Institute of Licensing members lukewarm over minimum unit pricing plans

There is little support among members of the Institute of Licensing for minimum unit pricing as it is currently proposed, the organisation’s response to the Home Office's Alcohol Strategy consultation has revealed.

The Institute said a suggestion that any move to introduce such pricing should be shelved pending the European Court’s ruling on proposals in Scotland was also a consistent theme in its members’ comments.

In a consultation on the strategy, the Home Office sought views on four key areas in addition to minimum unit pricing:

  • a ban on multi-buy promotions in shops and off-licences;
  • a review of the mandatory licensing conditions;
  • health as a new alcohol licensing objective for cumulative impact areas; and
  • cutting red tape for responsible businesses.

The Institute’s responses pointed out in particular that the consultation did not give any indication about how the proposal for public health to be a licensing objective would be implemented.

Philip Kolvin QC, chairman of the Institute’s alcohol & entertainment consultation panel, said: “This response is the result of a multi-disciplinary collaboration, which revealed a lack of support for minimum unit pricing as proposed, concern regarding the introduction of a public health objective tied to cumulative impact policies in their current form and issues regarding the deregulation of alcohol sales.

“There is also a general feeling that constant amendments to the Licensing Act assist neither regulators nor the industry, but rather lead to confusion and uncertainty. There is clearly an argument for allowing changes to bed in and to be evaluated before embarking on further initiatives.”

Kolvin said the Institute would be happy to assist the Home Office with better evaluative frameworks.

The Institute produced two consultation responses, with one representing the views submitted by members via an online survey and the other a result of discussions by its consultation panel.

“In summary, there was a general feeling of unease around some of the proposals, and in many cases the lack of information about the proposals,” the Institute said.

On the five key areas it commented as follows: 

Minimum unit pricing

  • Very few if any responses supported the proposed minimum unit pricing (MUP) of 45p. Responses were split between those who felt that any MUP should be 50p per unit to be consistent with proposals in Scotland and because in their views the higher MUP would have a bigger impact in relation to the Government’s desired outcomes;
  • Others considered that the introduction of a MUP “would have no effect at all on chronic drinkers or would have the effect of making them seek alternatives substances, would penalise all other drinkers, particularly those on low incomes and may be illegal in any case”.

Multi-buy promotion ban

  • Responses were generally not supportive of the proposals as set out. The IoL’s consultation panel response stated: “It is difficult to see the benefit to the proposed ‘ban’ as set out in the table. For every banned promotion, there is a way for the retailer to make the overall purchase cost the same. For example, consumers looking to buy bottles of wine might well choose to buy 2 bottles (or more) on a permitted half-price offer negating the desired impact.” This view was supported by many of the member survey submissions, the Institute added.

Mandatory licence conditions

  • The Institute reported varying responses on this issue and “many showing that there are considerable problems with the existing mandatory conditions to the extent in many areas that the conditions are ignored because they are too subjective, and enforcement is difficult if not impossible due to the need to prove a likely effect”. 
  • “The point here was that any promotion can be responsible if it is run in a responsible manner – this leaves regulators in a position of having to take action retrospectively rather than allowing a pro-active, preventative approach,” it said.

The public health objective

  • “Fundamentally this consultation did not give any indication about how this proposal would be implemented.”
  • The consultation panel took the view that since cumulative impact policies had no status within the legislation (existing only in the 182 guidance), they were vulnerable to challenge, particularly in relation to their effect as suggested by the guidance that they turn the evidential burden on its head “meaning that where an objection to an application is made by a responsible authority, the burden of proof rests with the applicant to show that the intended licensed activities will not undermine the licensing objectives”.
  • To then introduce a fifth ‘discretionary’ licensing objective attached to CIPs in their current form is unsafe, the Institute said. “If the Government supports the use of cumulative impact policies, then it should consider putting them on a statutory footing. The public health objective should be introduced within legislation (if at all) rather than relying on guidance.”
  • The Institute added that the views from its members showed “a certain amount of trepidation about how this proposal would work in practice”, It said it was worth noting that the public health objective in Scotland was noted as the least successful of the licensing objectives even with the overprovision element of the Scottish licensing regime.

Reducing business burdens

  • There were “some concerns around the potential for loopholes if the Government consider bringing forward their proposals around ancillary sales, but equally there are other options which could be looked at such as exemptions for incidental sales and such like”. 
  • The Institute said the main concern here was that “on the one hand the message is that alcohol is causing our society big problems and on the other we are looking at scenarios where there would be little or no control and potentially loop holes and exploitation of any such provisions which will increase the regulatory burden of proving offences/breaches etc.”