some premises licences and temporary event notices relate to places wholly or mainly in the open air, like a park or recreation ground. If the police consider it necessary to clear such an area, they will need to consider carefully the resource implications of enforcement, particularly where there are a large number of ways of accessing the area.

11.32 The police officers involved should also recognise that closing premises will sometimes involve putting a potentially volatile and disgruntled group of customers onto the streets. In this context, where possible, it is good practice to ensure that other licensed premises nearby are warned of the action being taken and of licence holders’ and others’ obligations not to allow disorderly conduct on their premises. As stated above, under the 2003 Act, police officers are under a duty, when requested by a licence holder or other person as referred to above, to assist in ensuring that drunken or disorderly persons are expelled from licensed premises, and police officers should therefore offer assistance when necessary in preventing the entry of troublemakers to other licensed premises who might be seeking to cause new problems elsewhere.

11.33 Police officers are also reminded that, particularly where large capacity venues are involved, they may need additional police assistance to clear the resulting crowd and the availability of that assistance should be considered before any decision is made to make a closure order.

Length of police closure order

11.34 Subject to very limited exceptions, the duration of the order under section 161 of the 2003 Act cannot exceed 24 hours. However, it is important to note that this does not mean that the length of the closure should automatically be set for 24 hours on every occasion. The criteria for making a closure order places an obligation on the senior police officer to close the premises for the period he/she estimates it would take to end the threat to public safety, or as the case may be, the nuisance to the public. In practice, therefore, closure orders could last between 30 minutes and 24 hours depending on the circumstances of each case. An extension to that closure period can be made only if the senior police officer reasonably believes that the court would not have determined its consideration by the end of that period and certain conditions are met. Those conditions are the same as the circumstances which gave rise to the closure order. The extension may be for a further period of up to 24 hours from the end of the closure period.

11.35 If, for example, a closure is made at 9pm on a Monday evening because of disorder caused by gangs fighting in a public house, closure might only be appropriate for up to the time when the premises licence requires the premises to close, perhaps midnight. This could be because the senior police officer reasonably believes that there is a threat of gang members (those not arrested) returning to the premises before closing time but after the police have left. However, if the threat is not expected to have subsided by closing time, it may be appropriate to impose a closure for a period extending into the following day.

The “manager" of the premises

11.36 The 2003 Act refers to the “manager of the premises" who is defined as any person who works in the relevant premises in a capacity, whether paid or unpaid, which gives him authority to close the premises. This is particularly relevant to the arrangements for serving a closure order. It is not therefore relevant whether or not the individual has the expression “manager" in his or her job title or description. If the holder of a premises licence or the designated premises supervisor or premises user has left any member of staff in charge of the premises, with responsibility at that time for compliance with the licensing laws, that person will normally have been given the authority to close the premises in compliance with the law. Accordingly, the individual would have the delegated authority to close the premises and could therefore be served with notice of a closure order in respect of the premises.

Service of closure orders when a decision has been made remotely

11.37 Where a senior police officer makes a decision to close licensed premises in accordance with the 2003 Act, notice of the closure order, providing the required written details, may be served by any constable on the holder of the premises licence, the designated premises supervisor, premises user or the manager of the relevant premises. In this context, it should be noted that the senior police officer does not have to be present at the premises to authorise service of an order. He may make his decision on the basis on information supplied to him by other police officers. The decision remains his and he remains accountable for that decision. This is particularly important in rural areas where an inspector might otherwise need to make a seventy mile round trip to consider making an order allowing an unreasonable period to pass during which public safety might be at risk. A specimen of a closure order is attached to this guidance at Annex L.

11.38 Senior police officers should, as a matter of good practice, attempt to attend wherever possible in order to make a full and personal assessment. Parliament considered that only officers of these ranks and experience should make these decisions because of the serious potential consequences of the decision made. As explained above, it is of course recognised that it will be difficult for officers, particularly in rural force areas, to attend on every occasion. Where the relevant senior officer cannot attend, it will be important that the information passed to the relevant senior officer is comprehensive and contemporaneously recorded, so that he or she can be clear about the reasons upon which his or her decision under the terms of the 2003 Act was based when required to present them to the relevant magistrates’ court.

Service of closure orders generally

11.39 Notice of a closure order must always be given in writing. “Given", in this context, is the delivery of the notice to the individual. This should normally involve personal service and means therefore that the notice should normally be handed by a police constable to the holder of the premises licence, designated premises supervisor, premises user or the manager of the premises. If a licensee, premises user, designated premises supervisor or manager of the premises refuses to accept the written notice of a closure order, the fact should be noted so that it might be made known to the relevant magistrates’ court at the hearing that will follow. The written notice should then be left in plain sight of the relevant person on whom it is being served. He or she should also be advised orally that the notice contains details of his rights and duties under the 2003 Act.

Relationship with local licensees and managers

11.40 It is important that the closure powers should not in any way be allowed to drive a wedge between the police and local licence holders, designated premises supervisors and managers. It would be damaging to the police’s capacity to control public order and drunkenness, if licence holders, designated premises supervisors or managers, when appropriate, were reluctant to call the police to attend when incidents are taking place because they feared that the police would close their premises. Licence holders, designated premises supervisors and managers should be encouraged to give the police early warning of developing problems, where appropriate allowing police intervention before an incident is allowed to get out of hand. The Government fully supports local initiatives like Pubwatch (see Chapter 2 of this Guidance), and wishes to see them develop and thrive.

11.41 It is recognised that the role of the police in enforcing licensing law will vary between force areas. For all police forces, resources will be a key issue and senior officers will have to make difficult decisions about prioritisation according to the prevailing circumstances in any area. However, as a minimum, it is good practice to provide a support and advisory role for licence holders, designated premises supervisors and managers. Licensees and others should know what is expected of them by local police officers in terms of clear standards with regard to the prevention of crime and disorder, particularly with regard to alcohol-related crime and disorder and anti-social behaviour. Police officers should therefore always be willing to offer advice to licensees and others on problems associated with these matters.

Nearby licensed premises

11.42 Where disorder is taking place or is expected to take place imminently in the vicinity of several adjacent or closely situated premises, there are likely to be occasions when the responsible senior police officer reasonably concludes that the closure of all the closely situated licensed premises is necessary in the interests of public safety. However, the same course of action in the case of each of the premises should not necessarily be automatic. For example, if one of the designated premises supervisors is prepared to close his premises voluntarily or has been more proactive than another in seeking to prevent disorder, the senior police officer may reasonably decide not to make a closure order in respect of those premises, while deciding to impose the closure of others. Where several closures are pursued simultaneously, a separate closure order must be made in respect of each of the licensed premises, and each would be the subject of the court processes which automatically flow from such action.

Noise nuisance and liaison with the local authority

11.43 The powers include the capacity to close licensed premises to prevent nuisance to the public which is the result of noise coming from the premises. The 2003 Act does not define what constitutes nuisance and it will bear its common law meaning. Ultimately, nuisance will be a matter of fact to be decided by the courts in any case. However, senior police officers will need to use their own experience and common sense to decide when noise levels reaching outside the premises have become unacceptable.

11.44 The enforcement of the law relating to statutory noise nuisance legislation is primarily a matter for local authority officers, sometimes working in tandem with police officers. Their powers to take quick action to resolve noise nuisance are however limited, particularly where the noise from commercial premises is caused by people rather than amplified electronic equipment. The powers in the 2003 Act offer a means of resolving noise nuisance problems from licensed premises quickly.

11.45 The 2003 Act anticipates that any noise coming from the premises should be disturbing members of public, for example, in the street or residing locally – otherwise it could not constitute a nuisance. In practice therefore, it is likely to be that the police will usually take action under their powers following complaints made by the general public. Such complaints may, in certain circumstances, be channelled to the police by local authority officers who may initially be the natural point of contact for a complainant. However, the decision as to whether the noise constitutes a nuisance for the purposes of the exercise of the powers in the 2003 Act is a matter for the senior police officer himself or herself to decide, and no formal complaint from any individual is necessary before the powers may be exercised. Given their experience of noise problems, the officer may find it helpful to consult local authority enforcement officers, if available, before making a decision about the level of noise involved. In addition, under the Environmental Protection Act 1990, local authority enforcement officers have powers to confiscate, for example, noisy equipment which may be causing the problem and avoid the need to close the premises. On occasions, such consultation in respect of an incident which is ongoing may prove impossible without an unacceptable delay.

11.46 There is therefore some advantage in police forces discussing these matters generally with the local authority to draw on their experience and establish guidelines for officers about noise issues. Chief officers of police may find it valuable and helpful to agree a protocol with the local authority for the handling of noise nuisance issues associated with premises licensed under the 2003 Act or in respect of premises operating under temporary event notices. This would enable a consistent approach to be taken by the police and other local authority enforcement officers.

11.47 Where problems are noise related, there should often be scope for resolving the problem without the need to impose a closure order. In this context, police officers should consider those parts of this Guidance dealing with voluntary co-operation. For example, noise problems can arise during summer months because of doors or windows left open or customers drinking or enjoying entertainment in the garden area of the premises. It would be open to the police to request the licensee, designated premises supervisor, premises user or manager of the premises to close the doors and windows, or to require customers to remain inside. If they comply and the officer is then satisfied that these actions would prevent further nuisance to the public, there may be no need to make a closure order.

Stating the effects of sections 162 to 168 of the 2003 Act

11.48 A closure order must contain details of the premises which are to be closed; the period for which the order is requiring them to be closed for up to 24 hours; the grounds or reasons for the decision; and the effect of sections 162 to 168 of the 2003 Act. Annex L to this Guidance provides a specimen of what a closure order should look like, and provides a statement of the effect of sections 162 to 168 of the 2003 Act. It is open to the police forces to take their own legal advice as to what the statement should include. However, it is important that it covers the crucial areas shown in Annex L and in particular, that licence holders, designated premises supervisors, premises users and other managers of licensed premises or premises being used under the authority of a temporary event notice fully understand the consequences of committing the offences associated with failure to comply with a closure order made by the police and extended by the police or the courts.

Anti-Social Behaviour Act 2003

11.49 Police, licensing authorities and licensees need to be aware that following its commencement on the 20th January 2004, a new power is available under the Anti-Social Behaviour Act 2003 to close premises whether there is the production, supply or use of class A drugs and serious nuisance or disorder. This power provides an extra tool to the police to enable rapid action against a premises where there is a Class A drug problem, enabling its closure in as little as 48 hours should this be necessary. Police authorities are advised to consult the Notes of Guidance on the use of this power (Home Office, 2004) available on the Home Office website. These powers will also be covered in brief in the update to Safer Clubbing available in 2004.

Matters arising DSD response re Licensing Registration of Clubs 19.11.10

Peter McCallion Committee Clerk Committee for Social Development Room 412 Parliament Buildings Belfast BT4 3XX

Social Policy Unit 4th Floor, Lighthouse Building 1 Cromac Place Gasworks Business Park Ormeau Road BELFAST BT7 2JA Tel: (028) 90829249 Fax: (028) 90829539

Date: 19 November 2010

Dear Peter

Licensing And Registration of Clubs (Amendment) Bill

I am replying to your letters of 9 and 12 November to Margaret Sisk in which the Committee asked for information on a number of issues. I will deal with the issues in the order they were raised, with the appropriate responses in bold.

The Committee raised concerns regarding the reported failure by registered clubs to adhere to opening hours restrictions and seeks Ministerial assurances of the enforcement of these restrictions at the Bill’s Consideration Stage

The Minister has met with a number of licensed trade and registered club representative bodies in recent months to hear their views on the Bill in general and enforcement issues in particular. These bodies also made representations to the Social Development Committee indicating their concerns. As a result, Mr Attwood and the Minister of Justice David Ford MLA have agreed to meet the Chief Constable to discuss these matters further.

The Committee sought a legal definition of “disorder"

We have been advised by our Departmental Solicitor’s office that the standard legal principle is that words in the statute are to be given their ordinary and natural meaning, unless the context otherwise requires. Whether there is disorder is dependent upon the particular facts of each case. Neither the legislature nor the courts have attempted to provide a comprehensive definition of “disorder"

The Committee queried if the Bill was to be amended to make provision that Alcohol Disorder Zones be introduced in particular for areas within the University area where disorder can arise following the consumption of alcohol i.e. Holyland

I understand that the Minister of Justice has no plans to introduce these in Northern Ireland.

The Bill Committee queried if the Bill was to be amended to make provision for alcohol seizure powers in public places, fixed penalties for public drinking and the designation of public drinking places

Alcohol seizure powers in public places, fixed penalties for public drinking and the designation of public drinking places are all provided for in the Criminal Justice (Northern Ireland) Order 2008 and are therefore a matter for the Department of Justice.

The Committee sought details of the number and types of recent convictions relating to offences under the Licensing (Northern Ireland) Order 1996 and the Registration of Clubs (Northern Ireland) Order 1996

We are awaiting a reply from the Courts and Tribunals Service and will provide the information as soon as possible.

The Committee’s informal agreement to bring forward an amendment to the Bill that would limit the number of special authorisations available to clubs to 75 and asking if the Department would support the amendment

The Minister notes the ‘informal agreement’ of the Social Development Committee and will consider this issue when he considers the Committee’s final report on the Bill.

I hope you find this information helpful.

Yours sincerely

Liam Quinn
Social Policy Unit
Lighthouse Building
Tel. 90 829249 int. 38249

Appendix 5

Irresponsible Drinks Promotions Submissions

Content list

Department Briefing Paper

Dungannon and South Tyrone Borough Council

Health, Social Services and Public Safety Committee

Northern Ireland Drinks Industry Group

Police Service of Northern Ireland

Public Health Agency

Pubs of Ulster

Queen’s University, Belfast

Wine and Spirit Trade Association and British Retail Consortium

DSD Briefing on Irresponsible Drinks Promotions September 2010

Social Policy Unit
4th Floor, Lighthouse Building
1 Cromac Place
Gasworks Business Park
Ormeau Road
Belfast
BT7 2JB

Tel: (028) 90829249
Fax: (028) 90829539

Date: xx September 2010

Peter McCallion
Committee Clerk
Committee for Social Development
Room 412
Parliament Buildings
Belfast
BT4 3XX

Dear Peter

Licensing and Registration of Clubs (Amendment) Bill: Evidence Session on 30 September

The Committee have asked to be briefed at the above session on Minister’s plans to introduce legislation to ban irresponsible alcohol promotions. In order to assist the Committee in this process we have attached a briefing paper in the Annex. It is hoped that the paper will help give the Committee a better understanding of the measures which we are proposing to include as an amendment at the Consideration Stage of the Licensing and Registration of Clubs (Amendment) Bill (the Bill) which is currently going through its legislative process.

Yours sincerely

Liam Quinn
Social Policy Unit
Lighthouse Building
Tel. 90 829249 int. 38249

Annex

Briefing Paper for the Social Development Committee on Minister’s plans to introduce legislation to ban irresponsible drinks promotions

Introduction

Alcohol can brighten our leisure, bolster our tourist trade and generate profit, revenue and employment. However, drinking in excess of recommended limits and drinking to get drunk have become embedded in the local culture, leading to public, media and political consensus that Northern Ireland has a major alcohol problem. This in turn has sparked calls for new approaches to combating alcohol-related harm.

In recognition of this, Minister Attwood is committed to addressing the many health and social problems associated with the excessive consumption of alcohol in our community as quickly as possible. At the Executive meeting on 22 July 2010 approval was given to the Department of Justice (DoJ) – subject to further work – for the drafting of a Justice Bill. Minister Attwood requested that the Minister of Justice, Minister Ford, include a power in this Bill to ban irresponsible promotions of alcohol in licensed premises. Minister Ford indicated that he was happy to consider this proposal once further details had been received.

Minister intended to use the vehicle of the Justice Bill for reasons of speed and compatibility as it was felt it would allow for necessary consultation while still offering a fast route to statutory provision. However this approach was not without difficulty because of the tight timescale for introducing the Justice Bill, the scope of detailed requirements and the draftsman pondering the appropriateness of this avenue when the Licensing Bill is currently before the Assembly.

Following further consideration officials have concluded that inclusion of the provision in the Licensing Bill is possible. This is reliant however on the Department’s (DSD) ability to meet its pressurised timetable including obligations to develop the policy, consult publicly and instruct OLC accordingly. It is intended that by introducing this amendment at the Consideration Stage, this will not impact on the timing of the Bill as it progresses through its legislative process.

Background

People In NI are drinking too much

Drinking above the recommended limits is known to increase the risk of poor health. Individual reactions to alcohol vary and are influenced by factors including age, gender and family history of alcohol problems.

The most recent evidence available, from the Adult Drinking Patterns in Northern Ireland Survey 2008, indicates that:

• Just over seven in ten (72%) adults here drink alcohol;
• 81% of drinkers drink more than the recommended daily limits;
• Younger people (18-29 years) are more likely than older people (60-75 years) to exceed the weekly guidelines for sensible drinking limits.

Effects on society of drinking too much

Alcohol misuse causes real harm, not just to individuals but to their family, friends and communities. Short-term excess can lead to anti-social behaviour, criminal activity including domestic violence, accidents, unsafe sexual behaviour and feelings of guilt and embarrassment. In the longer term alcohol can harm mental and physical health, personal relationships, and performance at work and school.

• Health - Binge drinking increases the risk of e.g. high blood pressure, stroke, coronary heart disease, kidney failure, brain damage, diabetes, mental health problems and suicide. 1 in 6 people (8 in 10 at peak times) needing treatment at A&E have alcohol-related injuries or problems.
• Crime – In the UK in 2003 63% of male and 39% of female sentenced prisoners admitted to hazardous drinking prior to imprisonment. 73% of those who committed domestic violence had been drinking at the time.
• Economic – Working days are lost because of alcohol, resulting in lost productivity and reduced competitiveness. Excess alcohol consumption costs NI approximately £800 million per year.
• Social – Among school pupils aged 11-16 a significant proportion have been in trouble because of alcohol - 11.4% with the police and 31.7% with parents or family (YPBAS 2007). Consuming alcohol, especially at harmful and hazardous levels, is a major contributor to intimate partner violence (WHO).

Reasons why are people in NI drinking too much

Affordability – Over the last 20 years UK disposable income has risen faster than alcohol taxation. The NI Chief Medical Officer’s Report for 2008 states that alcohol is 62% more affordable than it was 30 years ago.

Availability – Numbers of off-licences and pubs have decreased overall since 1922 but the number of premises selling alcohol for drinking at home has risen in the past 15 years. The arrival of international supermarkets and the expansion of local off-licence chains has steadily shifted the retail balance from on-sales (mostly pubs) to off-sales. Big high-street names selling large volumes of low price alcohol are now common in most towns, and cheap alcohol can also be bought online for home delivery.

Cultural shift – Drinking alcohol is now generally regarded as the norm in Northern Ireland. The peace-driven economy expanded choice of licensed venues e.g. restaurants, theatres, concert halls, sporting facilities, helping to normalize alcohol as a feature of everyday entertainment.

More effective marketing & promotion strategies – Developments in technology have allowed increasingly sophisticated marketing to flourish on television, the internet and other new media. More direct marketing, loyalty card schemes, promotions and online advertising have allowed advertisers to make products and images more visible, interactive marketing more aggressive and persuasive and the focus sharper on specific groups.

