Licensing fees furore reaches boiling point

It is unusual for peers to get heated, but Lord MacIntosh of Haringey had a fine head of steam last week when he was called upon in the House of Lords to defend the near-indefensible over the licensing fees fiasco.

Just a month after laying the new fees orders for the Licensing Act, which were woefully late in any event, the DCMS has had to issue an amendment order because they got no less than three things wrong in the original. Even now, it would appear it needs a further amendment to the transition order to bring it into line with the amendment itself!

How bad can it get? Lord MacIntosh lashed out all around, which is what often happens when you are very embarrassed. He also got a couple of facts wrong, but that is par for the course. The Government refused to budge, but that was not the point of the exercise anyway.

It is rather like a football team facing relegation. You play badly, you lose a couple of games, the luck goes against you and your morale is sapped. People like me say you are a waste of time and hey presto, you prove it.

So bad is the situation that even the explanatory notes on this latest correction slip are virtually undecipherable ­ as if the draughstman is attempting to hide how bad the mistakes are. Clearly someone should get the sack. But someone won't.

What did it get wrong? Let me explain.

First of all, the way the original fees order was worded meant that the multiplier for bands D and E appeared to apply to all premises used mainly for alcohol supply, not just those in bands D or E. So the first part of the sub-paragraph has been re-written to make it clearer.

However, the anomaly that night clubs will not have to pay the city-centre multiplier, but pubs will, remains in place. In fact, it does not apply just to cities anyway, in spite of the publicity. The order makes no distinction between town, suburban and country pubs in this respect. It is based solely on rateable value.

Secondly, the original order managed to saddle premises which were not concerned with on-sales of alcohol at all with the full variation cost rather than the reduced one if they applied for a variation together with conversion. The amendment now means that they will pay no fee at all to vary. This would appear to include off-licences as well as non-alcohol premises.

Thirdly, large capacity premises appeared to be subject to a double whammy of fee charging depending on the number of customers over 5,000 which they could accommodate, because they had to pay the full additional fee for variation as well as the original fee. The amendment means that no fee is payable in respect of a variation made at the same time as conversion.

Our illustrious editor was quoted in the Lords debate as having said that the night-club industry had "played a blinder" in getting out of the multiplier. The remark was, as is usual in these cases, taken out of context, but it clearly did not please Lord MacIntosh, who proceeded to give an absolutely incredible set of reasons why pubs should pay but clubs should not. I am not sure that the police would agree with his reasoning but then, he was under pressure.

All this leads me to comment that there is no wonder so few applications have been made thus far. The licensed trade must be in a state of utter confusion ­ there are no computer-friendly forms, the promised explanatory notes have not appeared and the local authorities are resigned to a rush of late applications.

As Terry Thomas would have said: "What an absolute shower!"