Real reasons

behind reform It does seem that despite the overwhelming tide of concern and opposition to this Government's proposal to reform liquor licensing, it will go ahead and transfer the administration to control of local authorities by way of The Alcohol & Entertainment Licensing Bill. This legislation, which has been drafted by the Department for Media, Culture & Sport, will be put to Parliament on the basis of a serious consultation process and the real need for reform. As a former police officer, and now an experienced licensing officer within The City of London, I feel well qualified to make comment on the proposals, and I know the level of opposition there is to many of the changes. Those of us who have in some way tried to become part of the wider consultation process have found that there is little room for criticism and valid concern. Having written directly to the Prime Minister on the subject, my letter was not even acknowledged until I pressed his office for some reply on two further occasions, and I have doubts if Mr Blair has ever seen my letter. I certainly feel the consultation process does not come up to standard and this Government continues at every opportunity to push ahead with unworkable and ill thought-out legislation, despite the concerns of those at the sharp end in this and other areas of change and reform. Clearly licensing does need reform, but to hand control to local authorities is both short-sighted and foolish. Many of us feel it will bring about confusion, a loss of expertise, and a real slowing down of the due process. Local authorities can hardly be described as independent and impartial, and in the occasional case, are the very owners of the properties which are to be developed, and/or licensed. Much reform could be achieved by deregulation, and the majority of people who I know and are involved in licensing share this view. This Government seems unable to grasp some of the fundamental issues involved, the need for independence and the importance of some judicial control over what takes place. We are told that not only is the reform urgently needed, but that it will give us all a greater freedom of choice. What real concern and understanding do we see over the reasons for the increase of alcohol abuse and public disorder we see on our streets on a daily basis? Aggressive "High Street, UK" cannot in any way be compared with the relaxed café/bar approach to alcohol throughout most of Europe, and much of the reform may well result in a further decline in standards ­ then the majority suffer. Safeguards to deal with alcohol-related nuisance and problem licensed premises look good, but in reality are a nightmare for an already overburdened police service ­ and merely closing premises fails to tackle the underlying issues. The persons responsible simply move to other premises and the cycle repeats itself at great cost in terms of finance and police resources. This and much more is conveniently overlooked by those involved in the change, and who talk of genuine consultation. Perhaps we should look at the real reasons which may be behind this proposed reform. Consider the potential increase in Government revenue, which would be generated by a massive growth in the leisure industry through reform. Not only are the economic benefits attractive, but there is an opportunity for local authorities to substantially increase their income. One only has to look at the fees already charged by local authorities for PELs to see the potential in respect of setting new fees and renewal dates for liquor licences. If this is so, then revenue and not values are the driving force here, and this worries me greatly. Tim Martin, of JD Wetherspoon, has spoken in opposition to these proposals, and he's the type of person this Government should be consulting with and listening to. His background, opinion, and approach is sound ­ and yet his concerns and views, it would seem, have been ignored for no other reason than he is against what is proposed. I've no doubts that in terms of licensing experience, he stands head and shoulders above those who advise on such matters, and I hope his efforts, and those of others, will make this Government reconsider what we know has been already decided. From what I've been told, it doesn't appear the consultation process has in fact produced a majority view against the proposals, and if this is true then the process of consultation is worthless. Robin Bracey London ECIA 2DP It's pot calling kettle black Tim Clarke of Six Continents slammed pub operators for treating their businesses as cash cows and refusing to invest in them'' (MA, 14 November). Talk about the pot calling the kettle black! I was a manager for Bass for 10 years and had two pubs, spending five years in each. In my first, I had to paint the bar myself, of which the cost came out of the house property and insurance as Bass refused to send contractors to do it. In my second pub, which we moved into only after a promise of a £500,000 refurb that never materialised, we had to endure five years of the following: l exterior surface cracked and chunks falling off l exterior paintwork severely flaking and bubbling l woodwork rotting away l window sashes on the brink of falling out l half of the signage containing the name fell off l interior needing a serious refurb, with the wallpaper coming off, the roof leaking into the lounge, and carpet needing renewal Everybody could see the potential of the pub if it was invested in as planned, including my regional business manager and the regional retail director. But could the powers at Bass HQ? No, they didn't come to look at it, and eventually the inevitable happened we were sold along with all the other "cash cows". Now, I have taken the lease on, and invested a little and we are trading very well indeed. So who is he [Clarke] to comment on how other pubcos' trade their pubs? Stuart Staples The Dorallt Inn Cwmbran, South Wales