NI Situation

While the situation in NI is not exceptional, the problem here is high in comparison with other places. We have the dubious distinction of sharing with our neighbours in the Republic of Ireland (ROI) and in Great Britain (GB) some of the highest per capita rates of alcohol consumption in the world – along with all the damaging consequences this can bring. The following table compares some national level statistics across the UK:

	Northern Ireland	England	Scotland	Wales	Great Britain
Adults who drank alcohol at least once in the past week (%)	52	63	56	57	62
Adults who drank alcohol on five or more days in past week (%)	6	15	11	13	15
Adults exceeding recommended daily limit at least once in past week (%)	42	33	31	30	33
Adults exceeding twice recommended daily limit at least once in past week (%)	23	18	16	14	18
Average units consumed per week
Males	18.6	n/a	18	n/a	n/a
Females	11.6	n/a	8.6	n/a	n/a
Adults who drank above hazardous weekly limits in average week (%)	12	n/a	25	n/a	n/a
Adults who drank above harmful weekly limits in average week (%)	3	n/a	18	n/a	n/a
Alcohol-related death rate per 100,000 population
Males	21.5	15	39.3	16.5	17.4
Females	9.3	7.2	15.8	8.1	8.1

Source: NI – Adult Drinking Patterns Survey 2008; NISRA DMB (2006-08)
England, Scotland, Wales & Great Britain – General Lifestyle Survey 2008;
ONS (2002-04)

Alcohol-related hospital admissions/discharges have also been rising steadily - by 14% between 2006/07 and 2008/09. In 2007/08 the rate was equivalent to 538 admissions per 100,000 in NI, compared to 822 discharges in Scotland and 406 in England.

Impact on society

Alcohol misuse damages people and costs everyone money – probably around £800m per year in NI. This includes direct costs (hospital care, crime, responses to harm) and indirect (premature deaths, absence from work, accidents). Whatever the exact figure, it is clear that significant money is involved which could be better spent on other things, such as achieving a healthy environment, building a thriving economy, increasing prosperity and improving the quality of life for all.

The intangible effects of passive drinking – experience of living with an alcoholic, losing a child to drink-driving or suicide, the total human misery that it causes – are impossible to quantify.

Action to help address alcohol problems in NI

Responsibility for developing policies to tackle alcohol-related harms rests with many NI Departments and some in Whitehall. The problem is multifaceted and demands an integrated, co-ordinated approach to developing solutions and delivering them.

Objectives of measures in the Bill to prohibit or restrict irresponsible alcohol promotions

Minister Attwood has already begun to tackle alcohol abuse through the Bill. However, he also believes it is appropriate to also include measures to crack down on the escalating problem of harmful drinking.

It is proposed that a provision in the current Bill will include a power to allow the Department to make Regulations, which will be subject to affirmative resolution. It is intended that the new provision in the primary legislation will define what is meant by “a drinks promotion" and also specify what is considered “irresponsible". It will provide the power for the Department, by regulations, subject to affirmative resolution, to set out in detail the type and scope of the restrictions to be put in place so as to ban irresponsible promotions in both on-sales and off-sales premises licensed under the Licensing (NI) Order 1996 and clubs registered under the Registration of Clubs (NI) Order 1996.

The provision will also permit the Department to add or modify the list of activities counted as irresponsible therefore allowing the flexibility to deal quickly with new issues as they arise or new information that becomes available, including from other jurisdictions to tackle the many social and health issues associated with excessive consumption of alcohol.

The provision will also provide the power for the Department, by Regulations, to introduce restrictions on certain types of promotional activity which the Department deems to be necessary, for example “happy hours". All regulations would be subject to the affirmative resolution process thereby providing the opportunity for Assembly scrutiny and debate. It will be an offence for any premises to hold an irresponsible alcohol promotion or specified promotional activities The proposed new measure will be introduced as soon as possible after the Bill comes into force, probably around April 2011.

Types of alcohol promotions that will be banned

It is envisaged, subject to consultation, that the Regulations would ban the following type of alcohol promotions:

• the promotion relates to an alcoholic drink which is likely to appeal largely to under 18s
• an alcoholic drink is provided free or cut-price on purchase of one or more drinks (whether alcoholic or not)
• an alcohol drink(s) is provided free or cut-price on purchase of that particular drink – two for one
• an unlimited supply of alcohol is provided for a fixed charge (including any entrance fee) eg “all you can drink for £10", “pay your entry fee then drink for free until 10pm"
• a person is encouraged to buy or drink a larger measure of alcohol than they would otherwise have intended
• it is based on the strength of any alcohol
• it promotes, rewards or encourages drinking alcohol quickly ie drinking games
• it offers alcohol as a reward or prize - unless the alcohol is in a sealed container and consumed off the premises.
• A ban on alcohol dispensed directly by one person into the mouth of another (other than where that other person is unable to drink without assistance by reason of disability).
• Promotions which encourage specific groups to drink for free or at a discount eg “ women drink for free", “ half price drinks for under 25s", discount nights for students or cheap drinks for fans of a specific sporting team.

Other specified promotions may include:

• The supply of alcohol on licensed premises at a reduced price during a limited period on any day (“happy hours")
• Bans on differential pricing of alcoholic products.

However, officials are continuing to liaise with OLC regarding the viability and legality of both of these measures being included.

Irresponsible promotions will apply to both on-sales and/or off sales licensed premises and registered clubs, as appropriate, and this will be laid out in the Regulations.

Further measures to help tackle concerns surrounding excessive consumption of alcohol

The Minister is very concerned at how heavily discounted alcohol is a key contributory factor to unacceptable levels of alcohol-related crime and disorder – in many cases as a result of “pre-loading" in preparation for a night out. Therefore Minister Attwood has stated his intention to introduce further measures to target those retailers who sell alcohol below cost price in order to encourage higher footfall and therefore generate sales.

The topic of pricing does not fall solely within Minister’s area of responsibility and will require consideration and agreement among a wide variety of stakeholders, in Whitehall & regional governments and in the private sector. Furthermore restricting the sale of alcohol in supermarkets specifically raises complex questions to do with competition law and human rights, as well as customer demand and freedom of choice.

Minister is satisfied that interventions such as minimum pricing and banning below cost sales which are carefully designed, with their likely impacts understood and appropriately factored in, and which meet EU requirements regarding proportionality and freedom of movement, should be legally defensible.

The Minister is of the view that legal uncertainty about the practice, rather than the policy, of minimum pricing of alcohol by volume merits taking a cautious approach. Therefore, while there are no plans to introduce price interventions such as minimum pricing, or bans on below cost sales of alcohol at this time, he has asked officials to:

• carry out further work to develop a robust evidence base for introducing such a measure in Northern Ireland;
• monitor the progress of Scotland’s Alcohol etc Bill through the Scottish Parliament and, should it be passed,-
• monitor experience of implementing it.

Likewise there are practical difficulties in relation to banning below cost sales of alcohol. In particular the ‘cost’ of an alcoholic product differs between retail businesses as they negotiate their own prices with suppliers, have different internal cost structures and may base overall profitability on a basket of goods. This can make it difficult for a retailer to prove, or an enforcement authority to check, whether a product has been sold ‘below cost’.

There are a number of ways in which such a ban might work, and Minister has asked officials to scope out this initiative to find an approach which is compatible with EU trade and competition laws and realistic to enforce. Officials will also be closely monitoring the Coalition Government’s proposal to introduce legislation to ban below-cost sales of alcohol in England and Wales

Possible all-ireland approach to tackling alcohol pricing interventions

Liquor licensing laws in Ireland, North and South, have pre-partition roots and contain many similar provisions, designed to address issues historically and currently common to both. Administrations on both sides of the border are already moving towards a common position on some aspects of responsible alcohol retailing - for example, mandatory proof of age, mixed trading restrictions in shops & supermarkets and test purchasing.

It has been recognised that differential alcohol pricing regimes in NI and ROI could create undesirable cross border and informal market activity and new enforcement issues. In response, the Minister’s predecessor, Margaret Ritchie, had been exploring with Dermot Ahern TD, Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform the scope for harmonisation in pricing interventions. Minister will meet shortly with Mr Ahern to consider how this can be progressed.

Conclusion

Minister is committed to addressing the many health and social problems associated with the excessive consumption of alcohol in our community as quickly as possible. Rule-making powers in the Bill will enable DSD to make regulations to prohibit or restrict irresponsible promotions to tackle concerns surrounding the excessive consumption of alcohol. The Regulations, which are expected to become law in March/April 2011 will ban irresponsible promotions in on sale and off sale licensed premises and registered clubs.

Dungannon and South Tyrone Borough Council Email - 1 November 2010

From: Claire Linney
Sent: 01 November 2010 16:11
To: Council Information

Subject: RE: Irresponsible Drinks Promotion

Dear Stewart

Sent on behalf of the Chief Executive, Mr Iain Frazer, a signed hard copy will be issued in the post. At a recent committee of Council at the end of last week a position, see below, was taken by members on the recent DSD Ministers proposals on irresponsible drinks promotions, this will be fully ratified on the 8th November 2010.

Regards

Claire Linney
Policy Officer

Irresponsible Drinks Promotions

At the last Committee of Council all members present welcomed the Minister’s plan to introduce legislation to ban irresponsible drinks promotions and indicated support for initiatives which reduce binge/underage drinking and interventions which target retailers who sell discounted/below cost price alcohol.

Dungannon & South Tyrone Borough Council

Dungannon and South Tyrone Borough Council Letter - 27 October 2010

Dungannon & South Tyrone Community Safety Partnership 27 October 2010

Peter McCallion
Committee Clerk
Committee for Social Development
Room 412
Parliament Buildings
Ballymiscaw
BELFAST
BT4 3XX

27 October 2010

Re: Irresponsible Drink Promotions

Thank you for your letter dated 4 October noting that the Committee would value our organisation’s response to the proposed measures to curb irresponsible drinks promotions.

Please note that Dungannon & South Tyrone Community Safety Partnership pledges its support for legislation that will ban irresponsible drinks promotions and encourages the development of initiatives which reduce binge/underage drinking and prohibit drinks promotions.

Thanking you for your attention.

Yours sincerely

Cllr Frances Burton
Chair

Dungannon & South Tyrone DPP 29.10.10

From: Celene Slevin [mailto:celeneslevin@dungannon.gov.uk]
Sent: 29 October 2010 15:56
To: McCallion, Peter
Subject: Irresponsible Drinks Promotions

Dear Peter

Irresponsible Drinks Promotions

With reference to your letter of 4 October 2010 to Dungannon and South Tyrone Borough Council regarding the above, the Minister’s proposals were also discussed by Dungannon and South Tyrone District Policing Partnership at its meeting of 20 October 2010. The DPP welcomed the Minister’s plan to introduce legislation to ban irresponsible drinks promotions and indicated support for initiatives which reduced binge/underage drinking and interventions which targeted retailers who sell discounted/below cost price alcohol.

Many thanks

Kind regards

Celene

Celene Slevin
Dungannon and South Tyrone
District Policing Partnership (DPP) Manager
Tel: 028 8772 8607
Dungannon and South Tyrone Borough Council
Comhairle Dhún Geanainn agus Thír Eoghain Theas
Rathgannon Sooth Owenslann Burgh Cooncil

P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail

Dungannon and South Tyrone District Policing Partnership, Council Offices, 15 Circular Road, Dungannon, BT71 6DT.

Health Social Services and Public Safety Committee Memo - 8 October 2010

Committee for Health Social Services and Public Safety
Room 410
Parliament Buildings
Tel: +44 (0) 28 90521841

From: Kathryn Bell
Clerk to the Committee for Health, Social Services and Public Safety

To: Clerk to the Committee for Social Development

Date: 8th October 2010

Subject: Irresponsible Drinks Promotions/Licensing and Registration of Clubs (Amendment) Bill

At its meeting on the 7th October 2010 the Committee considered your memo dated 4th October in relation to Irresponsible drinks promotions and Licensing and Registration of Clubs (Amendment) Bill.

The Committee agreed to write to the Committee for Social Development in support of curbing irresponsible drinks promotions.

The Committee also wish for it to be noted that it does not intend to provide on the Licensing and Registration of Clubs (Amendment) Bill.

Kathryn Bell
Clerk

Northern Ireland Drinks Industry Group
29 October 2010

Northern Ireland Drinks Industry Group
c/o 33 Meadowlands
Portstewart BT55 7FG

Mr Peter McCallion
Committee Clerk
Committee for Social Development
Room 412
Parliament Buildings
BELFAST BT4 3XX

29 October 2010

Dear Mr McCallion

Irresponsible Drinks Promotions

Thank you for your letter of 4 October and for giving the Northern Ireland Drinks Industry Group the opportunity to comment on the Minister’s proposed measures for curbing irresponsible drinks promotions. NIDIG currently represents the largest alcohol producers in NI, namely Diageo, Tennents NI and Dillon Bass.

At the outset, may we emphasise that NIDIG completely agrees that there is no place for “irresponsible" drinks promotions, and we would like to engage with the DSD to understand and help define more tightly what it considers to be an irresponsible promotion. However, it is important that tightly run and responsible promotions do not, unwittingly, get caught by the new regulations.

NIDIG is a drinks producer organisation and as such comments on social responsibility issues that are of direct relevance to drinks producers. While producers will have some influence over the way in which their products are promoted at point-of-sale (for example, they control the packaging and may additionally offer point-of-sale material and displays), this influence is limited and they do not control pricing – this is controlled by the retailer. Producers are however interested in the way in which their products are presented for sale and thus we consider entitled to express views on social responsibility issues arising in the retail environment. However, it must be made clear that producers’ influence in this area is secondary to retailers.

NIDIG agrees that the NI Assembly has both a duty and a right to help protect society against the adverse consequences of alcohol misuse, provided that it does so on the basis of the best available evidence and uses policy measures that are based, as far as possible, on broad consensus within society. Moderate drinking presents little or no risk of harm to either the drinker or society; alcohol misuse on the other hand can be extremely harmful to the drinker and to society. It is important to keep this distinction in mind and to ensure that the strategy is targeted at preventing harmful drinking without punishing the majority of people who drink sensibly. NIDIG believes therefore that any strategies must be focussed on alcohol misuse, rather than on alcohol use and thus fully supports the aim to outlaw “irresponsible", not responsible, drinks promotions. A targeted and expressly anti-misuse strategy will receive a high degree of public support which is necessary for successful implementation. Such support is far less likely to be forthcoming for a more generalised strategy which would be widely perceived as unwarranted interference in personal choice and legitimate business activities.

The drinks industry has a legitimate and important role to play alongside Government is combating alcohol misuse. Enlightened corporate social responsibility is good for business; by demonstrating a commitment to social responsibility, industry members can help to protect their standing in the community and commercial freedoms. Our members all work to their own internal high standards in terms of marketing and promotional activity.

NIDIG is currently considering the detailed proposals within the DSD consultation paper and will submit a full response before the closing date for comments. We are not yet therefore in a position to comment on the specifics. We will, of course, be happy to provide further detail and information to the Committee as soon as our response is finalised.

Thank you again for the opportunity to comment, and please be assured that NIDIG is fully behind any measures which combat irresponsible promotions and alcohol misuse in our society.

Yours sincerely

Nicola Carruthers

Police Service of Northern Ireland Letter -
29 October 2010

Public Health Agency Letter - 28 October 2010

Pubs of Ulster

Queen’s University Belfast Letter -
1 November 2010

Student Plus
Queen’s University Belfast
Lanyon North
University Road
Belfast
BT7 1NN

Tel +44 (0)28 9097 1460
Fax +44 (0)28 9097 1462

1 November 2010

Mr P McCallion
Committee Clerk
Committee for Social Development
Room 412
Parliament Buildings
Belfast.
BT4 3XX

Dear Mr McCallion

Irresponsible Drinks Promotions

Your letter, dated 4 October 2010, to the Vice-Chancellor on the above refers.

Queen’s University Belfast (QUB) is grateful for the opportunity to submit written evidence for consideration at the Committee Stage of the Licensing and Registration of Clubs (Amendment) Bill.

The University welcomes the proposed amendments to the Licensing (Northern Ireland) Order 1996 (“the Order") and the Registration of Clubs (Northern Ireland) Order 1996 in relation to irresponsible drinks promotions – the Licensing and Registration of Clubs (Amendment) Bill provides a timely opportunity to address many of the societal problems created through excessive consumption of alcohol.

The University holds a total of nine Intoxicating Liquor Licences, under Article 5(1)(g) of the Order, which it operates across the University campus. The University adheres strictly, at all times, to the provisions of the Order, and the requirements of all statutory bodies, including Belfast City Council (BCC) and the Police Service of Northern Ireland (PSNI). The University strives to promote the message of responsible alcohol consumption to its student body.

As noted in the briefing paper, the reasons for alcohol abuse are complex as are the approaches that must be considered to help reduce the problem. Individuals, families, communities, public bodies, voluntary and charitable organisations, together with the alcohol industry, all have a role to play in effecting positive change, and Articles 68-72 of the Criminal Justice (Northern Ireland) Order 2008 should provide the PSNI with powers to deal with the consumption or possession of alcohol in designated public places, where there is a problem of anti-social behaviour.

QUB supports the proposal to include a provision in the primary legislation to define what is meant by a ‘drinks promotion’ and also specify what is considered ‘irresponsible’ and to detail the scope of the restrictions to be put in place so as to ban irresponsible promotions in both on-sales and off-sales premises licensed under the Licensing (NI) Order 1996 and clubs registered under the Registration of Clubs (NI) Order 1996.

In this context, we would draw your attention to the work of the Holyland Interagency Group, chaired by the Chief Executive of BCC, and comprising representatives from QUB, the Northern Ireland Office, the Northern Ireland Housing Executive, PSNI, and the University of Ulster. The Group’s Implementation Plan specifically asks Government Departments to explore the introduction of complementary mechanisms to target alcohol fuelled related activity, as detailed below.

• Increased powers of seizure in respect of open or consumed alcohol in public places;
• Fixed penalty notices provided to those aged sixteen and over in possession of open or consumed alcohol in public places;
• The implementation of Alcohol Disorder Zones, in particular for areas within the University area where disorder can arise following the consumption of alcohol i.e. Holyland;
• The implementation of designated public places where alcohol may be consumed in a public place within the University area.

The University also feels that the legislation should specifically target off-licences and large retailers who sell alcohol below cost price thereby contributing to the ‘pre drinking’ culture.

Whilst these powers fall under the responsibility of the Department of Justice, they impact on the work of the Department for Social Development (DSD) in relation to the controls for the consumption of alcohol in certain places. The Department of Justice is currently developing details of the public-place-designation arrangements and a fixed penalty notice scheme – this will involve consultation with the DSD on the detailed proposals for the required legislation.

We would request that the DSD Committee introduces further amendments to the proposed provision within the Bill to take account of the additional measures noted above and also considers how best these could be brought forward or considered within the context of this consultation and in cooperation with other Government Departments.

Yours sincerely

Isabel Jennings
Director of Student Plus

Wine and Spirit Trade Association and British Retail Consortium Letter - 28 October 2010

Appendix 6

Other Papers

Content list

Research and Library Services Brief on Police Temporary Closure Powers

Research and Library Services Paper on Liquor Licensing in Northern Ireland

Research and Library Service Paper on Licensing and Registration of Clubs (Amendment) Bill

Research and Library Services Paper on an Overview of Recent Developments in Alcohol and Licensing Reform in Other Jurisdictions

Research Brief on Police temporary closure powers 27 May 09

Research & Library Services
Room 141,
Parliament Buildings

Tel: 028 9052 1567
Email : eleanor.murphy@niassembly.gov.uk

To: Peter McCallion
Clerk, Committee for Social Development

From: Eleanor Murphy
Researcher

Date: 27 May 2009

Subject: Follow-up information:

Licensed Premises and Police Powers of Temporary Closure

Peter,

At the Committee’s meeting on the 21 May I presented a research briefing paper on Liquor Licensing and it was requested that I provide some further information on the extent to which the police use their powers under liquor licensing legislation to temporarily close premises in areas experiencing, or likely to experience, disorder.

