The gradual dismantling of opening hours that started in the late 1980s is being overtaken by the ability of licensees to apply for 24-hour opening licences. The method of awarding and monitoring licences, too, is changing, with the old-established court system being scrapped and the powers transferred to local authorities who will issue both personal and premises licences. So what will these changes mean to my constituency and for the prospects for both drinkers and the licensed trade in my area?

I represent a scattered constituency, which stretches from the southern suburban outskirts of Middlesbrough to the edge of the North York Moors. As well as the Middlesbrough suburbs and estates I represent the large market town of Guisborough, seaside resorts like Saltburn and a string of former ironstone mining villages in the East Cleveland area.

Drinking patterns in my constituency reflect the social make-up of the area. Most villages and estates boast a number of very local “community” public houses, many of them managed or tenanted by local licensees with strong roots in their neighbourhood. There are a good number of popular social clubs, whilst in Saltburn and Guisborough there are a number of larger drinking establishments that are popular with younger people and very busy on Friday nights and over the weekend.

It is, of course, too early to see what the impact of the new changes will mean in my constituency. If any local establishments do opt for long extended hours, they will almost certainly be in the neighbouring town centre of Middlesbrough, which already has a lot of new and large drinking emporiums owned by national chains like J D Wetherspoon and Walkabout, as well as a selection of nightclubs which already enjoy extended drinking hours.

The concerns of most tenants in my area seem to be centred on the charging aspect of the new licensing system. They do have concerns that the charges that may be levied on them reflect the increased work and consultation that local councils will have to implement to deal with contentious applications from the large chain pubs in the town centre; pubs that will be, in effect, their main competitors. They point to the fact that they enjoy regular but limited trade, often in a small village, and do not enjoy the sheer weight of trade that patronise the mega-pubs, nor the marked-up prices for expensive spirits and “alcopops” that are all-too often the popular drink of choice in the big town centre locations.

This imbalance, they say, already existed in terms of the charges that they have had to bear in the past – such as for fire inspections and public entertainment licences. They advocate a banded approach on charging which, crucially, is based on turnover rather than rateable value. They are concerned that if the system does not recognise these imbalances, the future of some smaller pubs could be put in jeopardy, meaning that some small communities might lose a valuable social centre.

I share these concerns. I know of many local pubs that play a valuable role in the community, supporting local sporting clubs and associations, and helping local charities and worthy causes. These are important to the community and their loss would be devastating.

There are also concerns that a licensing regime run by local councils, where new and renewed applications are determined by a panel made up of local councillors, could be less even-handed than a system run by the courts. Magistrates, they point out, do not have to run for election, while councillors looking to possible electoral advantage in the future could block some applications that face initial local opposition.

Other views and concerns come from the local medical profession and from the police. It is fair to say that my constituency does not suffer from sustained problems of crime or anti-social activities which are drink-fuelled, but there are issues of noise and boisterous behaviour. When this becomes anti-social, it can be very intimidating for local residents, especially the elderly.

Cleveland chief constable Sean Price   welcomes the changes and feels that they reduce the “crunch” period where large numbers of drinkers are put out on the street. He believes that licensed premises should also be made to pay for any additional costs incurred to his force for any extra policing that may be required. This, he says, would help Cleveland Police in dealing with those who abuse alcohol and cause disorder and violence, without having to reduce the level of policing provided to the rest of the public in the area covered by his force. Such a scheme, he points out, already exists in nearby Stockton town centre, and has been a success, despite the fact that it is purely voluntary.

Vice chairman of the Cleveland Police Authority, Councillor David McLuckie backs this view on my local Redcar and Cleveland Borough Council. He feels that the new flexibilities could make the problems faced in towns like Guisborough and Saltburn, problems of young people congregating on the streets after the present 11.00pm enforced closing time, a thing of the past.

On balance, I feel the new freedoms will be broadly beneficial. But it is crucial that government do not neglect to monitor the impact of the new changes. I would hope that all ministers involved pledge to take active steps to review the new arrangements after their first year of operation. In that way, both the public and the licensed trade can be sure that their concerns and fears will be investigated.