0141 567 6000 Editor
Scott Wright email@example.com
Deputy Editor Gillian McKenzie
Managing Editor Patrick Duffy
There’s still uncertainty over what the Alcohol Act’s social responsibility levy will mean for the trade, writes licensing solicitor Caroline Treanor, of Tods Murray LLP.
Advertisement Manager Lucie Cooney
0141 567 6021
0141 567 6024
Classified Advertisement Executive Sandra Gilchrist
0141 567 6023
HE Alcohol (Scotland) Act 2010 received Royal Assent in December last year, and is anticipated to come into force on October 1 this year. While the Act will bring wide-
ranging changes to liquor li- censing in Scotland, one of the more controversial is the social responsibility levy. The proposed framework of this levy may be found in draft regulations which can be found on the Scottish Government website.
Production Manager Caroline McGeachie
0141 567 6063
Production Assistant Laura Macdivitt
0141 567 6064
Linda Park Fiona Patrick
Subscriptions Russell Pharo
0141 567 6025
An initial consultation with the Scottish Government is cur- rently underway, with a view to the responses to that consulta- tion being made publicly avail- able. Further consultation will also be necessary before draft regu- lations are placed before Parlia- ment. So, what is this charge and
how is it proposed to work? In essence, the levy will be charged to licensed businesses to help local authorities meet the financial cost of issues aris- ing from the over-consump- tion of alcohol on Scotland’s streets.
It’s unclear what the sanctions will be if you don’t pay, and if there is a right of appeal.
Peebles Media Group 11-12 Claremont Terrace, Glasgow G3 7XR
Telephone 0141 567 6000 Fax: (Editorial) 0141 331 1395 Fax: (Advertising) 0141 353 1784 Web: www.peeblesmedia.com
Published by and Copyright Peebles Media Group, 2011, 11-12 Claremont Terrace, Glasgow G3 7XR. Printed by Headley Brothers Ltd, Ashford, Kent. Origination by PMG Design, 11-12 Claremont Terrace, Glasgow G3 7XR, published fortnightly. Subscription £74.00 U.K., £100.00 overseas. Notification of change of address should be accompanied by a wrapper bearing the previous address. Subscription inquiries to Russell Pharo, Peebles Media Group, 11-12 Claremont Terrace, Glasgow G3 7XR. Tel: 0141 567 6000.
A member of the Audit Bureau of Circulations.
The general idea is that licence holders will pick up the tab for the additional costs associated with, for example, extra polic- ing needed to deal with alcohol fuelled disorder and the costs incurred by local authorities to deal with extra street cleaning. The first interesting point to note is that a local authority will have the power to impose this charge but need not. This could mean that the levy becomes law in some local au- thority areas in Scotland but not in others. And, as a local authority has the discretion to determine the amount, the cost
this regard would be helpful. So it seems the questions aris- ing from the social responsibil- ity proposal are numerous at this stage.
It is also reasonable to ask
where all this money will go. Can the industry be sure that the local authority will spe- cifically use the money for the specified purpose? Remember, it is the local au- thority that will have the power to impose the charge and not the licensing board (which is
Treanor: social responsibility levy comes at a time the trade can least afford it.
may differ in different areas. Many questions arise at this
stage. Who will pay and how much can they expect to be charged? Will a nightclub that closes at 3am pay the same charge as, for example, a small wine mer- chant that closes at 10pm? Is this fair? How much will the charge be?
Will the trade pass this on to the consumer?
Much discretion is also left to the local authority in respect of identifying the types of licensed premises that will pay. The potential pool is rather wide-ranging and includes both premises and occasional licence holders and holders of civic licences such as street traders, public entertainment and late hours catering.
ere the concept of a ‘dou- ble charge’ arises in princi-
ple, as a premises or occasional licence holder may also be sub- ject to another charge if they hold a civic licence. This may be affordable for
certain types of premises, for example large licensed super- markets that hold a late hours catering licence.
But for those local grocery stores that have a small scale off licence and operate beyond 11pm, the concept of a double charge (which the local author- ity has the power to impose) may be more than they can fi- nancially take. The concept of ‘good practice’
raised in the consultation is also curious.
The idea is that if a licence holder demonstrates good prac- tice (yes, the onus is with you on this one to demonstrate it), then the local authority must give you a discount. The amount of discount is then decided following consul- tation. However, this also raises ques- tions. What if a licence holder calls the police frequently whenever there is trouble? Does this con- stitute good practice? A reasonable concern is that the subjective nature of what constitutes good practice could lead to inequities in decision making from board to board and lead to patchwork decision making throughout the coun- try.
A statutory definition of gov- ernment guidance to assist in
The subjective nature of good practice could lead to patchwork decision making.
itself a separate statutory crea- ture). In this regard, the ring- fencing of funds raised will be crucial. It is also unclear so far what the sanctions will be if you don’t pay, or whether you will have a right of appeal. My view is that, should local authorities decide to exercise this power, it will impose a con- siderable administrative burden on them. I am not suggesting that they should not impose the levy – they have the legal power to do so.
I am merely stating that, with the dust settling following the implementation of the Licens- ing (Scotland) Act 2005 and the amendments that will be brought to this piece of legisla- tion via the Alcohol Scotland Act 2010, (and not to forget the Criminal Justice and Licens- ing Act 2010) – it could all be regarded as too much too soon, even for local authorities. And let us not forget the
trade. However laudable the inten- tion may be, the concern must be that this levy will constitute an unbearable financial burden on it at a time when it can least afford it.
February 17, 2011 - SLTN - 11
Levy plan raises many questions
| Page 2
| Page 3
| Page 4
| Page 5
| Page 6
| Page 7
| Page 8
| Page 9
| Page 10
| Page 11
| Page 12
| Page 13
| Page 14
| Page 15
| Page 16
| Page 17
| Page 18
| Page 19
| Page 20
| Page 21
| Page 22
| Page 23
| Page 24
| Page 25
| Page 26
| Page 27
| Page 28
| Page 29
| Page 30
| Page 31
| Page 32
| Page 33
| Page 34
| Page 35
| Page 36
| Page 37
| Page 38
| Page 39
| Page 40
| Page 41
| Page 42
| Page 43
| Page 44
| Page 45
| Page 46
| Page 47
| Page 48
| Page 49
| Page 50
| Page 51
| Page 52
| Page 53
| Page 54
| Page 55
| Page 56