Fears the Government's 24-hour licensing regime would create chaos in the high street have proved unfounded.

The Department for Culture's conclusion that the Licensing Act 2003 has produced a "mixed picture" is about right.

But some of the review's positive findings do not hold true in Sussex and issues such as lapdancing clubs and the increasing pressure on police resources have been sidestepped, writes Local Government Correspondent LAWRENCE MARZOUK.

From the moment Labour spin doctors sent a text message to voters on the eve of the 2001 election saying: "couldn't give a four x' for last orders? Vote Labour on Thursday for extra time", the issue of latenight drinking has rarely been out of the spotlight.

But despite these brash words aimed at swing voters, a desire to update the anachronistic licensing laws has pushed this controversial policy forward.

The old system was rigid, undemocratic and woefully inadequate.

That you could not enjoy a quiet pint beyond 11pm or purchase a bottle of wine while doing your late-night shopping placed England in the consumer dark ages.

While the sale of alcohol obviously needs more careful monitoring than milk, and deregulation would have been unthinkable, a more modern approach was needed.

However, opponents of the Government's plans quickly jumped on the more lax attitude to booze, armed with a simple but persuasive argument.

"Was the right medicine for a boozy yob culture longer drinking hours or was it a recipe for disaster?"

they asked. Put in those terms, many sided with the latter view.

A look to the past and the Beer House Act 1830 also provided a worrying test case for the relaxation of alcohol laws.

Parliament's decision to control public drunkenness by allowing anyone who paid two guineas to open a beer house failed, according to most historians.

The idea was to change the drinking culture and move people away from gin houses to the less intoxicating hops-based drink.

But it didn't work, because thousands of beer shops opened and it quickly became clear beer could be equally as damaging.

The historic case provided worrying parallels to the 2003 venture. So has the licensing act become a modern-day Beer House Act?

It is far too early to say, but the impact of the new licensing regime has confounded the doomsayers.

While the overhaul has not made the streets any safer or had any impact on shifting people's dangerous drinking habits, it has not been the disaster many predicted.

The new system has led to important changes in the way law liquor licensing is run.

Sussex Police have embraced extra powers provided by the act, using them effectively to close down troublesome premises and impose strict conditions to prevent violent crimes.

Cumulative impact zones, which place limits on the opening of new pubs and clubs in a specific area, have been introduced in Sussex or are in the process of being brought in.

Brighton and Hove City Council has produced a database of venues, revealing a new-found transparency in this area, and used the legislation to crack down on concerns about "murder music", which incites violence towards minorities.

Licence reviews of troublesome pubs and clubs have also become commonplace, sparked by both police and resident concerns.

The end to the draconian "closing time" regime has allowed sensible drinkers to enjoy a late beverage.

But the legislation has hardly been a roaring success and many see the glass as half empty.

It is notoriously difficult to draw any meaningful results from crime statistics because of the myriad of causes.

At best, the new licensing laws have had little impact on violent crime and pushed the offences until later in the evening, with serious implications for police resources.

At worst, the extra drinking has sparked a rise in drink-fuelled antisocial behaviour despite the police's best efforts to contain the problem.

Drawing a sensible conclusion has been made more difficult by the variety of crime statistics released since November 2005.

On the first year anniversary, Sussex Police said serious violent crime had fallen since the introduction of late-night licensing.

But in the heart of Brighton and Hove, where there is the highest concentration of licensed premises in the county, figures comparing before and after the new legislation show the level of violent crimes, which involved injuries, has stayed roughly the same. Overall, violent crime is up, and police expect levels to grow.

Since the change of licensing regime, police have also upped their presence at flashpoints.

This, combined with crimes being committed earlier in the morning, has had significant implications for police resources.

In the 12 months to April 2007, £200,000 was spent on overtime policing Brighton and Hove centre's pubs and clubs at night, for example.

The police cannot continue to sink these sums into tackling the night-time economy on current budgets.

The Government has to seriously consider the future of funding for policing pubs and clubs.

The review, released on Tuesday, has also claimed that alcohol consumption has fallen since the regime change.

But in Brighton and Hove, hospital admissions for alcohol poisoning rose dramatically in the first full year of liberalised drinking laws.

The supply of alcohol has also vastly increased since the move, with a six per cent rise in licensed premises, or an extra 100 venues where customers can buy alcohol.

The legislation has seen tile shops, florists and many corner shops branch out into booze.

While there is nothing wrong with selling a bottle of champagne with a bunch of flowers, this has meant extra work for the council and police.

One of the least widely reported and most worrying changes to the legislation centres on lap-dancing.

The licence for the city's first fully nude venue - Rouge in East Street - was approved by magistrates in 2006, overturning the council's initial rejection.

Magistrates ruled police could not establish the link between strip clubs and disorder and threw out the council's decision not to grant the Spearmint Rhino-linked venue a licence.

This has since left the council almost powerless to stop a series of venues opening.

Despite loud protests from the city - and a number of other towns across the country - this issue was only given a cursory mention in an appendix to the Government review.

A licensing regime which does not differentiate between lap-dancing and ballet presents a clear loophole and it is a travesty the Government has failed to take this opportunity to investigate changes.

While the old licensing laws clearly needed a radical rethink, the jury is still out on whether the legislation has been a success.

The review presents a worrying lack of self-criticism of the legislation, and if the Licensing Act 2003 is not to be seen in the same light as the Beer House Act 1830, the Government will have to accept more readily the views of those on the ground and introduce changes.

What do you think abou the 24-hour drinking licensing laws?