Draft Alcohol Licensing (Jersey) Law 202- (P.112/2025): amendment. (P.112/2025 Amd.) – comments
This content has been automatically generated from the original PDF and some formatting may have been lost, therefore it should not be relied upon to extract citations or propose amendments. Please see the PDF for the official version of the document.
STATES OF JERSEY
DRAFT ALCOHOL LICENSING (JERSEY) LAW 202- (P.112/2025): AMENDMENT (P.112/2025 AMD) – COMMENTS
Presented to the States on 16th January 2026
by the Minister for Sustainable Economic Development
STATES GREFFE
2025 P.112 Amd.Com.
COMMENTS
As noted in the report to P.112/2025, an important consideration throughout the law drafting process was to preserve the existing role of the Parishes and enhance it where practicable.
It was for this reason that my Department undertook briefings with Connétable s and their Chef's de Police in November 2024, prior to the launch of a public consultation and held a further three meetings with the Comité during 2025 ahead of lodging1.
Indeed, I was encouraged in March 2025 when the Chair of the Comité noted during a Council of Ministers briefing that the Comité des Connétable s had also received a briefing and all but one Member had been supportive of the proposals'.
These briefings provided helpful feedback which led to a number of changes, at the request of the Comité, in the draft Law including:
• The requirement that all licence applications be subject to a formal Parish Assembly (removing the option for a Connétable to make a judgement in opposition to, or in the absence of, a Parish Assembly).
• The addition of a statutory right to seek a review of a licence or licensee.
• The removal of the requirement that a Chef de Police first seek the approval of a States of Jersey Police Inspector (or higher ranked officer) prior to issuing a Temporary Closure Order.
• The requirement that the Comité des Connétable s must be consulted prior to alcohol policy guidance being lodged for approval by the States Assembly.
The Comité will be aware from these discussions of my concerns at the risk of inconsistencies across twelve separate determining authorities. During our previous discussions we explored the prospect of a central regulatory authority, which could still be comprised of representatives from the Parishes but which would deliver greater certainty and consistency. I believe that the unamended Law has achieved this by establishing an Alcohol Policy Ministerial Group which would propose policy guidance to the States Assembly which would then instruct the Commission. While the Comité's amendment retains a version of the policy guidance it loses the consistency by creating twelve new determining authorities.
A simple example of the implications of this can be found in the case of mobile licences. Under the Comité's amendment, the determining authority would be the parish in which the alcohol is ordinarily stored'. This could encourage licensees seeking a mobile licence to move their stocks (which could be small and portable in the case of a food truck) to a Parish with a more laissez-faire Connétable or one presided over by a Connétable with whom they have an existing connection with. The licence granted could nevertheless allow the licensee to operate island-wide and without recourse to the objections of Parishioners in other parts of the Island.
For clarity, in preparing this amendment, the Comité has not consulted with the Minister for Justice & Home Affairs, Minister for Health & Social Services or myself as Minister
1 An additional meeting was undertaken with representatives from each of the Comité, Chefs de Police and SOJP.
for Sustainable Economic Development. Nor has any consultation been undertaken with industry groups such as the Chamber of Commerce or the Jersey Hospitality Association.
Had such engagement taken place a number of regrettable errors could have been avoided in the proposed Amendment to P.112/2025 but these have instead been addressed in turn below.
Gambling Commission
Firstly, the Comité's amendment suggests that the move from the Licensing Assembly to the Gambling Commission has been informed by resourcing constraints at the latter, this is not the case.
The decision to assign alcohol licensing to the Gambling Commission was made in late 2024 and was communicated to the Comité during the initial November 2024 briefings.
Fees raised by alcohol licensing will not be used to cross-subsidise the costs associated with regulating the Gambling Sector.
Article 47 of the Gambling (Jersey) Law 2012 already requires that the Commission must set its gambling licence fees set at such a level as is necessary that, in aggregate they' –
- raise sufficient income, in combination with any other income of the Commission, to enable the Commission to carry out its functions under this Law and the Commission Law; and
- provide a reserve of such amount as the Commission considers necessary for carrying out such functions.
By keeping the legislation for alcohol and gambling separate the reference above will continue to refer exclusively to the Commission's activity to regulate the gambling sector meaning that whilst the Commission could raise additional levies on the gambling sector, these could be used only to fund its regulatory activity within the gambling sector. Similarly, fees raised under the Draft Alcohol Licensing (Jersey) Law 202- could only be used to contribute towards the costs of the Commission's activity to regulate alcohol licensing – this would not be the case under the Comité's amendment where license fees would contribute towards general Parish revenues.
The unamended Draft Alcohol Licensing (Jersey) Law 202- would add a further protection by establishing fee making/ raising powers via Ministerial Order which could in turn be challenged or annulled by the States Assembly.
This is undone in the Comité's amendment which would allow the Comité to raise fees without recourse to the States Assembly. This would be the same process as with Choses Publique Permits, revenues of which increased in the Parish of St Helier by over £70,000 between 2022 and 2024 despite the number of licensees decreasing.[2]
Consumption and sales in off-licences
Secondly, the report accompanying the amendment outlines the desire to reverse a presumption in the draft Law that on-licensed premises should also be able to sell alcohol for consumption off the premises by default and that off-licences may permit consumption on their premises by default.
