Reform: yes or no?

Licensing reform is without a doubt the topic of the day within the trade as the overwhelming response to thePublican.com's licensing survey has demonstrated.

Views are divided and the split is only helping to drive a wedge between the industry and ministers at the very time that they should be listening to trade demands.

Licensing reform looks set to feature in this year's Queen's Speech in November but in what form?

Below are a full range of views from across the sector and beyond on what should and should not be included.

Please read and digest - and, most importantly, let us know what you think by taking part in our survey - click here to do so.

Andrew Knight - Commercial director at Spirit Group.​​

The fact that Westminster Council is imposing a blanket ban on late licences is not surprising when local authorities are being asked to take over more and more responsibilities.

But it's a worrying move when, in principle, they should do better than magistrates with their vagaries and prejudices - as long as it doesn't involve more red tape and higher charges.

I was also disappointed after a dinner at Westminster when Ted Tuppen wrote to minister Kim Howells on behalf of people attending supporting the change to local authorities.

This was subsequently made a nonsense of when another of the diners publicly proclaimed opposition with a "kill the Bill" stance. It proved yet again that we have missed the twin problems of the licensed trade.

The first stems from something that is locked in the British psyche - we refuse to see the consumption of alcohol as anything other than potentially harmful. Why is it we view the continental café with its food, wine and beer with a benign smile and yet see the pub - with its food, beer and wine - as a malevolent influence?

Our second problem is that as an industry we have fragmented into a variety of trade bodies, which all have slightly different agendas and differing views. Each one reduces our strength rather than increases it.

Let us not forget that we are an enormous and diverse industry.

Today we sell tea and coffee, fruit juices, cocktails and beer. There's fancy food and plain food and children can play outside in the pub garden.

But it is all threatened by the ongoing pretensions and prejudices based around the belief that purveyors of alcohol need controlling because what we offer is potentially bad.

And, while our industry is threatened, we have a variety of well-meaning trade bodies which are carefully trying not to tread on someone else's toes.

We've got to stand together - producers and retailers. We must set priorities recognising that we cannot achieve or resist certain potential changes until we have decided collectively what matters most.

And licensing?

The best we can hope for currently is a few political "crumbs" until we decide that a trade union can mean less about "downing tools" and more about a united trade to work towards a better and more liberal future.

Christopher Lees Jones - Chairman of the publicity committee of the Independent Family Brewers of Britain. ​​

The time is now right, even overdue, for speedy action to flesh out the bare bones of the proposed reform.

Like any good project, the basic building blocks must ensure a good foundation. It's a great pity that so little progress has been made in the past few months. Too much time has been wasted and not enough manpower has been made available in the Department of Culture, Media and Sport to give the proposals the proper consideration they deserve.

The industry and members of the public expect to see well thought out proposals being delivered.

The drafting instructions are seriously flawed and do not constitute a basis from which we can move the agenda forward. Indeed, they are so far off the mark that there are those who would prefer to kill off the Bill.

No one should underestimate the huge mistrust and suspicion of the political imperative that seeks to move control of licensing away from the impartiality of magistrates to the political arena of local authorities. Look at people's experience of public entertainment licences and appreciate that the caveat is well founded.

If matters are to move forward to a successful conclusion, there are still six key areas that must be delivered on so that licensing is dragged into the 21st century.

We need less regulation, less bureaucracy and less red tape and we need greater flexibility to enable any licensee to respond to change and market forces. Personal licences must enable any suitably qualified holder to run a pub anywhere in Britain, without any unnecessary restrictions.

Premises licences must be in the hands of those who operate, or own them, and must not be prejudiced by actions of any personal licence holder.

Too much confusion still surrounds this issue. It is essential that all local authorities take on their new responsibilities and operate to a nationally approved set of guidelines.

It was agreed from the outset that the changes would result in no increased cost for an average pub. This must be achieved. If local authorities are to be given these new powers it is wholly inappropriate for them to be able to prosecute and adjudicate the same case.

The way ahead is ill-defined and full of pitfalls. Goodwill and teamwork may be able to save the day but we need to start now. We have waited far too long!

Stuart Neame - Vice-chairman of Kent brewer Shepherd Neame.​​

The Queen's Jubilee proves that you don't have to replace something just because it's been going for 50 years. Evolution is usually better and safer than revolution. And that's equally true of our licensing system.

It's certainly improved over the last decade, with Sunday afternoon opening and magistrates becoming more consistent, but the strongest argument against revolution is always, what would you put in place of the present system?

Surely not tough new laws requiring detailed operating plans for every pub, all controlled by local authorities.

Yet that's what's being proposed - more red tape, higher costs and increased political control. The very opposite of what the trade wanted.

Perhaps we shouldn't be surprised. This never was our reform, you know. Oh, no.

This is the "reform" police want to sort out town centre problems. It's the "reform" MPs want to help constituents who live next to noisy pubs. It's the "reform" local authorities want so they can obtain control of pubs. It's the sequel from the civil servants that brought us the bureaucratic nonsense of childrens' certificates.

It's them, not us, who have the Government's ear, and to all of them "reform" means just one thing. Tighter regulation of pubs.

For example, the premises licence will give local authorities total control of pubs. By allowing them their say on whether a premise is causing a "public nuisance", the Bill will legitimise their control of your opening hours, your entertainment policy, your car parking facilities, any noise or disturbance from your customers, whatever. It makes you responsible for your customers even after they've left the pub.

And the only "benefit" for the trade is something we've already got - longer hours if you get the local authority's permission. Which we can do today by getting a public entertainment licence. Big deal! Particularly as everyone agrees that, overall, longer hours will cost the trade a fortune and won't sell a drop more beer.

Of course it would be a shame if licensing "reform" didn't make it i