DERECHOS FUNDAMENTALES QUE MERECEN PROTECCIÓN EN UN EVENTUAL

The main relevant document for gaining knowledge about licensing processes within each borough is the Statement of Licensing Policy (SoLP). Since the implementation of the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act of 2011, each borough is required to publish a

Statement of Licensing Policy (SoLP) every five years. During the interim period, it is expected that each area will make amendments to the SoLP when necessary. The requirement for each borough to have a SoLP and update these every five years is an example of a national policy, but the influence of local areas is represented by decisions over the exact contents of the SoLP. A generic definition of a SoLP is that it is “A licensing policy statement that details how the licensing authority intends to operate and promote the licensing objectives in their area”

(Home Office, 2011). There is a consultation period for each draft SoLP to allow for

comments from interested parties such as Responsible Authorities, community groups and members of the public but the finalised document outlines how the licensing authority intends to operate in each area. The SoLP is, therefore, a key document for Public Health practitioners and other interested parties, for obtaining knowledge on the operation of licensing in their borough.

Nationally Public Health organisations, such as Public Health England (PHE), have suggested that one way to increase engagement in licensing decisions is for Public Health teams to ensure that information about their licensing work is included within the SoLP. As indications of both the level of integration of Public Health into licensing and to ascertain if the SoLP contained knowledge pertaining to Public Health, an analysis of a sample of eleven Statement of Licensing Policy (SoLPs) was undertaken. If the SoLP contained a large amount of

137

information regarding Public Health, partnership working and goals, this could be an

indication that the Public Health team in that borough were well integrated within licensing partnerships.

The areas chosen for inclusion in the analysis of SoLPs were all London boroughs, that had been approached to participate in this research. To complete analysis of the document several domains were devised by the researcher. The first domain investigated if there was clear information in the SoLP for the target audience. The second domain examined if Public Health information was included in the document and gauged the amount of Public Health information. For example, did the SoLP outline the health implications of excessive alcohol use within the local area. The third domain asked firstly, if information on partnership working was included and secondly, if an explanation was provided of what this partnership working consisted of in every day practice. The final domain examined if the SoLP mentioned any goals or outcomes from partnership working. If these domains included information around Public Health involvement in licensing decisions, this would demonstrate a degree of Public Health integration – at least at the level of local policy formulation.

The domains were selected based on information gained from the literature review of Public Health involvement in alcohol licensing and partnership working.

5.1.1 Clear information on the target audience for the SoLP

Within the SoLPs examined, whilst each document outlined a specific target audience, such as licence applicants, local councillors, Responsible Authorities and members of the public, the document did not contain all the relevant information that each separate group would need. For example, there was a lack of information on how a member of the public could submit a representation about a licensing application. The information supplied within the SoLPs focused on applying for an alcohol licence, therefore the SoLPs were fundamentally guidance documents. This was evidenced by the contents focusing mainly on process issues.

In two boroughs, it was acknowledged that within the SoLP that there was a conflict of interest between the different target audience groups. This related to balancing local

business interests and growing the local economy, with the entitlement of local residents to a safe but vibrant local area. As one SoLP stated:

138

“The council recognises the wish of local people to live and work in a safe and healthy

environment, and the importance of the local economy and community of well-run leisure and entertainment premises” (Borough G).

At a national level, the Home Office stated a SoLP is a policy statement only, which leaves decisions over specific contents, to be taken by local areas and the licensing authority are the editors and authors of each SoLP. There is a requirement to ‘have regard’ to the Section 182 Guidance issued under the Licensing Act of 2003, but exactly what this means is not specified and local boroughs have the authority to deviate from this guidance if this would promote the licensing objectives.

In addition to contents, the language used within the documents was also examined. This aimed to investigate if the document contained barriers, which potentially prevented some audiences from engaging in licensing decisions. Just over half of the SoLPs contained elements of complex language, such as legal terminology and references to acts of parliament within them. For example, reference was made to the Section 182 Guidance issued under the Licensing Act of 2003, without a definition or explanation of this documentation. It was noted however, that the remaining SoLPs contained glossaries explaining terminology and were written in easy to understand, plain English.