You may recall at the briefing I highlighted that in England and Wales, Part 8 of the Licensing Act 2003 significantly extended the existing powers of the police to the temporarily close licensed premises by two means:

(a) Section 160 of the Act: gives the police powers to seek court orders from Magistrate’s Courts to close licensed premises in a geographical area if the area is experiencing or is likely to experience disorder, and

(b) Section 161 of the Act: gives the police powers to instantly, without a court application, to immediately close individual licensed premises for up to 24 hours that are disorderly, likely to become disorderly, or which are causing a nuisance as a result of noise from the premises. This decision must be made by a senior police officer at the rank of Inspector or above.

Unfortunately statistics do not appear to be held centrally in regards to the use of closure powers under Section 160. However, there is some data available on the number of closures made by police under Section 161 (i.e. immediate closure orders) Between April 2006 to March 2007, there were 44 closure orders made by senior police officers (statistics based on returns from 85% of Licensing Authorities) in England and Wales[1]. To place this in context, there where over 123,000 premises licences and club certificates authorised to sell alcohol during this period [2].

It would appear that the use of temporary closure powers are used relatively infrequently but this may not necessarily provide a useful representation of their effectiveness. The Department for Culture, Media and Sport (the Government Department responsible for Liquor Licensing in England and Wales) has produced guidance on ‘Police Powers to Close Premises under the Licensing Act 2003’ [3]. The Guidance strongly stipulates that in the first instance police should seek the voluntary co-operation of licensees in resolving incidents of disorder. This may involve a decision of the licensee to voluntarily close their premises for a period of time. It is beneficial for a licensee to co-operate with the police in this manner as the issue of a closure order by the police under Section 161 will automatically lead, after an initial hearing by the courts, to a review of the licence by the licensing authority. However, again there does not seem to be any centrally held statistics relating to the number of voluntary closures.

There is, however, some indication that the Minister for Culture, Media and Sport would like to see more use being made of the police temporary closure powers, as he as stated that:

“we will encourage the imposition of tougher sanctions on those found to be breaching their licensing conditions. This includes the stipulation that there be far more instant closures of pubs and clubs in an area where there has been a disorder and indefinite closure by the courts for any breach of licence conditions"[4].

Eleanor Murphy

Rm 141
Tel: 028 905 21567
Email: eleanor.murphy@niassembly.gov.uk

[1] House of Commons Hansard Written Answers for 18 May 2008 [no 176314].

[2] Department for Culture, Media and Sport. Statistical Bulletin. Alcohol, Entertainment and Late Night Refreshment Licensing. England and Wales, April 2006-March 2007. p8. www.culture.gov.uk/images/research/alcohol_entertainment_and_late_night_refreshment_licensing_statistical_bulletin_oct_08_update.pdf

[3] for Culture, Media and Sport. Police Powers to Close Premises under the Licensing Act 2003. June 2007. www.culture.gov.uk/images/publications/Policeclosurepowersguidance.pdf

[4] Written Ministerial Statement by Andy Burnham on the evaluation of the impact of the Licensing Act 2003. 4 March 2008. www.culture.gov.uk/reference_library/minister_speeches/1997.aspx

Eleanor Murphy

Liquor Licensing in
Northern Ireland:
Policy and Legislative Reform

Introduction

1. The Minister for Social Development outlined her plans for a programme of liquor licensing legislative reform and modernisation for Northern Ireland in a Statement to the Assembly on 17 November 2008[1]. These reforms, which will be introduced in two stages, represent the most significant changes to liquor licensing policy and legislation in 12 years. The first stage of reforms will contain provisions relating to the temporary closure of clubs and premises; a penalty points system; a statutory proof of age scheme; and more appropriate accounting requirements for registered clubs. The first stage of reforms will be implemented in the near further in the form of a short Bill. The Minister received the approval of the Assembly Executive for the Bill on 29 January 2009, it is hoped that the Bill will be introduced in the Assembly by Summer 2009 and will be in operation by early 2010[2].

2. The second stage of reforms will be implemented in the longer term once the Review of Public Administration has been completed and a new system of local government is in place (i.e. post 2011). These series of reforms will involve the transfer of responsibility for liquor licensing and clubs’ registration from the courts to the newly-formed councils; the introduction of six new statutory licensing objectives; and a streamlining of the current 12 licence categories into a dual system of personal and premises licences. The Minister has also announced her intention to retain the surrender provision for liquor licences. This is a provision which requires a licence for a public house or off-sales to be surrendered to the court before a licence for a new business can be granted.

3. The purpose of this briefing paper is to inform the Committee’s consideration of the forthcoming Liquor Licensing Bill which will represent the first stage of the planned two stage approach. The paper provides a broad overview of the key issues which will be covered in the Bill and some other general issues relating to liquor licensing reform and modernisation in other jurisdictions. For ease of reference this paper is divided into a five sections. Section one provides a brief chronology of key developments leading up to the Minister’s Statement to the Assembly on 17 November 2008. Sections two and three provide a broad overview of the two stages of legislative reform including a brief synopsis in respect of how the liquor licensing regime operates in other jurisdictions.

4. Section four examines the proposal to retain the ‘surrender principle’ for licensed premises in Northern Ireland. Finally, section five explores some other general issues which the Committee may wish to note including an synopsis of some of the Scottish Government’s recent proposals for liquor reform, for example, the introduction of minimum alcohol retail pricing, further control of ‘irresponsible’ alcohol promotions, raising the minimum purchasing age in off-licensed premises to 21 and the introduction of a ‘social responsibility fee’ for certain licensed premises. This section also brief explores a number of other general issues such as proxy purchasing, test purchasing, and Local Licensing Forums.

Section One: A Chronology of Key Developments

5. The review of Northern Ireland’s liquor licensing laws was announced on 4 March 2004 by John Spellar MP, the then Minister with responsibility for Social Development. It is stated that the review sought to strike a balance between the need for a more flexible and balanced licensing framework and the need to regulate the sale of alcohol in a way that is effective, enforceable and equitable[3].

6. A Liquor Review Team (LTR) was set up in May 2004 to carry out the review with an Inter-Departmental Steering Group comprised of the Department for Social Development; the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety; the Northern Ireland Court Service; the Northern Ireland Office; and the Police Service of Northern Ireland. The reviews Terms of Reference were to[4]:

“…consider the key elements of Northern Ireland’s liquor licensing law and practice, with particular reference to the implications for health and public order; and bring forward proposals aimed at striking a balance between facilitating the sale of alcohol, public safety and the public interest.

To refer in particular to the Licensing (Northern Ireland) Order 1996 and the Registration of Clubs (Northern Ireland) Order and have regard to the following issues:

• Opening hours;
• Enforcement;
• Surrender of a subsisting licence;
• Categories of licences;
• Wider public health issues;
• Licensing laws regarding children;
• Social and environmental issues; and
• Equality and equity issues"

7. In November 2005, David Hanson MP announced the publication of the consultation document ‘Liquor Licensing – The Way Forward’ which set out proposals for liquor licensing reform. Commenting at that time, the Minister highlighted the diversity of interest in the reforms,

“In considering the way forward I have been keenly aware of the need to weigh up the rights, needs and demands of the various interests concerned. These are wide-ranging. They include urban regeneration interests, employers and employees in the tourism and hospitality industry, town managers, the PSNI, health and community interests, residents and the general public".

8. There were 963 written responses to the consultation reflecting the scale of interest in the proposed reforms and the Department published a summary analysis of the views of consultees on each of the policy proposals in July 2006[5]. The review process was also supported by research and analysis which included:

• a literature review[6] on the impact of licensing and other controls on alcohol consumption;
• Northern Ireland Omnibus Survey[7] questions to assess views on issues such as opening hours, off-licenses, alcohol and anti-social behaviour, and underage drinking; and
• A survey of PSNI District Commanders[8] across Northern Ireland and their experiences, concerns and priorities in relation to the introduction of a new licensing regime.

9. On 20 July 2006, the Minister announced his final decision on the proposals in the form of a Written Statement to Parliament[9]. However, the proposals were not implemented as responsibility for liquor licensing passed to the Northern Ireland Executive on restoration of devolved government. On 17 November 2008, the Minister for Social Development announced her plans for a two stage programme of liquor licensing legislative reform for Northern Ireland in a Statement to the Assembly.

Section Two: The First Stage of Reform

10. The first stage of the liquor licensing reforms will be introduced in a short Bill. The Bill will amend both the Licensing (Northern Ireland) Order 1996[10] and the Registration of Clubs (Northern Ireland) Order 1996[11] and will cover four main areas, i.e. new temporary closure powers to allow the police and courts to shut down premises where there is actual or likely disorder; a new penalty points system for those premises which break the law; a statutory proof of age scheme; and new accounting requirements for registered clubs.

Closure Powers

11. It is proposed that the new Bill will make provisions for new closure powers enabling a court to order licensed premises or registered clubs in an area of actual or anticipated disorder to close for up to 24 hours in the first instance. It will also repeal the power of the Secretary of State to close premises or reduce opening hours to preserve public order. It will also enable a senior police officer to close premises with immediate effect for up to 24 hours where disorder or noise nuisance is occurring or is imminent[12]. The Minister has also indicated that offences of failing to comply with the new closure orders would also be created.

12. This move would bring Northern Ireland more into line with arrangements in Great Britain and the Republic in Ireland. In England and Wales, for example, Part 8 of the Licensing Act 2003 extends powers to police to close individual licensed premises, or all licensed premises in a geographical area, for actual disorder or anticipated disorder. Closure orders can be implemented primarily in two ways:

• Closure by court application in advance of an event – the magistrates’ court, on application by the police, have the power to (a) close all licensed premises within a specific geographical area for up to 24 hours (b) temporary or permanently reduce trading hours and (c) suspend or revoke liquor licences; and
• Immediate closure without court application – the police are permitted to enforce an instant closure without a court application but are generally to be used only where unanticipated events or emergencies arise. The decision to enforce a closure under these circumstances should be made by senior police officers at the rank of inspector or above[13].

13. Similar provisions in relation to closure orders are in place in Scotland through Sections 97-101 of the Licensing (Scotland) Act and in the Republic of Ireland through the Section 9 of the Intoxicating Liquor Act 2003.

Penalty Points System

14. The proposed Bill will also introduce a new penalty points system which will enable a court, following conviction, to endorse penalty points on a license or certificate of registration. The court will have some discretion but for serious offences, e.g. underage sales, endorsement would be mandatory. Premises accumulating 10 penalty points within any three year period would have their licence or certificate suspended for a period of between a minimum of one week and maximum of three months[14]. The Minister has indicated that the penalty points system will be unique to Northern Ireland and maintains that Northern Ireland already has a precedent for penalty points in that registered clubs may receive points for financial offences, e.g. an accumulation of ten points can lead to a club’s registration being cancelled[15].

Statutory Proof of Age Scheme

15. The proposed Bill will introduce a statutory proof of age scheme in recognition of the serious problem of alcohol abuse and young people. The scheme will specify acceptable proof of age documents for the purposes of licensing and registered clubs. These documents will include:

• Passports;
• Photocard driving licences;
• Northern Ireland Electoral Card; and
• Any PASS-accredited photo identify card.

16. The Bill will incorporate power to make regulations specifying other documents as necessary. Premises will be required to display specific signage describing the new scheme and it will be an offence to fail to display the signage[16].

17. The Scottish Government support the use of a ‘Young Scot National Entitlement Card’ as a proof of age card when purchasing alcohol, tobacco and other age-restricted products. This is a free electronic smart card available for young people aged 11 to 26. The card bears the PASS (Proof of Age Standards Scheme)[17] hologram and is approved by the Home Office[18]. This is not a mandatory proof of age scheme and carrying the card is a voluntary matter. Some retailers in Scotland have adopted voluntary ‘Challenge 21’[19] initiative to raise awareness amongst staff of their responsibilities in preventing underage sales. The initiative encourages retailers and licensees to seek proof of age from anybody who appears to be under the age of 21. The Scottish Labour Party has recently called on the Scottish Government make the ‘Challenge 21’ scheme mandatory across Scotland[20].

18. Some stores across the UK have a ‘Challenge 25’ policy where those appearing to be under the age of 25 will be asked for proof of age. A number of jurisdictions outside the UK and Republic of Ireland have mandatory proof of age schemes in operation in various forms. Perhaps the most stringent example is Tennessee (USA) which became in 2007 the first US state to require valid ID for off-premises beer purchases regardless of age (under the ‘Tennessee Responsible Vendors Act 2006)[21].

New Accounting Requirements for Registered Clubs

19. The Registration of Clubs (Northern Ireland) Order 2006 tightened the regulations under which registered clubs operated by setting minimum criteria and standards with a particular emphasis on financial controls and accounts (see the Registration of Clubs (Accounts) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1997 for further details). The ‘Liquor Licensing – The Way Forward’ consultation document highlights that this development was requested by the police to help tackle financial mismanagement in clubs. In 2004 the PSNI proposed that the Regulations should be reconsidered with a view to relaxing them and that there was scope to simplify the auditing requirements and replace many of the other mandatory requirements with a system of guidance and best practice[22].

20. The Northern Ireland Federation of Clubs has opposed the Regulations from the outset, describing them as “unduly onerous, discriminatory and beset with practical difficulties’[23]. The ‘Way Forward’ consultation paper acknowledges that stringent regulations can compound the problems of clubs, particularly in disadvantaged areas, who are coming under increasing pressure for survival given that the development of licensed premises in towns and city centres has changed drinking patterns and attracts more young people. The paper goes on to state that the “Government believes that registered clubs can act as a centre for the community in many areas and provide a resource which is useful in terms of taking forward neighbourhood renewal’[24].

21. There appears to be little locally-based research on the social and economic impact of registered clubs on communities. However, a comprehensive review of registered clubs in New South Wales (Australia) maintains that registered clubs, “provide considerable intangible social benefits that are impossible to quantify but should not be ignored. These include the sense of belonging that some club members feel and the greater social cohesion a community might experience as a result of having a club where people can meet and mix". The research also confirms that the financial viability of individual registered clubs varies greatly and that some are financially strong whilst others struggle for a variety of reasons including a lack of understanding of their own financial position; demographic changes; the level of competition from other venues in their communities; and the financial and management skills of their boards and managers[25].

22. It is envisaged that the proposed Bill will create a more flexible accounting system for registered clubs which recognises the differing requirements for small, medium and large clubs. Provisions will be made to reduce penalties for certain offences and introduce guidance on issues such as control of accounts, cash holding and receipts. The Department reports that the PSNI has acknowledged that financial mismanagement which previously existed in some clubs is no longer in evidence and that more flexible arrangements would be appropriate[26].

Section Three: The Second Stage of Reform

23. The Minister for Social Development has announced that the second stage of reforms will involve more fundamental changes to liquor licensing legislation and will take place once the Review of Public Administration is completed and the new system of local government is in place. The aim of these reforms is to simplify and harmonize controls on the sale and supply of alcohol and will include:

• the transfer of responsibility for liquor licensing and the registration of clubs from the courts to the newly-formed district councils;
• the introduction of six new statutory licensing objectives; and
• the abolition of the current 12 licensing categories in favour of a dual system of personal and premises licenses[27].

Transfer of Responsibility from Courts to Local Government

24. Under the current liquor licensing regime in Northern Ireland, first time applicants for a licence to sell alcohol, applications for consent to alterations to a licensed area or applications for a certificate of registration (for registered clubs) to supply alcohol must be made to a county court. Applications for renewal of a licence/certificate must be made to a magistrate’s court[28].

25. The Licensing (Northern Ireland) Order 1996 sets out the procedures for making an application to a county court for a licence which may be granted for up to five years. A copy of the application must be provided to the local police and district council and must include a plan of the premises providing details of the part(s) of the establishment in which alcohol will be sold. In granting or renewing a licence the court must be satisfied that the licence holder is a fit person to hold a licence. It must also be satisfied that the premises are suitable to be licensed for the sale of alcohol and will not cause a disturbance to the local community[29].

26. Under the proposed second stage of reforms, responsibility for liquor licensing and club’s registration would transfer from the courts to the 11 new district councils in Northern Ireland. The Minister has stated that she is “confident that this would increase the efficiency, effectiveness and accountability of the system and make it more responsive and accessible to local residents, planners and decision makers and those, including the licensed, hospitality, retail and other business sectors, on which local economies rely"[30].

27. The ‘Liquor Licensing – The Way Forward’ consultation document highlights that councils already have responsibility for a range of alcohol-related issues, such as entertainment licences, local planning, health and safety issues, noise pollution, town centre management and community safety partnership. The paper suggested that the transfer of responsibility from the courts to councils would be consistent with the objectives of the Review of Public Administration and highlighted further that under RPA, councils would have increasing responsibility for related issues such as town and city centre regeneration[31].

28. In other jurisdictions responsibility for the granting and administration relating to liquor licensing rests with local councils. In Scotland, for example, there is a Licensing Board in each council area appointed by the local council and which is responsible for all matters relating to the granting for licenses for the sale and supply of alcohol and various gambling activities. The Boards are separate legal entities from the councils, their membership is made up of local councillors and they are supported administratively by their council licensing section.

29. Section 6 of the Licensing (Scotland) Act 2005 places a duty on all Licensing Boards in Scotland to publish a Licence Policy Statement every three years. The purpose of such a statement is to provide assistance to a Licensing Board in the implementation of the Act and to outline the ways in which Licensing Boards intend to exercise this function[32]. The Statement much ensure that the policies seek to promote the five licensing objectives (for further information on these objectives is outlined in the next section).

30. In England and Wales, the Licensing Act 2003 transferred responsibility from Magistrates Courts to Licensing Authorities. Licensing Authorities are local authorities who usually delegate responsibility for licensing to Licensing Committees, these are generally made up of between 10-15 local councillors. Similar to Scotland, the Licensing Act 2003 requires that each Licensing Authority publishes a ‘Statement of Licensing Policy’ to be reviewed every three years, this policy must seek to promote the four licensing objectives in England and Wales (see next section for further information on objectives)[33].

31. A recent evaluation by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport on the impact of the Licensing Act 2003 in England and Wales maintained that the transfer of alcohol licensing to local authorities has been viewed as a success; that the alcohol licensing system is more democratically accountable and residents are better able to influence licensing decisions[34].

32. In the Republic of Ireland, the court system continues to be the main decision making body in respect of the granting of liquor licences.

33. Under the proposed second state of reforms for Northern Ireland, each new council will be responsible for drawing up a Statement of Licensing Policy for its area. The councils will also be responsible for decisions on the granting, reviewing and renewal of premises licences and registered club certificates. In carrying out this remit, councils will be required to consult with residents, police, licensees, retailers and other businesses in the area as well as those responsible for environmental health, planning and health and safety issues.

Six Statutory Licensing Objectives

34. It is proposed that the second stage of licensing reform and modernisation will introduce six new licensing objectives to underpin the revised licensing legislation (see Table 1 for the proposed objectives). The ‘Liquor Licensing – The Way Forward’ consultation document recognised that there is a clear link between alcohol and problems relating to crime, public nuisance, health and children and young people. It maintained that introduction of these six objectives would contribute to a rage of Northern Ireland Departmental policies and reflect the efforts being made by Departments (e.g. NIO, DHSSPS, DSD) in tackling issues such as anti-social behaviour, the promotion of public health and safety, the protection of children, and producing an environment for social drinking which is safe whilst encouraging growth in the economy.