In the case of on-licenses, this change would require on-licensed premises (such as a restaurant) to also apply for and hold a separate off-licence as many do now.
In the case of off-licences however, the amendment appears to miss the nuance between consumption' and sale'.
The unamended draft Law prohibits, in all cases, the sale by retail of alcohol in open containers in an off-licence.
It does however allow (with the Commission's consent) for consumption on the premises. This clause would allow for individuals living or residing at an off-licence (for example a private residence which operates as an off-licence to perform online sales) to consume alcohol. Or (again with the Commission's consent) for a free sample to be offered at a store. Neither case would permit for alcohol to be sold in open- containers at an off-licence under any circumstances and a business whishing to do so would instead need to apply for an on-licence.
The Comité's amendment replaces this clause with a one-size fits all exemption to authorise the sale by retail of alcohol for consumption on the premises'. In doing so the amendment removes any ability to restrict consumption of alcohol within such an off- licence.
Furthermore, the blanket exemption provided for via the amendment would allow an off-licence to sell alcohol in both closed and open containers meaning that a premise could act as an on-licence while trading under an off-licence permit. This creates a further complication as trading under an off-licence would not come with the usual general conditions imposed upon on-licences under Article 22. This would mean that an off-licence with a blanket exemption would not have to abide by the rules around excessive noise, door staff and would also remove the safeguards around minors working and being present in the licensed premises.
Balance of industry and enforcement
Thirdly, the report accompanying the amendment makes the point that:
The Comité considers that the Law as originally drafted provides an excessive degree of flexibility that does not adequately take into account the perspectives of stakeholders other than an applicant business'.
This is not the case and could have been easily corrected had the Comité consulted with the Minister for Justice & Home Affairs or the Minister for Health and Social Services.
The policy development process has included input from, amongst others:
• the Justice & Home Affairs Department,
• States of Jersey Police,
• Jersey Fire and Rescue Service
• The Public Health Directorate
Each of whom have expressed their support for the unamended draft Law in large part because of the flexibility offered for enforcement and policy. The Law, as originally proposed would allow for enforcement to take place sooner and in a more proportionate way than under the existing regime. Likewise the development of an Alcohol Policy Framework, with input from the Parishes, SOJP, Public Health and the Economy Department (before consideration by the States Assembly) allows for the regulation of alcohol to be consistent and tailored to prevailing public policy.
For example, under the unamended draft Law, a future States Assembly could wish to restrict the visibility of alcohol within off-licences in the same way as tobacco products. Alternatively, a new Assembly could propose extending opening hours for nightclubs. Neither example would be possible under existing Law but would be available levers under the draft unamended draft Law.
Parish Assembly and guidance
Here too the Comité's amendment creates uncertainty. The amendment maintains the inclusion of the proposed alcohol policy framework (renaming it to the alcohol policy guidance statement) but does not clarify how a Connétable is to reach a decision if the outcome of a Parish Assembly conflicts with the stated policy approved by the States Assembly.
The option of a future requête (signed by 10 Parishioners) under the Loi (1804) au sujet des Assemblées Paroissiales and basic electoral considerations may incline a Connétable to always defer to the position of the Parish Assembly in such situations. However, in the event that such a conflict arose, any person aggrieved by the decision could have the grounds for an appeal under Article 63. This would then require the Court to make a determination and, potentially overturn the decision of the Connétable .
The effect of this could be to create a situation whereby a States Assembly that adopts policy guidance advocating a more liberal approach to opening times or drinks promotions finds that only those licensees who are willing to face the costs of an appeal via the Court are able to benefit from such a policy. Conversely, a local licensee may be able to avoid complying with certain public health safeguards (such as restrictions on advertising or opening times) contained in Assembly guidance thanks to the goodwill of its patrons who make up the Parish Assembly.
Application Process
Finally, the amendment by the Comité leaves uncertainty on how the application process will be handled by the twelve separate determining authorities.
Applications under the existing Licensing (Jersey) Law 1974 are received by the Government's Regulation Directorate via an online portal and the report to the unamended draft Law notes that the Gambling Commission is preparing a complete update to its website which will provide a natural opportunity to incorporate an easy-to- use portal for alcohol licensees to use.
A number of Parishes have made welcome progress in recent years to modernise their websites and the Comité's amendment does explain that consideration would also be given to the centralisation of licensing policy and administrative functions within St. Helier '. This could allow for investment into a smooth application portal, albeit the amendment would still leave 12 separate determining authorities for the Parish of St Helier to navigate.
Nevertheless, the application process available for Choses Publique and Sunday Trading Permits appear to be a step backwards compared to what alcohol licensees have come to expect under the existing system. In both cases applicants are required to print and complete a pdf form before providing it to the Parish Hall alongside a £60 application fee (separate to the significant license fee) and are subject to being renewed each year.
Conclusion
I therefore urge members to reject this amendment and vote for the draft Law unamended. Doing so will ensure that the Island's alcohol licensing regime is modernised in a balanced way and ensure that the regulation of this sector remains consistent and clear.
This amendment would represent a step away from modernising the Island's alcohol licensing regime by replacing the Royal Court's Licensing Assembly with twelve separate determining authorities, reducing consistency and creating uncertainty.