Written by: Michael Kill, NTIA, CEO
Full Nightlife Article Newsletter series.
When it comes to licensing, the conversation is dominated by one word: risk. The current system is built on a framework that prioritises public safety above all else—first, second, and third—without any real consideration of the positive contributions that businesses make to their communities. There is no balance. We do not assess the wider benefits that these businesses bring, whether in terms of wellbeing, cultural impact, socioeconomics, or job creation. Licensing is, and always has been, about minimising harm rather than maximising value.
The argument that public safety must come first is well established and, of course, it is crucial. But when do we start talking about the broader picture? When does licensing move beyond a rigid focus on crime prevention to acknowledge the full impact of these businesses on society? Currently, licensing objectives fail to reflect the reality that nightlife and hospitality businesses do more than just generate revenue. They shape the identity of cities, create employment, and provide spaces for social cohesion, artistic expression, and personal wellbeing. Yet, none of this is considered in the licensing process. Instead, operators are forced into a cycle of proving they are not a risk, rather than demonstrating the value they bring.
We have reached a point where businesses are marginalised by this one-dimensional approach. The contribution of nightlife to wellbeing is ignored. The cultural significance of venues is overlooked. The socioeconomic benefits—jobs, upward mobility, and the broader economic ecosystem that nightlife supports—are dismissed. Licensing is supposed to regulate, not suffocate, but the way the system is designed leaves no room for a discussion on positive impact.
It is as though we are constantly being told that the police only care about public safety, and while that is undoubtedly their primary responsibility, should it be the sole measure by which we assess whether a business deserves to operate? When does the broader impact become a recognised metric? When do we start levelling the playing field? More importantly, when do we acknowledge that licensed venues can be part of the solution, rather than just a perceived source of problems?
Venues are often on the frontline of tackling issues like drug use, crime, vulnerability, and exploitation. They provide safe, controlled environments where trained staff can intervene, safeguard patrons, and work in partnership with emergency services. A well-run venue is not just a place for socialising—it is a space that actively reduces harm. Through responsible alcohol policies, drug testing initiatives, and robust security measures, nightlife can play a key role in preventing crime rather than simply being blamed for it. Yet, this contribution is rarely acknowledged in licensing decisions.
From some quarters of society, there is a drive towards the sanitisation of the night-time economy, as if removing nightlife would eliminate crime. But the reality is that crime exists regardless. It does not disappear just because venues close. Instead, pushing nightlife further underground or making it financially unviable only increases risk, creating unmanaged spaces where safety and accountability are diminished. It is a false economy to assume that restricting or eliminating nightlife will somehow lead to a safer society.
Cities like Berlin and Amsterdam have embraced licensing systems that account for cultural and social contributions alongside safety concerns. Meanwhile, in the UK, our licensing framework remains rooted in a risk-averse mindset that does not acknowledge the essential role that these businesses play in shaping urban life. If we are to have a licensing system that is fair, it must reflect not just what could go wrong, but also what goes right. We need a framework that considers economic growth, cultural output, job creation, inclusivity, and environmental sustainability alongside public safety.
Licensing should not be a tool for exclusion; it should be a system that ensures businesses are assessed fairly, with all their contributions recognised. Without this shift, we will continue to sideline an industry that is fundamental to our cities, our communities, and our economy.