35. The consultation paper further maintains that the six objectives will have practical applications under the new legislation, e.g. local councils will be required to demonstrate how they intend the meet the objectives in fulfilling their functions in relation to liquor licensing. Members of the licensed trade and registered clubs who wish to vary their licences or certificates will be required to state how they intend to meet the objectives[35].

36. The introduction of licensing objectives will bring Northern Ireland into line with developments in Scotland, England and Wales (see Table 1), the main difference being that the proposed objectives for Northern Ireland will include a ‘Fair treatment for all stakeholders’ objective whilst there is no similar explicit objective in the other jurisdictions.

Table 1: Liquor Licensing Objectives[36][37]

Northern Ireland (Proposed 6 Objectives)	England & Wales (4 Objectives)36
Promotion of public health; Promotion of public safety; Prevention of crime and disorder; Prevention of public nuisance; Protection of children from harm; and Fair treatment of all stakeholders.	Prevention of crime and disorder; Prevention of public nuisance; Public Safety; and Prevention of harm to children.

Scotland (5 Objectives)37	Republic of Ireland
Prevention of crime and disorder; Security of public safety; Preventing public nuisance; Protecting and improving public health; Protecting Children from harm;	There are no explicit objectives within the Intoxicating Liquor Act 2003 but there are general provisions referring to: The prevention of disorderly conduct; and Preventing the purchase or consummation of intoxicating liquor for those aged under 18 years.

Abolition of Current 12 Licence Categories

37. There are currently 12 categories of premises in Northern Ireland which may be licensed to sell alcohol, i.e.:

• Pubs;
• Off-licences;
• Hotels;
• Guesthouses;
• Restaurants;
• Conference centres;
• Higher education institutions;
• Places of public entertainment (e.g. theatres, ballrooms, race tracks);
• Refreshment rooms in public transport premises;
• Seamen’s canteens;
• Non-seagoing vessels; and
• Indoor arenas.

38. The sale of alcohol is the primary function of pubs and off-licenses, for the remaining 10 categories of premises the sale of alcohol is secondary to their main business. The second stage of reforms proposes to abolish these 12 categories of licence and replace them with a dual system of personal and premises licences. The ‘Liquor Licensing - The Way Forward’ consultation document maintained that this new dual system would have a number of advantages including less bureaucracy, greater flexibility and an improvement in operating standards[38]. As yet there is no details regarding how the dual system will operate in Northern Ireland, however, similar rationalisation of licensing categories and the introduction of the dual personal and premises licensing regime has already taken place in England and Wales and Scotland.

Premises Licences in England and Wales[39]

39. The dual system of personal and premises licences was established in England and Wales under the Licensing Act 2003. The 2003 Act amalgamated six licensing regimes in England and Wales and replaced them with a single system of premises licences. Businesses now apply for a premises licence to authorise all the licensable activities they wish to engage in. Premises licences are not time limited (unless requested), nor subject to renewal every three years (as was the case for liquor licences) or have a duration of only a year (as was the case for public entertainment licences). Hearings on an application will only occur where representations from ‘interested parties’ or ‘responsible authorities’ are made.

40. Anyone who proposes to carry on a business involving licensable activities on the premises can apply for a premises licence. A premises licence holder may apply to the licensing authority to vary the licence which may include changes to the opening times of the premises, changes to the physical shape of the premises covered by the licence, changes to the licensable activities or conditions attached to the licence.

41. The application for a premises licence must include an operating schedule in which the applicant sets out various details of how the premises proposes to operate, e.g. the licensable activities to be carried out, proposed hours the licensable activities are to take place, premises opening hours and the name(s) of the designated premises supervisor. The application must also include a plan of the premises demonstrating, for example, the boundary of the building, points of access and exits, the local and height of any stage or raised area etc.

Personal Licences in England and Wales[40]

42. The new system of personal licenses in England and Wales permits a holder to sell alcohol for consumption on or off any premises covered by a premises licence, similar to the way in which a driving licence permits the driving of a car. In other words, a personal licence does not authorise its holder to supply alcohol anywhere, but only from establishments with a premises licence authorising the supply of alcohol in accordance with the premises licence.

43. An individual may only hold one personal licence at a time. All premises licences authorising the supply of alcohol must have an identified personal licence holder known as the designated premises supervisor (known as the Designated Premises Manager in Scotland). More than one individual at the licensed premises may hold a personal licence although it is not necessary for all staff to be licensed. However, all supplies of alcohol under a premises licence must be made by or under the authority of a personal licence holder. A designated premises supervisor does not have to be on them premises at all times, they must however be contactable particularly if problems arise with the premises.

44. A personal licence is issued for ten years in the first instance. In most cases applicants for personal licences need to obtain an accredited qualification to be eligible to qualify for the licence and it is expected that the personal licence qualification will assist in raising the professional standards across the hospitality industry.

Section Four: The Surrender Provision

45. Under current liquor licensing legislation in Northern Ireland, the granting of a new public house or off-sales liquor licence is conditional on the surrender to the court of an existing licence. However, this requirement does not apply if the prospective licence holder intents to continue the same business on the same premises but does apply where the new licence is required for a pub or off-licence elsewhere in Northern Ireland. The surrender provision exists nowhere else in the UK, it is unique to Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland and to the licensed trade[41].

46. The ‘Liquor Licensing – The Way Forward’ consultation paper originally proposed to abolish the surrender requirement in favour of district councils deciding whether to grant a licence for further pubs or off-licences in their areas[42]. On 20 July 2006, David Hanson MP, the then Minister with responsibility for Social Development confirmed that the surrender principle would be abolished subject to a business impact assessment exercise[43].

47. The proposed abolition of the surrender principle was perhaps one of the most contentious issues arising from the proposed liquor licensing reforms. In his statement to the House of Commons, David Hanson acknowledged that, “Concerns have been expressed by politicians and parts of the licensed trade regarding two of the proposed changes. These are the transfer of responsibility for liquor licensing from courts to district councils and the abolition of the ‘surrender’ principle"[44]. An analysis of consultation responses highlighted that “the responses received concerning surrender were robustly opposed to the abolition of the surrender principle". In total, it is said that there were 847 negative and 20 positive responses and that the main concern was that abolition council lead to a proliferation of off-licences and alcohol related harm, anti-social behaviour and disorder. The licensing trade expressed specific concerns about the financial consequences for existing licence holders[45].

48. On the 17 November 2008, the Minister for Social Development announced to the Assembly that “in the absence of a robust evidence-base I have decided to take no action in relation to surrender at the present time". The Minister maintained that the business impact assessment “debunked some of the claims made during the debate which took place around my predecessor’s proposal to abolish surrender. It also demonstrated that it was not possible to obtain robust evidence on which to base firm conclusions regarding the financial effect, on current licensees, potential licence applicants or other stakeholders"[46].

Section Five: Other Key Policy and Legislative Issues for Consideration

49. This section provides an overview of some other general issues which the Committee may wish to note including proxy purchasing, test purchasing, local licensing forums, and powers to seize alcohol. This section also provides a brief overview of some of the Scottish Government’s recent proposals for liquor reform, for example, the introduction of minimum alcohol retail pricing, further control of ‘irresponsible’ alcohol promotions, raising the minimum purchasing age in off-licensed premises to 21 and the introduction of a ‘social responsibility fee’ for certain licensed premises.

Proxy Purchasing

50. The ‘proxy purchasing’ of alcohol by adults on behalf of young people (aged under 18 years) is a significant problem and there are many approaches to tackling this issue with various degrees of success. For example, one recent scheme by the Newcastle (England) Safer Communities Partnership called ‘Operation Taps’ (Tackling Alcohol Proxy Sales) has received £15,600 funding from the Home Office to[47]:

• Use professional witnesses to monitor off-licences and supermarkets where police suspect ‘proxy buying’ take place. This includes on-the-spot fines (£80) for those adults engaging in this behaviour. The campaign will also involve Trading Standards officers.
• Educating shopkeepers, customers and parents about proxy purchasing; and
• Providing licensed premises with coloured carrier bags with a printed message about underage drinking.

Examples of other approaches to addressing the issue of proxy purchasing include:

• Patrols by Police and Trading Standards of areas where young people are likely to engage in underage drinking, this includes the confiscation of alcohol and informing the young people’s parent(s)/guardian(s);
• Turning areas into ‘no go areas’ or ‘alcohol exclusion zones’ for drinkers, particularly areas in which underage drinkers are known to congregate (e.g. parks)[48]; and
• Targeting initiatives when underage alcohol consumption may be at its highest (e.g. Christmas, summer recess, term time and half-term holidays, weekends).

51. Underage drinking and the labelling off-licence carrier bags is an issue which has been the subject of recent debate in the Northern Ireland Assembly (see Official Report for 1 April 2008)[49]. In answer to an Assembly Question, the Minister for Social Development identified two reasons why legislation would not be forward to ensure that off-licences displayed their shop name on carrier bags[50]. The Minister maintains that in the Republic of Ireland, where legislative provision to brand containers for drinks was introduced in 2003 (but never used), experience demonstrated that seeking to compel retailers to adopt such an approach raised difficult issues with regard to European human rights and competition rules. The Minister further maintains that there are issues around the rules of evidence in courts.

Introduction of Test Purchasing Powers in Northern Ireland

52. Under Article 60(a) of the Licensing (Northern Ireland) Order 1996, persons under the age of 18 are permitted to enter licensed premises to purchase alcohol when sent into the premises by a constable acting in the course of his duty. This power is known as the ‘test purchase power’ and is designed to allow the identification of licence holders who fail to comply with the age restrictions on alcohol and other restricted products.

53. Article 60(a) places a number of requirements on the use of the test purchase power, i.e.:

• all reasonable steps must be taken to avoid any risk to the welfare of the person undertaking the test purchase exercise;
• both the person involved and their parent or guardian must consent in writing to participation in the exercise; and
• The Secretary of State is required to issues statutory guidance to the Police Service of Northern Ireland as to the exercise of this power. This statutory guidance was subsequently published by the Secretary of State in December 2008[51].

54. The production of statutory guidance on test purchasing is the responsibility of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. On 2 December 2008, Criminal Justice Minister Paul Goggins, MP announced that it was his intention to shortly commence these new powers[52]. This move has been welcomed by the Minister for Health, Social Services and Public Safety who stated that, “There must be rigorous enforcement of the law relating to underage alcohol sales…I therefore welcome today’s announcement regarding the introduction of test purchasing powers in Northern Ireland. These powers will give the police greater opportunities to identify and punish those license holders who sell alcohol to minors. Anyone who is caught selling alcohol to under-age buyers must be dealt with by the full force of the law"[53].

55. A number of general concerns have been expressed about the use of test purchasing powers with ensuring the safety and welfare of children participating in the exercise being one of the main issues. The Northern Ireland Assembly Ad Hoc Committee on the Draft Criminal Justice Order 2007 considered the issues of test purchasing as part of its consideration of the draft order and made a number of recommendations including[54]:

• That the PSNI should publish widely in advance that they will be using the test purchase power to detect retailers who sell alcohol to persons under 18; and
• That the PSNI should develop operation guidelines for personnel involved in the test purchase scheme which should address issues such as the ages of the young persons to be used and the need to ensure that there welfare is protected. The Committee further recommended that the guidelines should also make it clear that in no circumstances should a vulnerable young person be considered for the scheme.

Local Licensing Forums – Community Engagement on Alcohol Licensing Issues

56. Local Licensing Forums operate in almost all council/local authority areas in Scotland, England and Wales. These forums are a means by which the local community can engage with licensing authorities on alcohol licensing issues impact upon their areas. In Scotland, for example, the Forums consist of between five and 20 members, at least one of which must be a Licensing Standards Officer for that area. Each Forum must hold at least four meetings each calendar year. In appointing members to the Forum, the local council must ensure that membership is representative of certain interests including:

• Holders of premises or personal liquor licensing;
• Local police;
• Persons having functions relating to health, education or social work;
• Young people; and
• Other people resident within the Forum’s area[55].

Proposals for Alcohol Reform in Scotland

57. In March 2009, the Scottish Government published ‘Changing Scotland’s Relationship with Alcohol: A Framework for Action’ which outlined its proposals to tackle the issue of alcohol misuse in Scotland. The proposal included, for example, the introduction of minimum retail pricing; further control ‘irresponsible’ alcohol promotions; raising the minimum alcohol purchase age to 21 for off-sale purchases; and the introduction of a ‘social responsibility fee’ for some licensed premises[56]:

The introduction of minimum retail pricing:

58. The Scottish Government proposed linking product strength to retail price by establishing a minimum price for a unit of alcohol in a bid to reduce excessive alcohol consumption and alcohol-related harm. The Scottish Government hopes that this move will incentivise producers to develop lower strength products and reduce the availability of low cost drinks. It was also proposed that minimum prices should be set independently of those bodies connected either directly or indirectly with the manufacture, retail, supply or distribution of alcohol products.

59. The Scottish Government proposes to work with researchers and economists to consider the modelling work around specific minimum prices per unit of alcohol and to discuss with the UK Government arrangements for controlling pricing and promotions of alcohol bought remotely and delivered to Scotland from England and Wales or beyond.

60. In an analysis of consultation responses, nine out of ten (90%) health organisations supported the introduction of minimum pricing, as did eight out of ten (84%) local government bodies. Six out of ten (61%) trade and business sector organisations were opposed. Views amongst individual respondents were mixed, with 49% in favour and 43% against. Various reasons were given by those who expressed opposition including that minimum pricing was just another form of taxation, that it would impact upon responsible drinkers and people on low incomes and general opposition in respect of the Government setting prices[57].

Control of ‘irresponsible’ alcohol promotions and ‘below-cost’ selling:

61. The proposals also include further action to end the promotion and ‘loss leading’ (i.e. below cost selling) of alcohol drinks in licensed premises (e.g. multi-buy, ‘buy one-get on free’, ‘three for the price of two’ offers). The Licensing (Scotland) Act 2005, which comes fully into effect on 1 September 2009, already sets out a range of ‘irresponsible promotions that will not be permitted from that date in respect of licensed premises. Most only have a practical effect on ‘on sales’ premises and it is anticipated that the proposals will bring off-sales into line with the restrictions already in place for ‘on sales’ premises.

62. Schedule 3 of the Licensing (Scotland) Act 2005 places the following restrictions on drinks promotions on on-sale premises. A drinks promotion is defined as ‘irresponsible’ if it:

(a) relates specifically to an alcohol drink likely to appeal largely to persons under the age of 18,

(b) involves the supply of an alcohol drink free of charge or at a reduced price on the purchase of one or more drinks (whether or not alcohol drinks),

(c) involves the supply, free of charge or at a reduced price of one or more extra measures of an alcohol drink on the purchase of one or more measures of the drink,

(d) involves the supply of unlimited amounts of alcohol for a fixed charge (including any charge for entry to the premises),

(e) encourages, or seeks to encourage, a person to buy or consume a larger measure of alcohol than the person had otherwise intended to buy or consume,

(f) is based on the strength of any alcohol,

(g) rewards or encourages, or seeks to reward or encourage, drinking alcohol quickly, or

(h) offers alcohol as a reward or prize, unless the alcohol is in a sealed container and consumed off the premises.

63. All clubs in Edinburgh city centre have already agreed to cease ‘irresponsible’ promotions ahead of the 1 September 2009 deadline under a group called ‘Unight’[58]. ‘Unight’ is a coalition of all Edinburgh’s nightclubs and entertainment venues working closely with Lothian and Borders Police. All clubs within the ‘Unight’ partnership have agreed to non-participation in a range of promotions including[59]:

• door admission promotions that include alcohol;
• promotional references that encourage excessive drinking;
• drink promotions that offer alcohol free or at a reduced price on purchase of one or more drinks;
• drink offers that encourage additional drinking; and
• alcohol drink vouchers.

64. The Scottish Government propose to draft regulations to modify Schedules 3 and 4 to the Licensing (Scotland) Act 2005 to:

• Put an end to off-sales premises supplying alcohol free of charge on the purchase of one or more of the product, or any other product, whether alcohol or not;
• Put an end to off sales premises supplying alcohol at a reduced price on a purchase of one or more of the product, or any other product, whether alcohol or not;
• Prevent the sale of alcohol as a loss-leader; and
• Consult with the Scottish Government and Alcohol Industry Partnership and other key stakeholders on a regulatory impact assessment before laying draft regulations in Parliament.

65. An analysis of consultation responses highlighted that those respondents who did comment in detail generally expressed support for the proposal to end loss-leading/below cost selling rather than the restriction of promotions. There was a feeling amongst those who expressed opposition that these proposals would restrict choice and make responsible drinkers pay in order to tackle problems caused by an irresponsible minority of drinkers. Most of the organisations that supported the proposals felt that there was a direct link between availability of cheap alcohol and excessive/irresponsible drinking and consequent harm[60].

66. The Home Office announced in December 2008 that the Government will seek to legislate to introduce a mandatory code of practice for retailers in England and Wales in relation to the responsible selling and marketing of alcohol. The Government will shortly consult on a range of compulsory conditions in relation to alcohol promotions which include[61]:

• Banning offers such as ‘all you can drink for “10’;
• Outlawing pubs and bars offering promotions to certain groups, such as women only (e.g. women drink free nights);
• Ensuring that customers in supermarkets are not required to buy large amounts of a product to take advantage of price discounts;
• Requiring that customers are able to see clearly the unit content of when they purchase it;
• Requiring bars and pubs to have the minimum sized glasses available for customers who want them.

67. The Government will also consult on stronger local powers for licensing authorities to tackle alcohol-related problems which could include:

• Limiting the sale of low price alcohol in an area if this is linked to local disorder;
• Banning promotions such as happy hours, drinking games or pub crawls; and
• Placing limits on the display or advertising of discounted price offers.

Raising Minimum Purchase Age

68. The Scottish Government also proposes to raise the minimum legal age to 21 for off-sale purchases in a bid to tackle alcohol misuse amongst young people. The Scottish Government suggests that this may encourage more responsible drinking by continuing to allow access to on-sales premises and a supervised environment in which drinks measures are controlled.

69. The Scottish Government proposes to introduce legislation to:

• Place a duty on Licensing Boards to consider raising the minimum age for off-sales purchases within their area, or part of their area, to 21 when they are reviewing their licensing policy statements;
• Enable Licensing Boards to apply such a condition without requiring a hearing in respect of every premises concerned; and
• Giving the Chief Constable or the local Licensing Forum powers to request that their Local Licensing Board consider the matter of an age restriction at any time.

70. A majority of individuals (62%) responding to the consultation expressed opposition to the proposal to raise the minimum age for off-sales purchases to 21. The only sector that had a majority of respondents in favour was the health sector (52% in favour, 36% opposed). Almost all the trade and business sector respondents (87%) were against (with the notable exception of the Scottish Licensed Trade Association) as were all nine youth organisations that responded. The most common reasons that respondents gave for opposing the proposal were:

• that it would ‘demonise’ all young people and not just those who drink irresponsibly;
• that it represented an erosion of civil liberties for young people; and
• that the emphasis should be on enforcing current laws and using proof of age schemes to reduce under-age drinking[62].

Introduction of a Social Responsibility Fee

71. A social responsibility fee applied to some alcohol retailers to help off-set the costs of dealing with the adverse consequences of alcohol. The Government proposes that local authorities should determine how this money is spent according to local needs and priorities (e.g. identifying initiatives or projects which would assist in meeting the Licensing Objectives).

