After the inclusion of Public Health as a Responsible Authority doubts emerged regarding the role that Public Health could play in licensing decisions. This related to the requirements for health-related evidence to link directly with the premises listed on the application and to one of the licensing objectives (Martineau et al, 2013). The argument that Public Health data was not specific enough for licensing decisions emerged as a theme from the interviews.
Two licensing respondents mentioned generic representations were submitted by Public Health and the committee would not accept them as they did not relate to the exact location of the application (L1, L3). As one interviewee stated:
“If I did have one criticism it would be that the information Public Health provide is too generic. The licensing committee will not take that in account as it is not specific to one premise” (L3).
In addition to the concerns mentioned by licensing respondents, another respondent, a police licensing officer, was also critical of Public Health data as evidence. He said:
153
“If there’s been a 3.2 percent increase in the last twelve months of alcohol related illnesses for males aged between forty and fifty, how does that reflect on my application to have an extra two hours on my off licence? What are the problems with these males? Where did they get their alcohol from? Are these long-standing problems? What is actually classified as an alcohol related illness? You see what I mean? It’s difficult” (P1).
The debate over Public Health evidence not being premises specific linked with concerns over the weight assigned to Public Health evidence. It was suggested that the Licensing
Sub-Committee viewed Public Health evidence as less compelling in comparison to evidence provided by other Responsible Authorities. If it was not premises specific, concerns were voiced about a legal challenge which would potentially incur significant cost to the local authority if they were defeated in court. This was an acute concern due to the current austerity measures being applied from central government during the time over which this thesis was completed. One Public Health respondent talked about the licensing committee’s concerns over a legal challenge by saying:
“whilst I, from a Public Health point of view, feel that the data that we’re providing is weighty enough to change councillors mind, when we’ve actually gone to licensing committee, the comments have been this is all very interesting, but it doesn’t relate to a specific premise and is open to legal challenge. I think there is kind of a general consensus that it is useful and interesting but there is always this spectre of legal challenge behind” (PH7).
The labelling of Public Health data as not specific to premises, provided an example indicating that Public Health did not have the same degree of influence within the licensing partnership in comparison to other Responsible Authorities. One respondent spoke about how evidence from the police was premises specific and was therefore viewed with a greater level of importance. They said:
“I think the Police might come forward and say we’ve got this very specific data and Public Health might have data that supportsthat, but not as specific. It’s almost seen as that evidential thing because it’s not specific, because from the legal side the more specific information you have that identifies the premise, the kind of higher it’s held up, so if it is just we’ve got area data, it might not be seen as important” (N2).
154
One interviewee from licensing also spoke about evidence and identified themselves as a gatekeeper in relation to deciding if a representation could be presented to the Licensing Sub-Committee. They said:
“I suppose I am the first gatekeeper to say whether something is acceptable or not from a Responsible Authority. If I then let that through and the committee has it in front of them, then the committee will need to take a view on it. If the applicant’s barrister takes umbrage with the fact that what Public Health says is not sufficient enough related to their client’s venue, then the panel will need to take a view as to whether they thought it was a valid representation or not” (L1).
If the licensing authority in this borough acts as a gatekeeper regarding which
representations can be presented to the Licensing Sub-Committee, this indicates the use of power over the other Responsible Authorities. If the local Licensing Sub-Committee decide that Public Health evidence cannot be included, this restricted the access of Public Health to the Licensing Sub-Committee process in that area. Whilst the licensing legislation does not specify that the evidence presented to the committee must be premises specific (Foster, 2016), there is a belief still held that this is the case.
Furthermore, the type of data presented appeared ‘ranked’ in importance by how compelling it was. Actual footage such as CCTV images were viewed as stronger evidence than Public Health data, with these visual images providing a stronger connection with the Licensing Sub-Committee members than statistical information presented by Public Health on for example, the number of assaults within a ward area. During the meeting observations, when CCTV images were presented as evidence, these images of violence and disorder inside premises painted a compelling picture of events that appeared to resonate with the Licensing Sub-Committee members. In one borough a Public Health respondent, reported that they had been told by a Barrister:
“It is personal stories and testimony that the Licensing Sub-Committee pay attention to, not to data and statistics” (PH1).
There was a comment made during one interview that suggested that in addition to consideration around the use of statistical data during Licensing Sub-Committee meetings,
155
Public Health needed to alter their behaviour to align themselves with licensing by using the correct language. This interviewee said:
“I think what we’re also seeing is while some Public Health teams have really good information, they’re not presenting it in a way that is understood by the council and the Licensing Sub-Committee and they’re not using the language of licensing” (N1).
In addition to concerns over both specificity and strength of the Public Health evidence presented, a third issue about data was identified which related to difficulties with both access to and quality of relevant data. As one Public Health professional, commented during their interview:
“Data that would be really useful such as accident and emergency data, that would create a really powerful case, has been an ongoing challenge not just to us but to other local
authorities” (PH2).
This respondent reported issues with obtaining data that became acute due to a lack of a data sharing agreement between the NHS and local authorities when Public Health relocated to local government. The problems with access to data on alcohol related hospital admissions for assaults seems to have persisted and improved access to data in addition was a
recommendation for action written in both of the PHE licensing surveys.
To circumvent concerns raised over relevance and accuracy of Public Health data, a potential solution was reported in the interviews. This was suggested to be the submission of a joint representation between Public Health and other Responsible Authorities. In one borough, the licensing authority reported this approach worked better and provided Public Health with a more active role within licensing (L1). This respondent referred to a Trading Standards operation which aimed to target counterfeit alcohol sales. As Public Health could outline the potential negative health impacts from consumption of illicit alcohol, this was described as a good role for them with a direct influence on decisions. A joint representation between Trading Standards and Public Health was subsequently submitted to the Licensing Sub-Committee that resulted in a temporary suspension of the licence (L1).
156
This suggestion of a requirement for joint representations, raised questions over the nature of the relationships between different Responsible Authority groups, as it suggested that Public Health should adopt a supportive role and not submit representations in isolation.
During the observation of Licensing Sb-Committee meetings, there was one joint submission with Public Health, the police and Trading Standards. The Public Health evidence consisted of the number of public order offences which resulted in an ambulance call outs within the ward and the number of schools within 500 metres of the premises, but the main focus of the representation was on non-duty paid counterfeit items that were being sold. At the Licensing Sub-Committee meeting this representation was presented by the police and Trading Standards without a Public Health professional in attendance.
Given the concerns around gaining access to quality Public Health data, along with the concerns about the use of Public Health data as evidence, it could be suggested that the definition of what constituted as Public Health evidence may need to alter to ensure that Public Health professionals can fully participate in licensing decisions.