Speaking his mind - Tim Martin on licensing control
Tim Martin tells Mark Stretton how the proposed shift in licensing control to local authorities will hit licensees and entrepreneurs.
In a recent letter to the government, the Association of Licensed Multiple Retailers' (ALMR) chief executive Nick Bish outlined fears that the proposed reform of outdated licensing laws will fail to meet the industry's needs.
The main concern surrounds the transfer of licensing control from magistrates to local authorities. The ALMR says that local authorities are not qualified or equipped to control licensing.
Not one to withhold his opinions, be it on Question Time or within the confines of the industry, Tim Martin has once again spoken out on the issue.
The JD Wetherspoon boss says the proposed reform, as it stands, will increase red tape and regulation, and lead to greater costs, effectively hammering another nail into the coffin of the entrepreneur and licensee.
"The trade seems to be seduced by this word 'reform'," he said. "But in reality the current proposals will mean more restrictions and more expense for licensees.
"The stated aim of legislation is to liberate licensing - to take away the barriers. But there will be no requirement on local authorities to liberalise hours. This will almost certainly shorten the times at which people are allowed to buy alcohol."
The Wetherspoon boss subscribes to the ALMR's view that local authorities could put residents' wishes above those of local businesses. "If control over licensing goes to local authorities it becomes a political decision," he said. "There has to be someone independent of politics adjudicating in these cases. These are people's livelihoods we're talking about."
He says that local authorities are already over-burdened. Planning regulation, currently under local authority control, is very slow and therefore very expensive. The industry can expect the same if licensing control is passed over. "The licensee next door to where I live has applied nine times for permission for a gate for his pub," he said. "The local authority can't decide what should be allowed so it dithers and dallies, and nothing is done."
He also says that it will be less fair as individuals will not be able to represent themselves. "In planning applications you're not allowed to speak and therefore cannot state your case," he said. "Can you imagine that? At the moment some operators want extended hours for the World Cup, if they had not been allowed to speak how would they have argued their case effectively?"
He says the most absurd thing is that if an application is rejected the appeal goes to magistrates, but one year later.
"It will be the same as everything else that has been transferred over to local authorities - it will mean more rules, more regulations and greater costs," he said.
"And these things provide a greater barrier to entry to the smaller guys. If we [JD Wetherspoon] have to wait for a year for planning or a licence then we will - if you're a stand alone operator, you can't do that."
Tim says that, under the new rules, businesses applying for a liquor licence will have to outline a business plan, proposed opening and closing times, and may be subjected to certain terms and conditions.
The Wetherspoon chairman believes those conditions will be similar to Westminster council's requirement for pubs to clear litter from the streets and the extra charge for policing in Manchester, and CCTV in Middlesbrough.
"All the costs of licensing reform will be borne by the licensee," he said. He believes the reason the large pub companies and high-profile figures attached to them have not spoken out against this reform is because they do not care.
"Many of the owners of large tenanted pub businesses do not have a long-term view anyway - they are all backed by venture capitalists or banks," he said.
"People like Guy Hands and Hugh Osmond are taking the money and running.
"Tenanted companies should start listening to the people that pay their wages - licensees. Tenants are paying high rents, are saddled with all repair bills, and are hit with increasingly inflated prices. Over the next five or 10 years licensees won't be able to put up with the constant increase in cost."
Tim says all this, coupled with the cost of regulation from licensing reform, will be the end for many licensees, who will simply leave the trade. "I think the whole lot [tenanted pub companies] will go bust unless they dramatically decrease their beer prices," he added.
Tim says that a de-regulation order similar to that which abolished the ban on afternoon drinking in 1988 would be the perfect solution and what the majority of licensees want.
"The government is under the impression that if it gets by under the myth of 'reform' it's good," he said. "What we need is small improvements. There is tremendous pressure on the government for later licensing and all the public wants is sensible hours, say 8am to 1am. That is what should happen."
According to research undertaken by Wetherspoon and independently by Cardinal Research, 80 per cent of licensees don't support the transfer to local authorities. "We will have a whole raft of new rules but without any corresponding benefit," said Tim. "The cost of transition will be borne by the individual - the lawyers aren't going to mind learning a new set of rules.
"The only people who are in favour of this mad-cap reform are the ministers who dreamt it up, like Jack Straw, the non-travelling foreign secretary."
A spokesman from the Department of Culture, Media and Sport recently told thePublican.com that there was still plenty of time for debate.
Tim says licensees should fight for what they need. "My message to licensees would be don't be defeatist - copy the example of many others and write to newspapers and MPs.
"We need to campaign against this," he said. "The ALMR and the British Beer and Pub Association did a great job opposing the government on lined glasses and if the trade did the same over the transfer to local authorities we could get the de-regulation order."
"Don't let this be thrust upon you."