72. In an analysis of the responses to the consultation, opposition to the fee mostly came from the trade and business sector organisations with many stating that it would be ‘just another tax’, that it would tax the supplier of alcohol rather than those who were misusing it, and that it could penalise all traders to compensate for the small number who allow alcohol misuse to take place[63].

73. There is a variation of a ‘social responsibility fee’ currently in operation in England and Wales through designated Alcohol Disorder Zones (ADZs). Section 16 of the Violent Crime Reduction Act 2006 permits local authorities (with the consent of the police) to designate areas as Alcohol Disorder Zones where there are problems with alcohol-related nuisance and crime and disorder. In order to pay for additional policing and other enforcement activities charges can be imposed on premises and clubs within the ADZ that sell or supply alcohol[64].

14 May 2009

[1] See Northern Ireland Assembly Official Report, 17 November 2008.
archive.niassembly.gov.uk/record/reports2008/081117.htm

[2] Information extracted from the Department for Social Development website, www.dsdni.gov.uk/social_policy

[3] Department for Social Development. News Release, ‘Spellar Announces Review of Drinking Laws’.
http://archive.nics.gov.uk/sd/040304a-sd.htm

[4] Department for Social Development. Liquor Licensing – The Way Forward. Government Proposals to Reform Liquor Licensing Law in Northern Ireland. Consultation Document. October 2005, p7. www.dsdni.gov.uk/lrt_liquor_licensing_consultation_document.pdf

[5] Department for Social Development. ‘Liquor Licensing – The Way Forward’ Analysis of Responses to Public Consultation. July 2006. www.dsdni.gov.uk/lrt_consultation_analysis.doc

[6] Department for Social Development. Liquor Licensing Review Northern Ireland: Review of the Literature on the Impact of Licensing and Other Controls on the Consumption of Alcohol. www.dsdni.gov.uk/literaturereview.doc

[7] Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency. Northern Ireland Omnibus Survey, October 2004. www.dsdni.gov.uk/omnibus_survey.pdf

[8] PSNI Operational Support Department. Report for the Northern Ireland Licensing Review Team summarising the results of a survey of district commanders, regional headquarters and Criminal Justice Department’s Community Safety Branch, October 2004. www.dsdni.gov.uk/police_report.doc

[9] House of Commons Hansard. 20 July 2006. www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmhansrd/vo060720/wmstext/60720m0003.htm#06072031000418

[10] Licensing (Northern Ireland) Order 1996. www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si1996/Uksi_19963158_en_1.htm

[11] Registration of Clubs (Northern Ireland) Order 1996. www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si1996/Uksi_19963159_en_1.htm

[12] Department for Social Development. News Release, ‘Minister Ritchie paves the way for new alcohol regime’. 17 November 2008. www.northernireland.gov.uk/news/news-dsd/news_-_dsd-171108-minister-ritchie-paves.htm

[13] Information extracted from The Home Office website - www.respect.gov.uk/members/article.aspx?id=7888

[14] Department for Social Development. News Release, ‘Minister Ritchie paves the way for new alcohol regime’. 17 November 2008. www.northernireland.gov.uk/news/news-dsd/news_-_dsd-171108-minister-ritchie-paves.htm

[15] See Northern Ireland Assembly Official Report, 17 November 2008. archive.niassembly.gov.uk/record/reports2008/081117.htm

[16] Department for Social Development. News Release, ‘Minister Ritchie paves the way for new alcohol regime’. 17 November 2008. www.northernireland.gov.uk/news/news-dsd/news_-_dsd-171108-minister-ritchie-paves.htm

[17] PASS is the UK’s national guarantee scheme for proof of age cards See www.pass-scheme.org.uk/

[18] Scottish Parliament Question S3W – 18051. Identity Cards. www.scottish.parliament.uk/Apps2/Business/PQA/Default.aspx

[19] For further information on the ‘Challenge 21’ initiative see www.challenge21.co.uk/

[20] Holyrood Magazine. ‘Labour calls for law imposing ‘Challenge 21’ alcohol scheme’. 2 February 2009. www.holyrood.com/content/view/3518/10552/

[21] Times Online. ‘Tennessee poised to become first state to require universal carding on beer sales’. 22 June 2007. www.timesnews.net/article.php?id=9001774

[22] Department for Social Development, Liquor Licensing – The Way Forward, Op. Cit. p32.

[23] Northern Ireland Federation of Clubs. Submission to the Department for Social Development Consultation ‘Liquor Licensing: The Way Forward’. January 2006. www.nifederationofclubs.com/editorial_pages/Deloitte_submission.htm

[24] Department for Social Development, Liquor Licensing – The Way Forward, Op. Cit. p32.

[25] Independent Regulatory Pricing Tribunal (2008) Review of the Registered Clubs Industry in NSW, p2. www.ipart.nsw.gov.au/files/Final_Report_-__Review_of_Registered_Clubs_Industry_in_NSW_-_APD_-_Website.PDF

[26] Department for Social Development. News Release, ‘Minister Ritchie paves the way for new alcohol regime’. 17 November 2008. www.northernireland.gov.uk/news/news-dsd/news_-_dsd-171108-minister-ritchie-paves.htm

[27] See Northern Ireland Assembly Official Report, 17 November 2008. archive.niassembly.gov.uk/record/reports2008/081117.htm

[28] Department for Social Development, Liquor Licensing – The Way Forward, Op. Cit. p12.

[29] Information extracted from the NI Direct Government Services website - www.nidirect.gov.uk/index/property-and-housing/your-neighbourhood-roads-and-streets/crime-prevention-and-community-safety/law_on_licensed_premises_and_registered_clubs.htm

[30] See Northern Ireland Assembly Official Report, 17 November 2008. archive.niassembly.gov.uk/record/reports2008/081117.htm

[31] Department for Social Development, Liquor Licensing – The Way Forward, Op. Cit. p12.

[32] Falkirk Council Licensing Board. Licensing (Scotland) Act 2005, Licensing Policy Statement. www.falkirk.gov.uk/services/development/consumer_protection/licensing/alcohol_and_gambling/licensing_board/licensing_scotland_act_2005/licensing_scotland_act_2005.aspx

[33] For further information on Licensing Authorities see www.culture.gov.uk/what_we_do/alcohol_and_entertainment/4052.aspx

[34] Department for Culture, Media and Sport (2008) Evaluation of the Impact of the Licensing Act 2003, p7. www.culture.gov.uk/images/publications/Licensingevaluation.pdf

[35] Department for Social Development, Liquor Licensing – The Way Forward, Op. Cit. pp10-11.

[36] Licensing Act 2003.

[37] Licensing (Scotland) Act 2005.

[38] Department for Social Development, Liquor Licensing – The Way Forward, Op. Cit. p29.

[39] Information in this section extracted from the Department for Culture, Media and Sport website - www.culture.gov.uk/what_we_do/alcohol_and_entertainment/4058.aspx

[40] Information in this section extracted from the Department for Culture, Media and Sport website - www.culture.gov.uk/what_we_do/alcohol_and_entertainment/4057.aspx

[41] Department for Social Development, Liquor Licensing – The Way Forward, Op. Cit. p30.

[42] Ibid, p31.

[43] House of Commons Hansard. 20 July 2006. www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmhansrd/vo060720/wmstext/60720m0003.htm#06072031000418

[44] Ibid.

[45] Department for Social Development. ‘Liquor Licensing – The Way Forward’ Analysis of Responses to Public Consultation. July 2006. www.dsdni.gov.uk/lrt_consultation_analysis.doc

[46] See Northern Ireland Assembly Official Report, 17 November 2008. archive.niassembly.gov.uk/record/reports2008/081117.htm

[47] Alcohol Policy UK News. “Tackling Proxy Purchasing: Operation Taps, Newcastle. www.alcoholpolicy.net/2009/01/tackling-proxy-purchasing-operation-taps-newcastle.html

[48] The Press. “New clampdown on teen boozing". 15 April 2008. www.thepress.co.uk/news/2197289.new_clampdown_on_teen_boozing/

[49] Northern Ireland Assembly Official Report. 1 April 2008. archive.niassembly.gov.uk/record/reports2007/080401.htm

[50] Assembly Question for Oral Answer, AQO 2463/09. Tabled 16 March 2009.

[51] Northern Ireland Office (2008) The Secretary of State’s Guidance on Test Purchase of Alcohol in Northern Ireland. www.nio.gov.uk/the_secretary_of_states_guidance_on_test_purchase_of_alcohol_in_northern_ireland.pdf

[52] Northern Ireland Office News Release. “Goggins welcomes launch of get home safe campaign". 2 December 2008. www.nio.gov.uk/goggins-welcomes-launch-of-get-home-safe-campaign/media-detail.htm?newsID=15571

[53] Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety News Release. “Health Minister welcomes plans to introduce alcohol test purchasing powers". 3 December 2008. www.northernireland.gov.uk/news/news-dhssps/news-dhssps-december-2008/news-dhssps-alcohol-test-purchasing-laws021208.htm

[54] Northern Ireland Assembly. Ad Hoc Committee on the Draft Criminal Justice (Northern Ireland) Order 2007. Report on the Draft Criminal Justice (Northern Ireland) Order 2007. archive.niassembly.gov.uk/adhocs/2007mandate/draft_criminal_justice_order2007/reports/report14_07_08r.htm

[55] Information extracted from the Scottish Local Licensing Forum website - www.local-licensing-forums.org.uk/home.html

[56] Scottish Government (2008) Changing Scotland’s Relationship with Alcohol: A Framework for Action. www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2009/03/04144703/7

[57] Ibid, Annex A.

[58] For further information on ‘Unight’ see www.unight.org.uk/

[59] Scottish Government. News Release ‘Edinburgh clubs call time on irresponsible promotions’, 6 April 2009. www.scotland.gov.uk/News/Releases/2009/04/06154417

[60] Scottish Government (2008) Changing Scotland’s Relationship with Alcohol: A Framework for Action, Annex A.

[61] Home Office News Release. ‘Time’s up for irresponsible drink deals’. 3 December 2008. http://press.homeoffice.gov.uk/press-releases/irresponsible-drink-deals

[62] Ibid, Annex A

[63] Ibid, Annex A.

[64] Home Office. Alcohol Disorder Zones: A Short Guide to Setting Up and Managing ADZs. http://police.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/operational-policing/alcohol-disorder-zone-guidance1?view=Binary

28 May 2010

Eleanor Murphy

Licensing and Registration of Clubs (Amendment) Bill

NIAR 000-00

The Licensing and Registration of Clubs (Amendment) Bill was introduced to the Northern Ireland Assembly on 17 May 2010. The Bill constitutes the first stage of liquor licensing reform in Northern Ireland. This paper provides an overview of the main aspects of the Bill which include new closure powers for the PSNI in respect of licensed premises and registered clubs; the introduction of a penalty points system; a new statutory proof of age scheme; more flexible accounting requirements for registered clubs and an increase in the number of occasions on which registered clubs may apply for later opening.

Paper 61/10 28 May 2010

Research and Library Service briefings are compiled for the benefit of MLA’s and their support staff. Authors are available to discuss the contents of these papers with Members and their staff but cannot advise members of the general public. We do, however, welcome written evidence that relate to our papers and these should be sent to the Research & Library Service, Northern Ireland Assembly, Room 139, Parliament Buildings, Belfast BT4 3XX or e-mailed to RLS@niassembly.gov.uk

Executive Summary

The review of Northern Ireland’s liquor licensing laws was announced on 4 March 2004 by John Spellar MP, the then Minister with responsibility for Social Development. The review sought to strike a balance between the need for a more flexible and balanced licensing framework and the need to regulate the sale of alcohol in a way that was effective, enforceable and equitable[1].

A Liquor Review Team (LRT) was set up in May 2004 to carry out the review with the support of an Inter-Departmental Steering Group. The review team was tasked with exploring issues such as opening hours; enforcement; surrender of a subsisting licence; categories of licences; wider public health issues; licensing laws regarding children; social and environmental issues; and equality issues. The review culminated in the publication of the consultation paper ‘Liquor Licensing – The Way Forward’ (November 2005) which set out proposals for liquor licensing reform.

A consultation on the draft Licensing and Registration of Clubs Order was published in December 2006. However, neither the proposals nor the draft Order were implemented as liquor licensing passed to the Northern Ireland Executive upon restoration of devolved government.

In 2007, the Minister for Social Development, Margaret Ritchie MLA, initiated her own review, drawing and building upon the work completed by her predecessor. The Minister held a series of meetings with key stakeholders before finalising her own proposals. The Minister announced plans for a two staged approach to reform in a Statement to the Assembly on 17 November 2008.

The reforms are said to represent the most significant changes to liquor licensing policy in over a decade. The Licensing and Registration of Clubs (Amendment) Bill constitutes the first stage of reform. In summary, the Bill contains provisions to[2]:

• Empower a magistrates’ court to order licensed premises or registered clubs in an area of actual or anticipated disorder to close for up to 24 hours in the first instance;
• Empower a senior police officer (of the rank of inspector or above) to close with immediate effect for up to 24 hours specified licensed or club premises where disorder is occurring;
• Enable a court, following conviction, to endorse penalty points on a licence or certificate of registration. Premises that accumulate 10 penalty points within any three year period will have their licence or certificate suspended for a period of between one week and three months;
• Introduce a statutory proof of age scheme specifying acceptable proof of age documents and require premises to display specific signage describing the new scheme;
• Increase the number of occasions on which registered clubs may apply to the PSNI for later opening to 1:00am from 52 to 120 each year; and
• Create a more flexible accounting system for registered clubs which recognises the different auditing requirements for small, medium and large clubs. This provision results from the PSNI’s acknowledgement that the financial mismanagement that had previously existed in some clubs was no longer in evidence and that more flexible arrangements for registered clubs was in order.

Contents

Introduction

Background to Liquor Licensing Reform in Northern Ireland

The Contents of the Bill

The Introduction of New Closure Powers

The Introduction of a Penalty Points System

The Introduction of a Statutory Proof of Age Scheme

More Flexible Accounting Requirements for Registered Clubs

Increase in ‘Special Authorisation’ Occasions for Registered Clubs

“It has rightly been said, many times – alcohol is no ordinary commodity. It is a powerful double-edged sword which our society must handle with care. It is a source of pleasure to many and anathema to some. It can brighten our leisure, bolster our tourism trade and generate profit, revenue and employment. It can also wreck lives and families, destroy health and well-being and place burdens on our police and other public services. It has been a focus for criminal activity, helping prolong conflict in our community and undermining economic stability. As a responsible society we have a duty to manage both the elements" Extract from: ‘Liquor Licensing – The Way Forward: Government Proposals to Reform Liquor Licensing Law in Northern Ireland’ (2005)

1. Introduction

The Minister for Social Development outlined her plans for a programme of liquor licensing legislative reform and modernisation for Northern Ireland in a Statement to the Assembly on 17 November 2008[3]. The reforms, which where to be introduced in two stages, represent the most significant changes to liquor licensing policy in over 13 years. The Licensing and Registration of Clubs (Amendment) Bill, which was introduced to the Northern Ireland Assembly on 17 May 2010, constitutes the first stage of reform.

The Bill amends the Licensing (Northern Ireland) Order 1996 and the Registration of Clubs (Northern Ireland) Order 1996. In summary, the Bill contains provisions to[4]:

Empower a magistrates’ court to order licensed premises or registered clubs in an area of actual or anticipated disorder to close for up to 24 hours in the first instance;

Empower a senior police officer (of the rank of inspector or above) to close with immediate effect for up to 24 hours specified licensed or club premises where disorder is occurring;

Enable a court, following conviction, to endorse penalty points on a licence or certificate of registration. Premises which accumulate 10 penalty points within any three year period will have their licence or certificate suspending for a period of between one week and three months;

Introduce a statutory proof of age scheme specifying acceptable proof of age documents and require premises to display specific signage describing the new scheme;

Increase the number of occasions in which registered clubs may apply to the PSNI for later opening to 1:00am from 52 to 120 each year; and

Create a more flexible accounting system for registered clubs which recognises the different auditing requirements for small, medium and large clubs. This provision results from the PSNI’s acknowledgement that the financial mismanagement that had previously existed in some clubs was no longer in evidence and that more flexible arrangements for registered clubs was in order.

In her statement to the Assembly on 17 November 2008, the Minister announced that the second stage of reform would be implemented in the longer term once the Review of Public Administration has been completed and a new system of local government was in place. These series of reforms would involve the transfer of responsibility for liquor licensing and clubs’ registration from the courts to the newly formed councils; the introduction of six new statutory licensing objectives; and a streamlining of the current 12 licence categories into a dual system of personal and premises licences. The Minister also announced her intention to retain the surrender provision for liquor licences. This is a provision which requires a licence for a public house or off-sales to be surrendered to the court before a licence for a new business can be granted.[5]

The issues which may potentially constitute the basis of a second stage of reform are considered further in the Northern Ireland Assembly Research and Library Service Paper ‘Liquor Licensing Reform in Northern Ireland’ (May 2009).[6] This paper also explores recent alcohol reform proposals in Scotland which include the introduction of minimum retail pricing, the control of ‘irresponsible’ alcohol promotions, raising the minimum age for purchasing alcohol to 21; and the introduction of a ‘social responsibility’ fee for some retailers to ‘off set’ the costs of dealing with the adverse consequences of alcohol. It is recommended that the research paper be read in conjunction with this Bill Paper in order to provide further contextual information on the future direction of liquor/alcohol reform both in Northern Ireland and other jurisdictions.

2. Background to Liquor Licensing Reform in Northern Ireland

The review of Northern Ireland’s liquor licensing laws was announced on 4 March 2004 by John Spellar MP, the then Minister with responsibility for Social Development.
The review sought to strike a balance between the need for a more flexible and balanced licensing framework and the need to regulate the sale of alcohol in a way that was effective, enforceable and equitable.[7]

A Liquor Review Team (LRT) was set up in May 2004 to carry out the review with an Inter-Departmental Steering Group comprised of representations from the Department for Social Development; the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety; the Northern Ireland Court Service; the Northern Ireland Office; and the Police Service of Northern Ireland. The review team was tasked with exploring the following issues – opening hours; enforcement; surrender of a subsisting licence; categories of licences; wider public health issues; licensing laws regarding children; social and environmental issues; and equality and equity issues.[8]

In November 2005, David Hanson MP announced the publication of the consultation document ‘Liquor Licensing – The Way Forward’[9] which set out proposals for liquor licensing reform. Commenting at that time, the Minister highlighted the diversity of interest in the reforms,

“In considering the way forward I have been keenly aware of the need to weigh up the rights, needs and demands of the various interests concerned. These are wide-ranging. They include urban regeneration interests, employers and employees in the tourism and hospitality industry, town managers, the PSNI, health and community interests, residents and the general public".[10]

There were 963 written responses to the consultation reflecting the scale of interest in the proposed reforms and the Department for Social Development published a summary analysis of the views of consultees on each of the policy proposals in July 2006[11]. The review process was also supported by research and analysis including:

• A literature review on the impact of licensing and other controls on alcohol consumption[12];
• Northern Ireland Omnibus Survey questions to assess views on issues such as opening hours, off-licenses; alcohol and anti-social behaviour; and underage drinking[13]; and
• A survey of PSNI District Commanders in relation to their experiences, concerns and priorities in relation to the introduction of a new licensing regime[14].

On 20 July 2006, Minister Hanson announced his final decision on the proposals in the form of a Written Statement to the House of Commons[15]. A consultation on the draft Licensing and Registration of Clubs Order was published in December 2006 with around 60 responses. However, neither the proposals nor the draft Order were implemented as liquor licensing passed to the Northern Ireland Executive upon restoration of devolved government.

