- Written by: Michael Kill, NTIA CEO.
- Full Nightlife Article Newsletter series.
When discussing licensing—particularly in relation to the night-time economy (NTE)—one word is conspicuously absent: economics. Even the mere mention of profit often provokes discomfort, as though commercial viability somehow contradicts the aims of public safety or community wellbeing. This reflects a legacy mindset, rooted in outdated policy frameworks, that overlooks the contemporary realities of running a business—especially those that contribute to vibrant urban life after dark.
Licensing regimes in the UK have long prioritised risk mitigation: preventing crime and disorder, safeguarding public safety, and reducing public nuisance. These are, of course, important objectives. But they are not the only ones that matter. Today, businesses operating within the NTE—from bars and clubs to late-night eateries and cultural venues—play a vital role in local economies, employment, and social cohesion. Yet the moment an applicant refers to economic contribution, they risk being accused of deflecting from the licensing objectives. The unspoken message is clear: profit is irrelevant, or even suspect.
This is both short-sighted and damaging. It is time we recognised that risk and benefit must be assessed together. Licensing decisions are made almost exclusively on perceived harm—real or speculative—with little regard for the positive contributions a venue might bring. This approach is akin to a criminal justice system that considers only the offence, and not the broader context of the individual’s character or history. And yet, in court, the Crown Prosecution Service routinely considers such context: past behaviour, community standing, and social impact. Why, then, do licensing committees not do the same?
The evidence is compelling. Night-time businesses provide employment to thousands—especially young people—draw footfall to high streets, support adjacent businesses, and offer inclusive, culturally rich experiences that enhance community life. They revitalise urban areas often overlooked by daytime policy. Yet, when applying for a new licence or a variation, these contributions are not formally recognised. There is no framework within the Licensing Act 2003 that allows for economic or community benefit to be considered as a positive—only, at best, as an aside.
While terms such as equality and community impact may appear in broader policy debates, they carry little weight during licensing decisions. If an application can demonstrably increase access for underrepresented groups, reduce anti-social behaviour through better management, or promote diversity in nightlife, why are these not weighed alongside potential risks? The issue is not a lack of intent, but a lack of structural space within the current licensing framework to evaluate benefits as well as burdens.
We need a cultural and policy shift that promotes balanced assessment. Licensing decisions should consider both the potential risks and the potential benefits of a business—just as the CPS considers both aggravating and mitigating factors. Profitability and commercial sustainability should be seen as indicators of competence, not greed. If a venue contributes to social inclusion, mental wellbeing, or cultural diversity, these should be meaningful factors in decision-making. The 2003 Act was conceived in a very different era. It is no longer fit for a 21st-century economy that increasingly relies on the NTE for resilience and growth.
Our licensing system must evolve from a reactive model to one that actively supports responsible entrepreneurship, community benefit, and inclusive growth. That requires us to shed our aversion to words like “profit” and replace it with a more honest, balanced conversation about what makes a thriving night-time economy. Economic vitality and public safety are not mutually exclusive—they are interdependent. It is time our licensing policies caught up.