5.1.2 Mention of Public Health within SoLPs

In relation to the second domain of Public Health information receiving attention within the SoLP, eight out of the eleven areas mentioned Public Health. In the three remaining areas, one stated that Public Health had been consulted in the preparation of the SoLP, but Public Health was then barely mentioned in the final draft and in the final two areas, Public Health was not mentioned at all, not even in the list of Responsible Authorities who were statutory consultees for licensing applications.

Of the eight boroughs who included Public Health information in their SoLP, the level of prominence within the text varied. In some statements for example, there was an entire section on health, outlining local data on alcohol related health harms. In others, the national alcohol strategy was mentioned, and reference made to Responsible Authority group

meetings to discuss applications. The key information that was absent in all of the SoLPs, was the potential roles that Public Health could play in licensing decisions, along with any

139

indication as to whether Public Health were considered as equal to other responsible authorities. It is important to note however, that there was no information in any SoLP that outlined the roles that any of the Responsible Authorities could undertake. For example, they did not state that the police could work to promote the reduction of crime and disorder objective.

5.1.3 Partnership working addressed in SoLPs

As the number of references to Public Health varied within each SoLP, it was anticipated that the amount of discussion on partnership working would also vary in each area. Five areas had dedicated sections on partnership working, three areas mentioned partnership working but not in any detail and the final three SoLPs did not mention it. Of the areas that mentioned partnership working, there was no detail on how partnership work was evidenced in practice.

In two of the SoLPs reference was made to meetings with other Responsible Authorities but it was not clear if Public Health were active participants at these meetings. The information from the SoLPs showed that the exact detail of work taking place was unclear. Whilst partnerships were mentioned within the SoLPs this did not mean, in practice, that collaborative work was occurring.

5.1.4 Outcomes from partnership working

The review of the partnership literature identified the importance of having clearly defined outcomes for successful partnership working. In the review of SoLPs however, no document had any detailed outcomes for licensing partnership work. Three SoLPs did have goals listed which focused on the promotion of the licensing objectives but not on partnership working.

Therefore, none of the SoLPs had any in-depth outcomes listed for partnership working and this included work with Public Health. The lack of clear outcomes, it could be argued, presented problems for the different Responsible Authority groups working together in partnership. Table 3 below provides an overview of the results from each area’s SoLP.

140

Table 5: Results of Analysis of the contents of SoLPs³⁹

5.1.5 SoLPs as a gauge of Public Health integration in partnership

To gauge if areas with a SoLP containing large amounts of information on Public Health could be taken as an indication of a greater level of integration within the licensing partnership, a comparison was attempted between each area. This subjective measure was based only on

39 Please note Borough’s D and E, G and H, and J and K were combined and covered by one PH department, but each borough had a separate SoLP.

141

the researcher’s judgement of an association between engagement level and extensive documentation of Public Health information within the SoLP.

One area (two London boroughs), which were categorised as highly engaged in licensing, appeared to strongly reflect Public Health and partnership working within their SoLP, however this area had no listed outcomes from partnership work with Public Health. One other area classed as highly engaged, did mention Public Health and partnership working within their SoLP but it was not a prominent feature. The final two areas with high engagement levels, had a SoLP with a minimal mention of Public Health.

Medium engagement areas had sections within their SoLP, discussing partnership work with Public Health but this was not as frequent as some high engagement areas and low

engagement areas had even less information about Public Health within their SoLP. It could be proposed therefore, that a loose pattern emerged in relation to level of engagement in an area and the contents of their SoLP.

No area had high engagement levels and a SoLP that reflected a full commitment to Public Health and partnership working with specific, defined outcomes in relation to work around alcohol licensing decisions. One potential cause for this could have related to the timescales around the review of the document with more recently reviewed SoLPs potentially containing a greater amount of information in regard to Public Health.