In 2007 the Minister for Social Development, Margaret Ritchie MLA, initiated her own review, drawing and building upon the work completed by her predecessor. The Minister held a series of meetings with key stakeholders before finalising her own proposals. The Minister announced these plans in a Statement to the Assembly on 17 November 2008.[16]

3. The Contents of the Bill

The Bill contains 14 clauses and 4 schedules which either amend or replace the existing provisions of the Licensing (Northern Ireland) Order 1996[17] and the Registration of Clubs (Northern Ireland) Order 1996[18]. This section of the paper provides a broad overview of the main clauses of the Bill and for ease of reference is divided into the following sections:

• The introduction of new closure powers (Clauses 1 and 5).
• The introduction of a penalty points system (Clauses 2 and 6).
• The introduction of a statutory proof of age scheme (Clauses 3 and 7).
• New flexible accounting requirements for registered clubs (Clause 8).
• Increase in ‘special authorisation’ occasions for registered clubs (Clause 9).

4. The Introduction of New Closure Powers (Clauses 1 and 5)

Clause 1 of the Bill provides the PSNI with new closure powers in relation to licensed premises. Licensed premises are defined by the Licensing (Northern Ireland) Order 1996 as part (or parts) of a premises for which a liquor license is in force and in which intoxicating liquor is permitted to be sold by retail.

Temporary powers to close licensed premises in an area/district

The new powers introduced under Clause 1 will empower a magistrates’ court within a “petty session" district that is experiencing, or likely to experience, disorder to make a closure order requiring licensed premises which are situated at or near the place of disorder or expected disorder, to be closed for a period of up to 24 hours. The application for a closure order must be made by a police officer who is of the rank of Superintendent or above. However, a court cannot make such an order unless it is satisfied that it is necessary to prevent disorder.

A new offence (carrying a maximum fine of £1,000) is introduced for knowingly keeping any licensed premises open during the period of a closure order. The Bill also includes the provision that “a constable may use such force as may be necessary for the purpose of closing premises ordered to be closed".

Immediate temporary closure powers relating to identified licensed premises

In addition to this, Clause 1 also contains provisions that would enable a senior police officer (which the Bill’s Explanatory Memorandum identifies as a rank of inspector or above)[19] to make a closure order (of up to 24 hours) if that officer “reasonably" believes that there is disorder on, or in the vicinity of and related to, the premises and that the closure is necessary in the “interests of public safety". In determining whether to make a closure order in respect of any premises, the senior police officer must “have regard, in particular, to the conduct of the holder of the license and the licence holder’s servant or agent in relation to the disorder or nuisance". The closure order must specify certain items of information including information on the premises to which it relates; the period for which the premises are to be closed; and the grounds on which an order is made. The closure order will come into effect at the time a constable gives notice of it to the holder of the licence or the licence holder’s servant or agent. Failure to adhere to the order could result in a fine of up to £5,000 and/or imprisonment of up to 6 months.

Following the closure of a licensed premises, the responsible senior police officer must, (as soon as is reasonably practical), apply to the relevant magistrates’ court for it to consider the order and an extension of it. The court must then hold a hearing as soon as is practical to consider the application. The court may:

• revoke a closure order and any extension of it;
• order the premises to be closed, or remain closed, for a period of up to 28 days;
• revoke, modify or make the continuance of an order for additional permitted hours (later opening) subject to such terms as the court thinks fit; and
• revoke any occasional licences already granted or order that no further occasional licenses be granted to that premises.

Clause 1 also includes provisions which exempt the PSNI from liability for damages such as damages awarded in proceedings for judicial review, negligence or inappropriate performance in public office, unless the action by the police is shown to have been in bad faith or incompatible with section 6(1) of the Human Rights Act 1998 (which makes it unlawful for a public authority to act in a way which is incompatible with a Convention right).

The Bill states that a key issue in determining whether to make a closure order for identified individual premises is the conduct of the holder of the licence or their servant or agent. There is as yet no further details as to how this will be applied or assessed in Northern Ireland. However, guidance on police powers in relation to the temporary closure powers of licensed premises in England and Wales provide an insight into how this principle should operate in practice.

The Guidance strongly stipulates that in the first instance police should seek the voluntary co-operation of licensees in resolving incidents of disorder. This may involve a decision of the licensee to voluntarily close their premises for a period of time. It is beneficial for a licensee to co-operate with the police in this manner as the issue of a closure order by the police under Section 161 (of the Liquor Licensing Act 2003) will automatically lead, after an initial hearing by the courts, to a review of the licence by the licensing authority. The relevant extract of the Guidance states that:

“Section 161 of the 2003 Act also provides that the senior police officer must consider the conduct of the premises licence holder, manager, designated premises supervisor or premises user who has given a temporary event notice, before making a closure order. If they have acted incompetently, inadequately or actually provoked or caused the problems or, alternatively, have called the police in promptly and acted sensibly to try to prevent disorder or noise nuisance, the officer may take these factors into account….

In this context, it must be understood that the powers to close licensed premises are not a penalty to be imposed on the licence holder…..

The powers in sections 161 - 170 of the 2003 Act are, first and foremost, designed to protect the public whether a licensee or manager or any other person is at fault or not. This means that even if the licence holder, managers or other persons have done all they can to prevent the disorder or noise nuisance, a senior police officer may on occasions, still believe that closure is necessary to safeguard the public or to prevent the public nuisance. These will be fine judgements, appropriately pitched at a senior police rank. But the police’s overriding consideration should always be the public interest…..

The police should, whenever possible, seek the voluntary co-operation of licensees, managers and others in resolving incidents of disorder, potential disorder and noise nuisance rather than move directly to a decision to use a closure order. Police officers should be aware that any decision to deploy the powers available to them to make a closure order under section 161 of the 2003 Act will almost inevitably lead, after an initial hearing before the courts, to a review of the licence by the licensing authority. This will involve determining whether or not it is necessary for the promotion of the licensing objectives to take any steps in relation to the licence, including revocation. A decision by the licensing authority to proceed on that basis will therefore involve police attendance at the hearing and the preparation of material relating to the review. Senior police officers will only want to commit such resources if necessary and justified in the public interest.[20]

Temporary Closure Powers and Registered Clubs

A registered club is defined as a club which is registered under the Registration of Clubs (Northern Ireland) Order 1996. These are usually voluntary associations of people who wish to promote some common objective (such as social interaction, sports, hobbies or other pastimes). If a club wishes to supply intoxicating liquor to members or their guests for consumption within a club premises and to keep it for supply on those premises, then it must apply to a county court for a certificate of registration under the Registration of Clubs (Northern Ireland) Order.[21]

Clause 5 of the Bill contains provisions relating to closure powers and registered clubs which are largely similar to the provisions relating to licensed premises contained within Clause 1. The exception is that a magistrates’ court may only, on considering an order or extension of an order, revoke the closure order or any extension of it or order the premises to remain, or to be closed, for a period of up to 28 days. Unlike the provisions relating to licensed premises, the courts will not consider issues such as occasional licences or permitted hours as part of a consideration of a closure order for registered clubs.

The Response of Some Stakeholders to the Closure Powers

A consultation on the draft Licensing and Registration of Clubs Order was published in December 2006. Concerns relating to the temporary closure powers primarily centred around the definition of the term “closure" and also upon the impact of the new temporary closure powers on licensed premises.

Defining the term “closure"

Armagh District Policy Partnership, for example, felt that there was a need for “clarification of what is meant by closure in this provision as we were unclear as to whether this meant total clearance of the property or closure of the bars for the sale of alcohol or somewhere in between".[22] This issue does not appear to have been clarified either by the legislation or in the Explanatory Memorandum to the Bill. However, it is likely that guidance for the PSNI on the new closure powers will be required to assist in the interpretation of the legislation.

Similar guidance has been produced in relation to ‘Police Powers to Close Premises under the Licensing Act 2003’ in England and Wales. Although the guidance produced has no binding effect on police officers, it aims to support and assist them in interpreting and implementing the legislation. To provide clarity on the definition of what is meant by “closure", the guidance states:

“The 2003 Act [i.e. the Licensing Act 2003] does not require the licence holder or the police to clear the premises of customers following the service of a closure order. It is assumed that normally premises would empty, there being no purpose to the presence of customers if relevant items, licensable activities or facilities may no longer be sold, supplied or provided. However, a customer commits no offence if they are not asked to leave and remain on the premises. The closure relates to the carrying on of the licensable activities. The licence holder, premises user, designated premises supervisor or manager of the premises similarly commit no offence arising from the mere presence of such an individual. However, if an individual who is drunk or disorderly is asked to leave by a constable, a licence holder or others and then refuses to leave, they become liable to prosecution. Where a police officer is asked for assistance to remove such a customer, the officer is under a statutory duty to afford that assistance.

The lack of any duty on customers to leave the premises automatically following the service of a closure order is important. However, it would be open to the police to propose a phased emptying of premises for the purpose of dispersing, for example, disorderly gangs separately or because it is in the interests of public safety to keep law-abiding customers inside for a temporary period while troublemakers outside are dispersed by the police…."[23]

The Potential Impact on Businesses

The Northern Ireland Independent Retail Trade Association expressed general support for the new powers but had concerns about the interpretation of the provisions “on the ground". NIIRTA cited the example of grocery stores which also sold alcohol and sought clarification regarding whether a closure order would result in the closure of the whole premises or just the part of the premises which sold intoxicating liquor[24].

The Federation of the Retail Licensed Trade NI, stated that the main fear of the licensed trade was assurances that the new temporary closure provisions could not be abused. The Federation felt that given the potential impact of closure on a person’s business before a court hearing takes place, the senior police officer making the order should be at least of the rank of Chief Inspector.

From the PSNI’s point of view, a 2004 report on a survey of PSNI District Commanders and Regional Headquarters maintained that there were inadequacies in the current sanctions regime and highlighted the potential for the closure powers to act as a deterrent for businesses that do not act responsibly. The report stated that there was wide support for the power of closure on the basis that it would have an immediate impact and an adverse affect on the profitability of premises:

“Where licensees are found to be in breach of the licensing laws in Northern Ireland, it can take a lengthy period of time to pursue a prosecution through the courts. This clearly does not create the deterrent impact the sanctions within the current legislation ought to deliver. Even the worse cases currently taken to court seldom result in premises being closed. As articulated earlier, bringing licensees to court even within 7 days only starts the long process of adjournments and legal argument and a more effective mechanism within the current Criminal Justice system would need to be researched.

Power to close licensed premises may seem somewhat draconian in its approach but there may be occasions when it is absolutely necessary. Such sanctions are likely to be most effective if they are imposed at the weekend. Impacting upon a licensees’ profit margin would have a greater effect than the current fines imposed, which do not represent the profits made from breaking the law. The system of imposing a closure order must be practical in its implementation, and have a clearly defined structure of graduated response, i.e. from initial warning right up to an order of closure. It is also imperative that this power is available at the appropriate level of operational rank. We believe that this should only be available to officers of Inspector rank and above.

It is essential that that we have a sanctions regime that is applied consistently, that not only penalises those found guilty of offences but also acts as a real deterrent for others." [25]

The Application of Closure Powers in Other Jurisdictions

The provisions in the Bill relating to closure powers will bring Northern Ireland into line with similar arrangements in Great Britain. In England and Wales, Part 8 of the Licensing Act 2003 provides broadly similar powers to those proposed for Northern Ireland in relation to the temporary closure of individual licensed premises for actual disorder, or all licensed premises in a geographical area for actual or anticipated disorder. In Scotland there are similar provisions in Part 7 of the Licensing (Scotland) Act 2005.

One comparable difference is that the fine for a breach of a closure order in Great Britain is much greater than that proposed for Northern Ireland (i.e. in GB a fine of up to £20,000 is applicable). Another variation in the application of closure orders is that in Scotland, a senior police officer must apply to a Licensing Board rather than a Magistrates’ Court for a closure order. There is a Licensing Board in each council area in Scotland appointed by the local council which is responsible for all matters relating to the granting of licenses for the supply of alcohol and various gambling activities. The Licensing Boards are separate legal entities from the councils, and their membership comprises local councillors who are supported administratively by their council licensing section.

Statistics produced by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport highlight that 54 closure notices were issued in England and Wales during 2008/09 (issued under Section 161 of the Licensing Act 2003, i.e. police powers to immediately close premises). There were also 26 completed premises licence reviews carried out following closure orders. To place this in context, there were around 250,000 licences and certificates in force in England and Wales during that time[26].

The statistics appear to suggest that immediate police closure powers in England and Wales (under Section 161 of the Licensing Act 2003) are used relatively infrequently, but this may not necessarily provide a full picture of the impact of the legislation. As previously stated, guidance for the police service strongly stipulates that in the first instance the police should seek the voluntary co-operation of licensees in resolving incidents of disorder. This may involve a decision of the licensee to voluntarily close their premises for a period of time. It should be borne in mind that it is beneficial for a licensee to co-operate with the police in this manner as the issue of a closure order by the police under Section 161 may lead, after an initial hearing by the courts, to a review of the licence by the licensing authority. Statistics relating to the number of voluntary closures do not appear to be collated centrally.[27][28]

For illustrative purposes, provided below are some examples of the application of the temporary closure powers under Section 161 of the Licensing Act 2003 (i.e. immediate closure powers):

Examples of the use of immediate closure powers until Section 161 of the Licensing Act 2003 (England and Wales) May 2010: Surrey Police closed a pub in Camberley following an affray which led to an officer being assaulted. Officers were called to the pub around 9:20pm after a report that a fight had broken out between customers and bar staff. When the first policeman arrived there were a large number of intoxicated people outside the premises and the officer was assaulted whilst attempting to enter the premises. The premise was found to be in disarray and on investigation with the landlord it was decided that the appropriate action was to issue a closure order. The pub was initially closed for 24 hours. However, following negotiations between police and the brewery in charge, the pub was permanently closed for business.27 January 2010: Police used their temporary closure powers to close a bar in Swindon due to underage drinking. On responding to a complaint from a member of the public, police are reported to have found a large number of drunken youths both inside and outside the bar. A 15 year old boy was arrested for being drunk and disorderly and a 22 year old arrested for a public disorder offence. The bar was closed by police to prevent further disorder. The closure order was subsequently agreed by Swindon Magistrates Court which also ruled that the bar should remain closed until the licensing authority could review the bar’s licence, taking into account the interests of public safety.28

December 2008: A 24 hour closure order was made in respect to a bar in Thornton Heath (South London). It was reported that hundreds of youths attempted to gatecrash a girl’s18th birthday party that had been advertised on Facebook. Fifty police officers were called to the scene and were reported to have been attacked by bottles and other sharp objects. The following day Croydon Police were reported to have applied to Croydon Magistrates’ Court to apply for the closure order to be extended. The application was rejected by the Court.29

[29]

As previously highlighted, Section 160 of the Licensing Act 2003 also permits police in England and Wales to apply to a Magistrates Court for a closure order in an area likely to experience disorder. It is reported that this power was used for the first time in 2008 to prevent a live performance at the ‘Moonfest’ festival from taking place. Wiltshire Constabulary successfully applied to the North Wiltshire Magistrates Court for a closure order to ban an appearance by Pete Doherty and his band Babyshambles on the grounds that there could be public disorder.[30]

In the Republic of Ireland some offences under the Intoxicating Liquor Act, 2003 (e.g. the sale of alcohol to people under 18, allowing people under 18 in licensed premises during extended hours and allowing people under 18 to be in an off-licence unaccompanied) can result in a temporary closure order. This order is imposed by the District Court in addition to any fine that may be payable by the licence holder. The premises must be closed for a period not exceeding 7 days for a first offence or not less than 7 days and not more than 30 days for a second or any subsequent such offence. Any premises closed due to a temporary closure order must display a sign outside giving details of the length of the closure and stating that the closure is in compliance with a court order. In the event of persistent offenders, a court can ultimately demand the forfeiture of a licence.[31]

5. The Introduction of a Penalty Points System (Clauses 2 and 6)

In her statement to the Assembly in November 2008, the Minister for Social Development highlighted that, whilst a penalty points system will be a unique feature to Northern Ireland, there is already a precedent for penalty points here in that registered clubs may receive points for financial offences, e.g. an accumulation of ten points can lead to a club’s registration being cancelled[32].

Clauses 2 and 6 of the Bill introduces a penalty points system for licensed premises and registered clubs respectively. A summary of the penalty points attributable to certain offences in relation to licenses are set out in Table 1 and for registered clubs in Table 2.

Key points in relation to the penalty points system are as follows:

• On the accumulation of 10 or more penalty points within a 3 year period, a Magistrates’ Court can suspend a licence or certificate for between one week and three months.
• If a licensee is convicted of an offence liable for a fine not exceeding Level 3 (£1,000) a court has flexibility as to whether or not to endorse those points (3-4). However, upon conviction for the same offence within 3 years a court must order the points to be endorsed upon the licence or certificate or registration.
• If a licensee is convicted of an offence liable for a fine not exceeding Level 4 (£2,500) a court must order the endorsement of the penalty points on a licence for certificate of registration “unless for special reasons the court thinks fit not to do so". However, upon conviction of a further offence at this level within three years a court must order the points to be endorsed on the licence or certificate.
• If a licensee is convicted of an offence liable for a fine not exceeding Level 5 (£5,000) a court must order the endorsement of penalty points on a licence or certificate.
• It will be an offence liable to a fine of £2,500 and/or up to 3 months imprisonment if a licensee fails to hand the licence into court for endorsement.
• Where a licensee is convicted of two or more offences committed on the same occasion, a court may restrict the points attributable to the highest number due in respect of one of the offences.
• The Bill also empowers the Department for Social Development to amend the penalty points via the affirmative resolution procedure.

Table 1: Summary of Offences Punishable with Penalty Points (Licensed Premises)

Level 3 Fine on the Standard Scale (£1,000) 3-4 Penalty Points	Level 4 Fine on the Standard Scale (£2,500) 4-5 Penalty Points	Level 5 Fine on the Standard Scale (£5,000) 5-6 Penalty Points
Selling of intoxicating liquor etc. otherwise than in accordance with an occasional licence. Failure to admit to a constable where there is an occasional licence. Selling of intoxicating liquor etc. otherwise than during hours or in premises specified in an extension licence. Selling etc. of intoxicating liquor for consumption off the premises on Christmas Day or Easter Day. Failure to comply with conditions as to sale etc. in guest houses and restaurants. Failure to comply with conditions as to sale etc. in places of public entertainment.	Failure to comply with a licence in respect of certain premises. Allowing a person under 18 in a licensed premises in contravention of Article 58(2) or (8). Permitting drunkenness, or selling intoxicating liquor to a drunken person. Failure to admit a constable to enter and inspect the premises	Selling etc. intoxicating liquor in premises not authorised by a licence. Failure to comply on grant of licence with a court order to make alterations etc. Failure to comply with a court order to restore premises as far as possible to original condition. Selling intoxicating liquor etc. otherwise than during permitted hours; Selling liquor etc. other than of a certain kind. Selling of intoxicating liquor etc. to a person under 18 in contravention of Article 60(1). Supplying etc. intoxicating liquor at any entertainment. Supplying etc. intoxicating
Failure to comply with conditions as to sale etc. in indoor arenas. Failure to comply with conditions as to sale etc. in seamen’s canteens. Permitting consumption of intoxicating liquor in unlicensed part of premises. Breach terms of off-licence. Failure to display notice relating to age. Allowing prostitutes to assemble on licensed premises. Keeping premises open after closure made under Article 69A. Failure to comply with licence for non-seagoing vessels.		liquor in premises used by a club. Permitting premises to be open in contravention of closure order under Article 69B. Permitting premises to be open etc. in contravention of a court’s decision about a closure order.

