The British Retail Consortium (BRC) represents a broad cross-section of retailers including large multiples, department stores and independent shops, selling a wide range of products through town centre, out of town, rural and virtual stores.
The retail industry is committed to working with Government to promote sensible drinking and combat alcohol misuse. However we have key concerns over parts of the Violent Crime Bill as specific clauses apply additional burdens on retailers despite there being no substantiated link between the sale of alcohol by the off trade and the type of night-time disorder that is being tackled by the Home Office, a link which they have acknowledged was ‘tenuous’ in their policy document “Drinking Responsibly”.
In the first instance the BRC seeks clarification from the Secretary of State over the application of clauses 12(1) and 12(7):
- 12(1) allows for charging mechanisms to apply to all holders of premises licences for the sale of alcohol by retail within Alcohol Disorder Zones.
- 12(7) gives the Secretary of State permission to apply exclusions from this clause by secondary regulations. He is restricted in only allowing exclusions for premises where the sale of alcohol is neither the principal use of the premises nor where people enter the premises for the ‘main reason’ of purchasing alcohol.
While the second sub-clause has the potential to exempt the majority of retail off-licences, apart from those that specialise in the sale of alcohol, the Home Office has offered mixed messages on whether secondary regulations would grant such an exemption. As the Bill stands, all licensed premises will be liable for a charge where an ADZ is created.
In considering this vital aspect of the Bill, the BRC seeks clarification from the Government that the ‘off-trade’ does not significantly contribute to alcohol related disorder in city centres, and should therefore be exempt from Alcohol Disorder Zones.
Why exclude retail?
There is no link between off-trade and disorder
There is no substantiated link between the sale of alcohol by the off trade and the type of night time disorder that is being tackled by the Home Office. The vast majority of retail outlets will be closed during typical periods of night time disorder. In addition, alcohol is typically bought from retail premises for consumption at home and does not require subsequent passage through public areas that have become associated with disorder in the same way as bars and clubs.
The Home Office policy document “Drinking Responsibly” acknowledged that the link between the sale of alcohol, disorder and particular off-licences was ‘tenuous’. It should also be noted that the manifesto commitment on this issue only refers to ‘pubs and clubs’ and makes no reference to shops that sell alcohol.
Retailers are responsible
Retailers are committed to working with Government to promote sensible drinking and combat alcohol misuse. Food retailers continue to play an important role in promoting the Government’s advice on sensible drinking through point of sale and product labelling.
Retailers support the Licensing Act 2003 and agree with the proposition that liberating licensing hours should ease the pressure on police and local authority resources which the traditional fixed closing time regime has generated, especially in urban centres. Along with the Association of Convenience Stores (ACS), the Wine & Spirit Association (WSA) and other trade bodies, BRC is currently involved in the development of a code of good practice covering all interest groups in the licensed trade.
There are new and existing powers to tackle problem retailers
The BRC recognises the need to police retailers that are not adequately fulfilling their obligations and supports reasonable sanctions that prevent inappropriate sale of alcohol. Clauses 20-21 within the Bill will give police and trading standards officers the opportunity to prohibit the sale of alcohol for 48 hours in premises that have sold alcohol to the underage three times in three months. Under other powers, the sale of alcohol to persons who are drunk can lead to fines of £1000 and suspension of licences, thereby providing a powerful disincentive against contributing to disorder.
Alcohol Disorder Zones’s (ADZ’s) cause unreasonable costs to retail
It is difficult to precisely quantify the impact of ADZs as there is very little detail on their operation contained within the Bill. The volume of measures that must be implemented through secondary legislation is extensive. The ease of setting up an ADZ, and the stated enthusiasm of local authorities to make use of such powers, would suggest that the application and thus the impact will be significant. This at a time when new licensing fees have increased costs substantially and business rates have risen by more than £400m across the sector as a whole.
ADZ’s do not acknowledge differences between the on and off trade
Many retailers only sell alcohol as a small part of their overall operation. Alcohol makes up only 11% of sales from a typical convenience store . A charge for a relatively small proportion of sales would be punitive in comparison to businesses where the sale of alcohol is a major part of their operation. Furthermore, the ‘catch-all’ nature of the Bill ensures that all licensed premises could be charged in some manner. This could include even those retailers that sell very minor amounts of alcohol at certain times of the year e.g. department stores selling Christmas miniatures gift packs. Yet it is highly improbable that these outlets have a role in night time disorder.
There are many practical concerns over the operation of the legislation
The current wording of the Bill encourages or allows for some very perverse behaviour by police forces or local authorities:
It is extremely easy to set up an ADZ, with a local authority only having to demonstrate ‘nuisance’ linked to alcohol that may re-occur. This is considerably looser than the criteria set out earlier in the year that required: “strong evidence of alcohol related disorder having reached clearly unacceptable levels.” . The ease of creating an ADZ is effectively creating a new tax.
There is no accountability or any appeal mechanism in the creation or removal of an ADZ. This is entirely discretionary between the local authority and police and thus could easily be seen as a purely revenue raising exercise;
There is no provision restricting the use of funds to additional policing. Funding, therefore, would likely be used for existing policing or for as yet undetermined functions such as transport services. This does not provide any incentive for police or local authorities to remove an ADZ once in place;
There is nothing in the Bill to prevent an ADZ covering the entirety of a local authority area rather than a specific, limited geographical area as clearly intended;
An eight-week period in which to communicate an action plan and bring about solutions to disorder is unlikely to be sufficient, acting merely as a notice period for forthcoming charges.
The very principle of ADZs is flawed
There is no causal link between disorder and the imposed charge. ADZ’s would indiscriminately cover licensed premises in an area whether they are acting responsibly or not. All premises would effectively be criminalised, with those potentially the source of disorder causing all others to pay an additional charge. There would be no incentive for poorly performing premises to improve, nor for responsible premises to maintain high standards.
ADZs offer no incentive for police or local authorities to clear up disorder as the system perversely acts as an attractive and unaccountable source of revenue as long as ‘nuisance’ can be shown to still exist.
For further information please contact Sarah Winterton at the BRC on 020 7854 8922.