Table 2: Summary of Offences Punishable with Penalty Points (Registered Clubs)

Level 3 Fine on the Standard Scale (£1,000) 3-4 Penalty Points	Level 4 Fine on the Standard Scale (£2,500) 4-5 Penalty Points	Level 5 Fine on the Standard Scale (£5,000) 5-6 Penalty Points
Misconduct of a club. Failure to display a notice relating to age. Contravention of regulations concerning accounts. Keeping premises open after order made under Article 41A.	Permitting unauthorised persons to be on premises. Holding unauthorised functions on the premises. Contravention of provisions which are included in the club’s rules. Allowing persons under 18 to be in club premises, or bar of club premises etc. Permitting drunkenness etc. Failure to comply with restrictions on advertisements relating to functions in registered clubs. Failure to admit a constable or produce books and records, etc. Failure to comply with written notice to produce books, etc.	Supply etc. of intoxicating liquor outside permitted hours. Failure to keep bar closed outside permitted hours. Supply of intoxicating liquor to persons other than permitted persons. Supply etc. of intoxicating liquor to a person under 18. Failure to comply with requirement to keep proper vouchers; establish and maintain a system of control; prepare annual accounts; have accounts audited or examined; produce records etc. to audit or independent examiner; provide summary of accounts to members; provide summary of accounts to district commander; display accounts for 4 weeks; retain record for 6 years. Permitting premises to be kept open after closure order. Permitting premises to be kept open in contravention of a court’s decision about closure order.

Some Stakeholder Reactions to the Proposals for Stronger Enforcement

The 2005 consultation paper, ‘Liquor Licensing – The Way Forward’ highlighted the general concerns of key stakeholders in relation to enforcement. The PSNI survey report, for example, set out several areas where enforcement could be improved. The PSNI felt that there were difficulties in prosecuting licensees for breaches in the legislation due to:

• A plethora of licensing offences carrying varying degrees of penalty;
• Protracted court cases;
• Suspension of a licence being considered as a punishment of last resort, deployed after a licensee had appeared frequently before the courts; and
• Sanctions that fail to act as an effective deterrent.

The consultation paper further highlighted the perceived concerns of the licensed trade and magistrates in relation to the issue of enforcement:

“The licensed trade believe that enforcement could be more effective. They believe that those who routinely flout the law are not being effectively punished e.g. a fine for selling after hours is not a deterrent if the guilty party can make more than that amount in the time they illegally stay open.

Magistrates currently have to choose between the two extremes of issuing fines, that are seen by some as ineffectual and lenient, and suspending or revoking licences, a major punishment that could deprive an individual of their income or business, and which could seem disproportionate for many offences. Issues around police resources and priorities have also been raised."[33]

A few organisations, whilst welcoming the introduction of a penalty points system, believe that the proposals do not go far enough. A submission by the Northern Ireland Independent Retail Association in response to the draft Licensing and Registration of Clubs (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Order 2007 states:

“We fully support the introduction of stronger enforcement measures and the introduction of a penalty points system culminating in the suspension of a licence.

We are however of the opinion that the enforcement of licensing legislation in Northern Ireland will continue to be weak until such time as Government introduces a system which results in the disqualification of premises for use as licensed premises and the disqualification of persons from holding a personal liquor license [sic].

We are disappointed that Government have not taken the opportunities presented by this amending legislation to introduce such a system. The enforcement of the legislation will be ineffective while the maximum penalty which can be imposed against any licensee, no matter how badly behaved, is only temporary suspension for three months with no loss of license [sic]".[34]

6. The Introduction of a Statutory Proof of Age Scheme (Clauses 3 and 7)

Although it is an offence in Northern Ireland to sell alcohol to a person under 18, the consultation paper ‘The Way Forward’ highlighted that the law does not specify how a person’s age should be determined and that this can cause uncertainty for licensees, young people and the PSNI. ‘The Way Forward’ maintained that a proof of age scheme could assist police and licensees in identifying those who are underage attempting to purchase alcohol.[35]

Clauses 3 and 7 of the Bill make identical provision for the introduction of a statutory proof of age scheme for licensed premises and registered clubs. In court proceedings for certain underage offences, a licensee can demonstrate that they have shown “all due diligence" to avoid committing an offence if they have been shown any of the following documents:

• A passport;
• A photocard driving licence;
• An electoral identity card; and
• A Proof of Age Standards Scheme (PASS) card.

In addition to this, licensed premises and registered clubs will be required to display, in a visible position, a notice containing information on underage sales and listing the documents acceptable as proof of age. The Department will also be given the power to prescribe by regulations the format and content of the notice which will state that it is an offence to sell alcohol to a person under 18, for any person under 18 to purchase alcohol, or for a person to purchase alcohol for a person under 18. It will be an offence (with a fine of up to £1,000) for a licensee to fail to display such a notice.

The statutory proof of age scheme will operate alongside other schemes such as the PSNI Test Purchase of Alcohol Scheme[36]. Test purchasing of alcohol powers are designed to address underage drinking by preventing the illegal sale and supply of alcohol to young people. The test purchase scheme involves young people volunteering to assist the police in test purchase operations. The Federation of Retail Licensed Trade NI recently announced that the police were intending to pilot the use of the new test purchase of alcohol scheme to carry out test purchase operations in the West Belfast area during April 2010:

“Community Safety Inspector Alan Swann said that test purchase of alcohol exercises are not intended to “entrap or catch out" staff or licensees in either ‘on’ or ‘off’ licensed premises, including supermarkets. Rather test purchase exercises are an opportunity for the licensees and their staff to embrace their responsibilities in ensuring under 18 year olds are not illegally supplied with alcohol.

The PSNI would therefore encourage and ask staff and licensees to actively challenge persons who look under 18 years old that are attempting to buy alcohol and to ensure they ask for proof of age or identity before making any such sale," said Inspector Swann.

He also said that it was widely recognised that the illegal sale of alcohol to under-age persons can be linked to anti-social behaviour, alcohol fuelled disorder and crime".[37]

Proof of Age Schemes in Other Jurisdictions

Some regions have developed their voluntary identity cards for young people. The Scottish Government, for example, supports the use of a ‘Young Scot National Entitlement Card (NEC)’[38] as a proof of age card when purchasing alcohol, tobacco and other age-restricted products. This is a free electronic smart card available for young people aged 11 to 26. The card bears the PASS (National Proof of Age Standards Scheme)[39] hologram and is recognised as an official proof of age card across the UK. This is not a mandatory proof of age scheme and carrying the card is voluntary.

Many retailers throughout the UK have voluntarily adopted the ‘Challenge 21’ initiative to raise awareness amongst staff of their responsibilities in preventing underage sales of alcohol and other age-restricted products. The initiative encourages retailers and licensees to seek proof of age from anyone who appears to be under the age of 21. Some licensed premises in Scotland voluntarily operate a ‘Challenge 25’ policy whereby those appearing to be under the age of 25 will be asked for proof of age.

A number of jurisdictions outside the UK have mandatory proof of age schemes in operation in various forms. One of the most stringent examples is in Tennessee (USA) which reportedly became (in 2007) the first US state to require a valid ID for off-premises beer purchases regardless of age (under the ‘Tennessee Responsible Vendors Act 2006).[40]

In February 2010, the Scottish Government introduced the Alcohol etc. (Scotland) Bill which makes it mandatory for all licensed premises to operate an age verification policy. Many premises in Scotland already operate “Challenge 21" or “Think 25" policies. However, this section of the Bill enshrines these arrangements in law and requires that premises have an age verification policy (for person appearing to be under 21). However, with this provision the retailer would still be able to operate an age verification policy that operates at a higher level (such as the “Think 25" policy").[41]

In the Republic of Ireland, Section 15 of the Intoxicating Liquor Act 2003 requires that persons under 21 carry an age document to enter the bar of a licensed premises. Age documents include a passport, Garda age card or driving licence. The legislation is designed to assist publicans in complying with their obligations in relation to underage sales. The Gardai operate a voluntary National Age Card scheme in the Republic of Ireland. A National Age Card is a “proof of age card" and not an “identify card" and can be obtained by individuals aged 18 and over to demonstrate that they have reached the legal age for purchasing alcohol (a €10 fee is applicable).[42]

7. More Flexible Accounting Requirements for Registered Clubs (Clause 8)

The Registration of Clubs (Northern Ireland) Order 1996 tightened the control under which registered clubs could operate by setting minimum criteria and standards. These applied to the management of clubs with particular emphasis on financial controls and accounts. This development was required by the police to assist in tackling financial mismanagement in clubs. The detailed accounting requirements are set out in the Registration of Clubs (Accounts) Regulations 1997[43].

According to ‘The Way Forward’, in 2004 the PSNI, acknowledging the efforts of registered clubs to improve their accounting procedures, proposed that the Regulations should be reconsidered with a view to relaxing them:

“The police felt that there was scope to simplify the auditing requirements and replace many of the other mandatory requirements of the Regulations with a system of guidance and best practice. The former Minister with responsibility for Social Development, John Spellar MP, agreed to review the Regulations in the context of the current liquor licensing review.[44]

Clause 8 of the Bill amends the Registration of Clubs (Accounts) Regulations 1997 by introducing a mechanism whereby regulations and guidance will make the accounting requirements for registered clubs more flexible. According to the Bill’s Explanatory Memorandum this clause:

Removes the requirement to prescribe by regulations the manner in which clubs maintain a system of accounts.

Removes the requirement to send a copy of the accounts and auditor’s report to the police (the police must instead ask for the papers);

Removes the requirement to notify the police of the address at which accounts-related papers are held; and

Gives small and medium sized clubs the option to have their accounts audited by an auditor or examined by an independent examiner.

The Northern Ireland Federation of Clubs has opposed the Regulations from the outset, describing them as “unduly onerous, discriminatory and beset with practical difficulties".[45] The ‘Way Forward’ consultation document acknowledged that stringent regulations can compound the problems of clubs. It recognised that this was a particular problem for disadvantaged areas which are coming under increasing pressure for survival given that the development of licensed premises in towns and city centres has changed drinking patterns and is attracting more young people. The consultation paper goes on to states that the,

“Government believes that registered clubs can act as a centre for the community in many areas and provide a resource which is useful in terms of taking forward neighbourhood renewal."

There appears to be little locally-based research on the social and economic impact of registered clubs on communities. However, a review of registered clubs in New South Wales (Australia) maintains that registered clubs “provide considerable intangible social benefits that are impossible to quantify but should not be ignored. These include the sense of belonging that some club members feel and the greater social cohesion a community might experience as a result of having a club where people can meet and mix". The research also confirms that the financial viability of individual registered clubs varies greatly and that some are financially strong, whilst others struggle for a variety of reasons including a lack of understanding of their own financial position; demographic changes; the level of competition from other venues in their communities; and the financial and management skills of their boards and managers.[46]

The ‘Analysis of Responses to the Liquor Licensing Consultation’ highlighted that the proposals relating to the financial control of registered clubs was,

“the most evenly split of the proposals; 41% of the responses were in favour of liberalisation of the Clubs’ Accounting procedures and 43% were against it. There were also a high proportion of neutral responses (16%). The trade were 71% in favour of this proposal, while District Councils and District Policing Partnerships were the most strongly against it. PSNI supported the relaxation. Those in favour regarded the regulations as overly prescriptive and burdensome and beset with practical difficulties. However, there were concerns that some clubs could become easy vehicles for the more unscrupulous members of our society to launder money."[47]

8. Increase in ‘Special Authorisation’ Occasions for Registered Clubs (Clause 9)

The current permitted hours for registered clubs (with the exception of nightworker’s clubs) are as follows:

• Monday to Saturday (other than Good Friday or Christmas Day) from 11:30am to 11:00pm.
• Sunday or Christmas Day from 12:30pm to 10:00pm; and
• Good Friday from 5:00pm to 11:00pm.[48]

However, under Article 26 of the Registration of Clubs (Northern Ireland) Act 2006, a registered club can apply to a police sub-divisional commander for the area in which the club premises are situated for authorisation to extend the permitted opening hours. An authorisation, which will be given in writing, may permit the supply of intoxicating liquor in registered clubs (other than nightworker’s clubs) on any single occasion:

• from Monday to Saturday (except Good Friday or Christmas Day), from 11:00 pm to 1:00 am on the following day;
• on Sunday (except Christmas Day), not being 31 December, from 10:00 pm to 12 midnight; or
• on Sunday, being 31 December, from 10:00 pm to 1:00 am on the following day.

A total of 52 such authorisations may be granted in any period of 12 months. The application must be made at least 7 days before the date for which the additional hours are sought. A special occasion authorisation cannot authorise the supply of intoxicating liquor on Christmas Day, Easter Day or Good Friday.[49]

Clause 9 of the Licensing and Registration of Clubs (Amendment) Bill will increase the number of occasions on which a registered club may apply to the police for later opening to 1:00am (midnight on Sunday) from 52 to 120 occasions in any period of 12 months. A clubs must give police at least 7 days notice of the vent and may, at the discretion of the police, include a number of occasions on the one application.

Opening hours is one of the most contentious issues with respect to liquor licensing reform, as highlighted by the consultation paper ‘Liquor Licensing – The Way Forward’:

“Opinions are sharply divided on the subject of opening hours for licensed premises. The Review Team found little consensus on the need for any changes to opening hours. Some of the licensed trade, the public and religious bodies oppose liberalisation while others in the trade, along with tourism and urban regeneration interests, are calling for more flexibility.

PSNI believe that the extension of licensing hours must be balanced by the introduction of new, broad-based compensating regulatory structures and stronger powers to enforce the law.

One of the few areas of agreement is that future legislation and practice should respond to Northern Ireland’s culture and needs, which are seen as different from those in Great Britain"[50]

The original proposals for opening hours contained within “The Way Forward" included:

• Permitting licensed premises and registered clubs to apply to the courts (and to district councils in due course) to open up to 2:00am on weekdays, and midnight on Sundays; and
• Permitting licensed premises and registered clubs to apply to the courts/district councils to open beyond 2:00am/midnight for special occasions such as major sporting or other events attracting significant national or international interest.

The provisions set out within the Licensing and Registration of Clubs (Amendment) Bill could be interpreted as a compromise to the original opening hour proposals contained within the consultation (i.e. 1:00am opening hours contained within the provisions of the Bill as opposed to the original 2:00am opening hour proposal, permitting 1:00am opening hours on 120 ‘special authorisation’ occasions per year in comparison with 2:00am opening hours as standard).

[1] Department for Social Development. News Release. ‘Spellar announces review of drinking laws’. 4 March 2004. http://archive.nics.gov.uk/sd/040304a-sd.htm

[2] Department for Social Development. News Release. ‘Ritchie heralds a new era for clubs’. 17 May 2010.

[3] See Northern Ireland Assembly Official Report, 17 November 2008. archive.niassembly.gov.uk/record/reports2008/081117.htm

[4] Department for Social Development. News Release. ‘Ritchie heralds a new era for clubs’. 17 May 2010.

[5] See Northern Ireland Assembly Official Report, 17 November 2008. archive.niassembly.gov.uk/record/reports2008/081117.htm

[6] Northern Ireland Assembly Research and Library Services (2009) Liquor Licensing Reform in Northern Ireland. archive.niassembly.gov.uk/researchandlibrary/2009/6109.pdf

[7] Department for Social Development. News Release. ‘Spellar announces review of drinking laws’. 4 March 2004. http://archive.nics.gov.uk/sd/040304a-sd.htm

[8] Department for Social Development. Liquor Licensing – The Way Forward. Government proposals to Reform Liquor Licensing Law in Northern Ireland. Consultation Document. October 2005, p7.

[9] For related consultation publications see http://archive.nics.gov.uk/sd/040304a-sd.htm, for online copy of the consultation document see www.strabanedc.com/filestore/documents/lrt-liquor-licensing-consultation-document.pdf

[10] Department for Social Development. News Release. ‘Liquor Licensing proposals offer balanced package for 21st century. 1 November 2005. http://archive.nics.gov.uk/sd/051101c-sd.htm

[11] Department for Social Development. ‘Liquor Licensing – The Way Forward’. Analysis of Responses to Public Consultation. July 2006. www.dsdni.gov.uk/lrt_consultation_analysis.doc

[12] Department for Social Development. Liquor Licensing Review Northern Ireland: Review of the Literature on the Impact of Licensing and other Controls on the Consumption of Alcohol.

[13] Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency. Northern Ireland Omnibus Survey. October 2004.

[14] PSNI Operational Support Department. Report for Northern Ireland Licensing Review Team summarising the results of a survey of district commanders, regional headquarters and Criminal Justice Department’s Community Safety Branch, October 2004.

[15] House of Commons Hansard. 20 July 2006. www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmhansrd/vo060720/wmstext/60720m0003.htm#06072031000418

[16] Northern Ireland Assembly Official Report. Ministerial Statement on Liquor Licensing and Registered Club Law. 17 November 2008. archive.niassembly.gov.uk/record/reports2008/081117.htm

[17] See www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si1996/uksi_19963158_en_1

[18] See www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si1996/Uksi_19963159_en_1.htm

[19] The rank structure of the PSNI is as follows – Chief Constable; Deputy Chief Constable; Assistant Chief Constable; Chief Superintendent; Superintendent; Chief Inspector; Inspector; Sergeant; Constable. Information extracted from www.joinpsni.co.uk/structure.aspx

[20] Department for Culture, Media and Sport (2007) Police Powers to Close Premises under the Licensing Act 2003, pp4-5. www.cep.culture.gov.uk/images/publications/Policeclosurepowersguidance.pdf

[21] Guide to the Registration of Clubs (Northern Ireland) Order 1996, p4. www.dsdni.gov.uk/guide_to_registration_of_clubs.doc

[22] Armagh District Policing Partnership response to the draft Licensing and Registration of Clubs Order, February 2007. www.dsdni.gov.uk/armagh_district_policing_partnership.pdf

[23] Department for Culture, Media and Sport (2007) Police Powers to Close Premises under the Licensing Act 2003, p7. www.cep.culture.gov.uk/images/publications/Policeclosurepowersguidance.pdf

[24] Response by the Northern Ireland Independent Retail Trade Association to the draft Licensing and Registration of Clubs (Amendment) Order. www.dsdni.gov.uk/ni_independent_retail_trade_association.doc

[25] PSNI Operational Support Department (2004) Report for the Northern Ireland Licensing Review Team summarising the results of the Survey of District Commanders, Regional Headquarters and Criminal Justice Department’s Community Safety Branch. P20.

[26] Department for Culture, Media and Sport (2009) DCMS Statistical Bulletin: Alcohol, Entertainment and Late Night Refreshment Licensing. England and Wales., April 2008 – March 2009.

[27] Surrey Police. ‘Police close Camberley pub following affray’. 19 May 2010. www.surrey.police.uk/media/news_item.asp?area=6&itemID=12862

[28] Gazette and Herald. ‘Swindon bar closed by police after underage drinking’. 25 January 2010.

[29] Croydon Advertiser. ‘Hundreds gatecrash Thornton Heath Facebook party’. 31 December 2008. www.thisiscroydontoday.co.uk/news/Hundreds-gatecrash-Thornton-Heath-Facebook-party/article-578474-detail/article.html

[30] Telegraph. ‘Pete Doherty’s Babyshambles banned from headlining Moonfest festival’. 20 August 2010. www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/celebritynews/2588097/Pete-Dohertys-Babyshambles-banned-from-headlining-Moonfest-festival.html

[31] Barkeeper. ‘Alcohol and the Law in Ireland’. www.barkeeper.ie/page.asp?menu=0&page=274

[32] See Northern Ireland Assembly Official Report, 17 November 2008.
archive.niassembly.gov.uk/record/reports2008/081117.htm

[33] Department for Social Development (2005) Liquor Licensing – The Way Forward. Government Proposals to Reform Liquor Licensing Law in Northern Ireland, pp24-25.

[34] Northern Ireland Independent Retail Trade Association. Response to the Draft Licensing and Registration of Clubs (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Order 2007.

[35] Department for Social Development (2005) Liquor Licensing – The Way Forward. Government Proposals to Reform Liquor Licensing Law in Northern Ireland, p20.

[36] For further information on the scheme see www.psni.police.uk/index/youth/test_purchasing_alcohol.htm

[37] Federation of the Retail Licensed Trade NI. ‘Police to pilot test purchase of alcohol powers in West Belfast Area’. 8 April 2010. www.ulsterpubs.com/news/default.asp?ID=48&itemId=154&topicId=2&va=0

[38] For further information on the Young Scot National Entitlement Card see www.youngscotinfoline.org/nec/?a=d&s=370&sr=1711

[39] For further information on PASS see www.brc.org.uk/pass/default.asp

[40] Times Online. ‘Tennessee poised to become first state to require universal carding on beer sales’. 22 June 2007.

[41] Alcohol etc. (Scotland) Bill (as introduced). Explanatory Notes. www.scottish.parliament.uk/s3/bills/34-AlcoholEtc/b34s3-introd-en.pdf

[42] See www.agecard.ie/

[43] Registration of Clubs (Accounts) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1997, www.opsi.gov.uk/sr/sr1997/Nisr_19970333_en_1.htm

[44] Department for Social Development (2005) Liquor Licensing – The Way Forward. Government Proposals to Reform Liquor Licensing Law in Northern Ireland, p32.

[45] Northern Ireland Federation of Clubs. Submission to the Department for Social Development consultation, “Liquor Licensing – The Way Forward". January 2006.

[46] Independent Regulatory Pricing Tribunal (2008) Review of the Registered Clubs Industry in NSW, p2. www.clubsnsw.com.au/Content/NavigationMenu/PolicyIssues/IPARTReviewofRegisteredClubs/default.htm

[47] Department for Social Development (2006) ‘Liquor Licensing – The Way Forward: Analysis of Responses to the Public Consultation’. www.dsdni.gov.uk/lrt_consultation_analysis.doc

[48]Guide to the Registration of Clubs (Northern Ireland) Order 1996. www.dsdni.gov.uk/guide_to_registration_of_clubs.doc

[49]Guide to the Registration of Clubs (Northern Ireland) Order 1996. www.dsdni.gov.uk/guide_to_registration_of_clubs.doc

[50] Department for Social Development (2006) ‘Liquor Licensing – The Way Forward’, p16.

6 September 2010 NIAR 415-10

Eleanor Murphy

An Overview of Recent Developments in Alcohol and Licensing Reform in Other Jurisdictions

1 Introduction

On the 19 August 2010, the Minister for Social Development, outlined in a Departmental Press Release, his intention to introduce proposals to control irresponsible drinks promotions for pubs, clubs, supermarkets and other outlets. The proposals include a crackdown on promotions such as ‘buy one get one free’, ‘women drink free’ and ‘all you can drink’ for a set amount offers. The proposals will be subject to consultation and may be introduced as part of the new Justice Bill which will go through the Assembly in the autumn. In addition to this, the Minister has announced that he intends to introduce further regulations in the future including an introduction of a minimum pricing for alcohol and the sale of alcohol below cost price[1].

These proposals are additional to a number of liquor licensing reforms already contained within the current Licensing and Registration of Clubs (Amendment) Bill which was introduced to the Northern Ireland Assembly on 17 May 2010. This Bill includes, for example, new closure powers for the PSNI in respect of licensed premises and registered clubs; the introduction of a penalty points system for licences or certificates of registration; and a new statutory proof of age scheme (for further information on the Bill see Research and Library Service Licensing and Registration of (Amendment) Bill Paper).

Tackling alcohol misuse and related crime and disorder through the increased regulation is either under consideration, or has already been implemented, in other jurisdictions. The purpose of this short paper is to provide the Committee for Social Development with a brief overview, and references to further information, on some of the key proposals and latest developments in alcohol and licensing reform in other jurisdictions.

Key Points:

• In England (and Wales) a new Mandatory Practice for Licensed Premises published this year has introduced a range of restrictions on alcohol promotions such as “all you can drink for £10" and “women drink free" offers. Further to this, the Home Office recent ‘Rebalancing the Licensing Act’ consultation (launched on 28 July 2010) is seeking views on proposals such as banning the sale of alcohol below cost price and introducing more stringent measures for those premises repeatedly selling alcohol to children.
• In Scotland, the Scottish Government intends to introduce a minimum price for alcohol via the Alcohol Etc. (Scotland) Bill and has recently proposed that 45p per unit be set. In addition to minimum pricing, the Alcohol Etc. (Scotland) Bill (as introduced) also contained a range of other proposals including restricting irresponsible drinks promotions for ‘off-sales’ premises and the introducing a ‘social responsibility’ levy for certain licensed premises to meet additional costs associated with street cleaning and policing.
• In Wales, the Welsh Assembly Government Minister of Health and Social Services outlined in a Ministerial Statement in April that she felt there was now a strong case for the introduction of minimum pricing and called for stricter rules on the promotion of alcohol.
• In the Republic of Ireland, a National Substance Misuse Strategy Steering Group has reportedly been set up by Government to explore proposals to tackle alcohol misuse such as minimum prices for alcoholic drinks, new charges on retailers selling large volumes of alcohol and laws requiring alcohol to be sold separately from other products.

2 Recent Developments in Alcohol and Licensing Reform in England

Restrictions on ‘Irresponsible’ Alcohol Promotions

In April 2010, the previous administration enacted a Mandatory Code of Practice (Mandatory Licensing Conditions) Order 2010 for Alcohol Retailers, which was intended to be introduced in two stages. The first stage, which took effect from April 2010, imposed conditions on licensed premises to:

• Ban irresponsible promotions such as “all you can drink for £10" offers, ‘women drink free’ deals and speed drinking competitions. It was suggested that these promotions encourage people to drink quickly or irresponsibly and could lead to crime or antisocial behaviour;
• Ban “dentist’s chairs" where drink is poured directly into the mouths of customers making it impossible for them to control the amount they are drinking; and
• Ensuring free tap water is available for customers - allowing people to space out their drinks and reduce the risks of becoming dangerously drunk.

The legislation for the Mandatory Code contained two future conditions for licensed premises, which will be introduced on 10 October 2010. These conditions were delayed to enable businesses more time to prepare and will compel all licensed premises to:

• Require an age verification policy to be in place to prevent underage sales; and to
• Ensure that customers have the opportunity to choose small measures of beers, ciders, spirits and wine.

Recommended reading: Home Office (2010) ‘Selling Alcohol Responsibly: The New Mandatory Conditions Licensing Conditions – The New Mandatory Code for Alcohol Retailers in England and Wales’ House of Commons Library Standard Note (2010) Mandatory Conditions for Alcohol Sale.

‘Rebalancing the Licensing Act’ Consultation

Ahead of a major speech on anti-social behaviour in July 2010, the Home Secretary, Teresa May MP, announced that the coalition government intended to propose tough new measures to crack down on problem licensed premises and to give more powers to local communities and their representatives when considering licensing applications. The subsequent consultation paper ‘’Re-balancing the Licensing Act - a consultation on empowering individuals, families and local communities to shape and determine local licensing’ contains the following key proposals[2] [3]:

• Overhauling the Licensing Act to give local authorities and the police much stronger powers to remove licences from, or refuse to grant licences to, premises that are causing problems;
• Allowing councils and the police to permanently shut down any shop or bar that is repeatedly selling alcohol to children;
• Doubling the maximum fine for those caught selling alcohol to minors to £20,000;
• Allowing local authorities to charge more for late-night licenses which will help pay for additional policing; and

Banning the sale of alcohol below cost price.

In addition to these measure the ‘Coalition Agreement’ has also given a commitment to review alcohol taxation and pricing to ensure it tackles binge drinking without unfairly penalising responsible drinkers, pubs and important local industries.

3 Scotland: Alcohol Promotions, Minimum Pricing and the Alcohol Etc. (Scotland) Bill

The Scottish Health Secretary, Nicola Sturgeon MSP announced, on the 2 September 2010, that the proposed minimum price for alcohol in Scotland is 45p per unit[4]. The proposals for a minimum price for alcohol were contained within the Alcohol Etc. (Scotland) Bill which was introduced to the Scottish Parliament on 25 November 2009. The Bill (as introduced) did not specify what that price should be, however, the Scottish Government has announced that it intends to table an amendment to the Bill to introduce the 45p per unit price.

The issue of minimum pricing has been widely debated in Scotland, however, as the following extract from an article from the Telegraph highlights, not all MSPs are in favour of the proposal:

In a vote at Holyrood, MSPs overwhelmingly agreed the general principles of the SNP’s Alcohol Bill, which aims to tackle Scotland’s drink problem, allowing it to continue its passage through parliament.

But they narrowly voted by a margin of 54 to 49 for Nicola Sturgeon, the Scottish health minister, to remove minimum pricing from the legislation at the earliest opportunity.

If she refuses, Opposition parties have vowed to scrap the controversial scheme themselves before the Bill becomes law.

Murdo Fraser, Scottish Tory health spokesman, said: “This is the end of the road for minimum pricing. Today the Scottish Parliament has voted for the first time to reject the policy.

“Now it’s time for the SNP to put its plans on hold and sit down and work with the UK Government and opposition parties on a joint approach which will have widespread political support.

The vote followed an ill-tempered debate during which Miss Sturgeon pleaded with her opponents to “rise above party politics" and introduce minimum pricing for the good of Scotland."[5]

Despite an appeal from the Health Minister, Nicola Sturgeon MSP, to ‘to set aside party politics and do the right thing for the nation’s health’[6] a Conservative amendment calling on the Minister for Health to remove Section 1 of the Bill (which contains the minimum pricing proposal) was successfully moved. However, the Health Minister has stated that the amendment has “absolutely no legal effect" and that the Scottish Government will, at Stage 2, continue to persuade MSPs to support minimum pricing[7].

More recently, the Scottish Government’s Health and Sport Committee voted in favour of a Conservative amendment to strike plans for a minimum price from the Alcohol Bill. In a bid to gain support from MSPs, the Minister for Health offered to insert a sunset clause in the legislation, which would review the policy after six years. The Minister will make one last attempt to re-insert minimum pricing into the Bill during its final vote in Parliament[8].

Other proposals contained within the Bill

In addition to minimum pricing, the Alcohol Etc. (Scotland) Bill (as introduced) also contained provisions to[9]:

• Tackle the issue of irresponsible alcohol promotions by restricting discount promotions in off-sales premises (examples of such promotions include ‘buy one, get one free’, ‘three for the price of two’, “3 for £10’ etc).
• Introduce a mandatory age verification policy for all licensed premises.
• Require licensing boards to include a statement on the impact to an area of off-trade sales to under 21s. This “detrimental impact statement" should state the effect of off-sales to those under 21 and whether this is having a detrimental effect on one or more of the licensing objectives in the whole or part of the Licensing Board’s area.
• Provide Scottish Minister’s a power to make regulations imposing a ‘social responsibility levy’ on certain holders of licensed premises. Money raised by the charge will be for local authorities to use in contributing towards the costs of dealing with the adverse effects of the operation of these businesses, for example extra policing or street cleaning.

Irresponsible Promotions for ‘On-Sales’ Premises

• The Licensing (Scotland) Act 2005 already prohibits ‘irresponsible drinks promotions’ for ‘on sale’ premises. Schedule 3 of the Act states defines a drinks promotion as irresponsible if it:

(a) relates specifically to an alcoholic drink likely to appeal largely to persons under the age of 18,

(b) involves the supply of an alcoholic drink free of charge or at a reduced price on the purchase of one or more drinks (whether or not alcoholic drinks),

(c) involves the supply free of charge or at a reduced price of one or more extra measures of an alcoholic drink on the purchase of one or more measures of the drink,

(d) involves the supply of unlimited amounts of alcohol for a fixed charge (including any charge for entry to the premises),

(e) encourages, or seeks to encourage, a person to buy or consume a larger measure of alcohol than the person had otherwise intended to buy or consume,

(f) is based on the strength of any alcohol,

(g) rewards or encourages, or seeks to reward or encourage, drinking alcohol quickly, or

(h) offers alcohol as a reward or prize, unless the alcohol is in a sealed container and consumed off the premises.

Recommended reading: The Alcohol Etc. (Scotland) Bill, Financial and Explanatory Memorandum10. Scottish Parliament Information Centre (SPICe) Briefing on Alcohol etc. (Scotland) Bill (February 2010)11. The Scottish Parliament plenary session on the 1st Stage of the Alcohol etc. (Scotland) Bill12. Scottish Parliament Health and Sports Committee scrutiny of the Alcohol Etc. (Scotland) Bill13. Meier, P. et all (2010) Model-Based Appraisal of Alcohol Minimum Pricing and Off-Licensed Trade Discount Bans in Scotland Using The Sheffield Alcohol Policy Model (V 2):- An Update Based on Newly Available Data14. Booth, et al (2008) Independent review of the effects of alcohol pricing and promotion15.

4 Wales[10][11][12][13][14][15]

The Welsh Assembly Government Minister for Health and Social Services, highlighted in a Ministerial Statement[16] (on 27 April 2010), that she believed that there was now a strong case for the introduction of a minimum price for alcohol and called for:

• Stricter rules on the promotion of alcohol;
• Consideration of reduced demand by introducing minimum pricing; and
• Increased taxation, i.e. linking levels of tax more closely to alcohol strength.

The Minister also went on to state that a focus has been made on stating a case to the UK Government for minimum pricing,

“We do not currently have the powers to implement these changes ourselves. Our focus has been on making the case to the UK Government, and I and my Ministerial colleagues have written on a number of occasions to highlight these issues. And I believe that opinion is swinging our way. In recent months we have seen calls for minimum pricing from the BMA, the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence, and the Parliamentary Health Select Committee…….

We do not have specific figures for Wales, but this evidence suggests that after 10 years, a minimum unit price of between 40p and 50p could reduce the number of alcohol-related deaths in Wales by 20-25%. This would equate to 200-250 fewer deaths per year after 10 years. That is why my own Chief Medical Officer, Dr Tony Jewell, has also called for the introduction of minimum pricing."

5 Republic of Ireland

According to the Irish Times a National Substance Misuse Strategy Steering Group are exploring draft proposals to tackle alcohol misuse such as minimum prices for alcoholic drinks, new charges on retailers selling large volumes of alcohol and laws requiring alcohol to be sold separately from other products. The steering group, set up by Government in 2009 to explore new approaches in tackling alcohol misuse is said to comprised of 33 members including representatives from Government departments, industry and health groups[17].

An earlier report[18] by the Government Alcohol Advisory Group (set up by the Irish Government’s Department of Justice and Law Reform) made a number of recommendations relating to the issue of alcohol pricing and promotion, including:

• alcohol products must be priced and sold on the basis of a unit price; this means that the promotion, supply or sale of alcohol products either free of charge or at a reduced price on purchase of one or more units of the product, whether for consumption on or off the premises, should be prohibited;
• an ban on the award of bonus points, loyalty card points or any other benefit on sales of alcohol products, directly or indirectly, and the use of any such points or benefits for the sale at a reduced prices of alcohol or any other product;
• promotional or advertising materials may only contain the unit price of the product and may not mention any other price or any reference to sale at a reduced price;
• promotional and advertising materials in mixed trading premises should only be displayed in the specified area where alcohol is exposed for sale.[19]

Recommended reading: Government Alcohol Advisory Group (2008) Report of the Government Alcohol Advisory Group19.

[1] Department for Social Development (2010) ‘Attwood makes moves to crack down on irresponsible alcohol sales’. 19 August 2010. www.northernireland.gov.uk/news/news-dsd/news-dsd-190810-attwood-makes-moves.htm

[2] Home Office News Release. ‘Overhauling the Licensing Act’. 28 July 2010.

[3] Home Office (2010) Re-balancing the Licensing Act – a consultation on empowering individuals, families and local communities to shape and determine local licensing’ www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/consultations/cons-2010-licensing-act/alcohol-consultation?view=Binary

[4] Scottish Government News Release. ‘Minimum alcohol price named’. 2 September 2010. www.scotland.gov.uk/News/Releases/2010/09/02102755

[5] Telegraph. ‘MSPs reject alcohol minimum pricing’. 10 June 2010. www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/7818581/MSPs-reject-alcohol-minimum-pricing.html

[6] Scottish Government News Release. ‘Appeal to back minimum pricing’. 9 June 2010. www.scotland.gov.uk/News/Releases/2010/06/09124809

[7] Scottish Government News Release. Alcohol Bill. 10 June 2010. www.scotland.gov.uk/News/Releases/2010/06/11084048

[8] BBC News. ‘Minimum pricing alcohol plan defeated’. 22 September 2010. www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-11381608

[9] Alcohol Etc. (Scotland) Bill. Financial and Explanatory Memorandum. www.scottish.parliament.uk/s3/bills/34-AlcoholEtc/b34s3-introd-en.pdf

[10] See www.scottish.parliament.uk/s3/bills/34-AlcoholEtc/b34s3-introd-en.pdf

[11]www.scottish.parliament.uk/business/research/briefings-10/SB10-13.pdf

[12] See http://news.bbc.co.uk/democracylive/hi/scotland/newsid_8726000/8726514.stm

[13] See www.scottish.parliament.uk/s3/committees/hs/inquiries/AlcoholBill/AlcoholBill.htm

[14] See www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2010/04/20091852/1

[15] See www.eurocare.org/resources/policy_issues/pricing/resources__1/independent_review_of_the_effects_of_alcohol_pricing_and_promotion

[16] See www.wales.nhs.uk/newsitem.cfm?ContentID=16202

[17] Irish Times. ‘Industry cool on proposals to restrict alcohol sales’. 28 April 2010

[18]www.justice.ie/en/JELR/Report_of_the_GAAG.pdf/Files/Report_of_the_GAAG.pdf

[19] See www.justice.ie/en/JELR/Report_of_the_GAAG.pdf/Files/Report_of_the_GAAG.pdf

Appendix 7

List of Witnesses

Mr Tom Bowler Department for Social Development

Mr Henry Johnston Department for Social Development

Mr Liam Quinn Department for Social Development

Ms Caroline Hobson Department for Social Development

Inspector Gary Atkinson Police Service of Northern Ireland

Mr John Connor Police Service of Northern Ireland

Superintendent Chris Noble Police Service of Northern Ireland

Mr Stephen Hewitt Belfast City Council

Ms Siobhan Toland Belfast City Council

Mr Jeremy Beadles The Wine and Spirit Trade Association

Mr Andrew Opie British Retail Consortium

Mr John Davidson Northern Ireland Federation of Clubs

Mr Danny Murphy Ulster Gaelic Athletic Association

Ms Katie Nixon Northern Ireland Sports Forum

Mr Kevin Stevens Golfing Union of Ireland

Ms Janice Gault Northern Ireland Hotels Federation

Mr Eugene McKeever Northern Ireland Hotels Federation

Mr Eugene Cassidy Pubs of Ulster

Mr Colin Neill Pubs of Ulster