Lib Dems and the trade

Over the coming weeks the Morning Advertiser will be scrutinising the pub policies of the main parties. This week John Harrington grills Don Foster, the Lib Dems' Shadow Culture, Media & Sport Secretary

Ask most people where the Liberal Democrats stand on licensing and there is a fair chance you would be met with a blank expression. This perhaps reflects a general problem for a party that has struggled to shrug off its "wishy-washy" image and affirm a clear identity.

But after 50 minutes with the party's culture spokesman, Don Foster, the overall impression is that when it comes to licensing, this party is a touch more "Dem" than "Lib"; put simply, that greater powers should be granted to the democratic decision-makers, the local authorities.

Although Foster approves of a number of measures in the Licensing Act ­ the overall concept of flexible opening, greater powers for police ­ he wants its implementation to be put on hold because the trade, councils and police are currently "unprepared" to deal with problems caused by binge drinking.

Licensees who had already submitted applications and paid the fees would be re-embursed, Foster says. But he notes that so few have been submitted at this stage that this would not be a major problem. He stresses that a Lib Dem Government would amend the Act to give councils greater powers over licensing in their area.

Sitting in his office at Portcullis House, Foster rattles through the Lib Dem's views on licensing and other areas from the Morning Advertiser's tick list of pub-related issues.

Greater powers needed

He talks of the "legal minefield" faced by councils that want to use saturation policies to disallow a new licence, and suggests greater powers are needed to curb the proliferation of pubs and clubs.

He pointed out that his own local authority, Bath and North East Somerset, had rejected the introduction of a saturation policy for Bath city centre because they didn't believe they could withstand a legal challenge from one of the large chains.

Foster adds: "There are real issues about what happens outside the saturation policy area and that's an issue that I think has got to be addressed as well." He does, however, emphasise that pubs must have the right to challenge the decisions of local authorities.

But he adds: "Isn't it crazy that a councillor living and representing a city centre can't serve on the committee that deals with licensing in that city centre because they are deemed to have a vested interest? The whole point of that councillor representing the city is because he or she wishes to promote what people in the city centre feel about these issues."

Foster takes a slightly more "Lib" stance on drinks promos. He sees legislation as an option, but positive movements within the trade to banish the worst drinks deals leads him to believe that a voluntary approach could work. "Happy hours," he says, "are the classic example; I'm delighted that many of the chains have stopped, or are planning to stop them.

Social responsibility legislation

"In terms of those pubs and clubs that are not willing to introduce socially-responsible pricing policies then one of the things I would like to see is very clear social responsibility legislation, [so] then the police would have the opportunity to do something about [the problem].

"In the gambling legislation we have a clear social responsibility requirement for gambling establishments and it seems to me that there is a way [for pubs to do the same]. It needs to be worked out with the publicans themselves, because they have already contributed through the various organisations some very sensible proposals to tackle this issue."

Foster criticises the timetable of the act, which he says encourages people to lodge their applications as late as possible so they delay the payment of fees until the latest possible moment. And he slams the final fees levels for being late and far higher than expected. It particular, he hits out at the "multiplier", which offers a discount for nightclubs because they are not primarily for the purpose of selling alcohol.

"There's no doubt whatsoever that night clubs are adding to the problems of binge drinking and the anti-social behaviour that comes from it. When the body that represents the nightclubs [BEDA, the Bar, Entertainment and Dance Association] says we've played a blinder', you know that they've pulled the wool over the Government's eyes." (This quotation actually comes from an editorial in the Morning Advertiser. It was later posted on BEDA's website)

But he does not reject the Government plan for alcohol disorder zones ­ much criticised in the trade for being a broad brush that won't necessarily target the problem ­ and emphasises the need for more education on the dangers of excessive drinking.

As for the solutions to binge drinking and alcohol-fuelled disorder, Foster emphasises that better implementation of the current legislation, rather than rafts of new laws, is also crucial.

Introducing punitive measures

He talks of the "lamentably small" number of licensees who have been prosecuted for serving people who are already drunk.

"I would like to be very clear that before we start introducing other punitive measures, we ought to be using the existing legislation effectively so that we draw attention to those relatively small proportion of landlords who are actually continuing to serve people when they are drunk, and therefore adding to the problem."

But Foster does point to the positive steps taken by many pubs to cut late-night disorder, in particular through pubwatch schemes and initiatives such as paying for taxi marshals. "Very many of them take their responsibilities very seriously indeed, and the last thing I want to do is join with those who simply are putting all their blame on the landlord; that would be unjust."

Pub-Friendly Rating (PFR): 5/10

Licensees and pubcos would no doubt gasp in horror at the prospect of councils having greater powers over licensing, and stopping implementation in its tracks would be a real headache. The fact that Foster does not reject alcohol disorder zones is also cause for concern. But he clearly distinguishes the vast majority of well-run pubs from the rogue few, reflected by his approach to issues such as drinks promotions. His point that police should use their existing powers more often to punish venues that break the law is commendable and sensible.

Other areas of concern

Smoking

The Lib Dems want a complete ban on smoking in public places to protect workers. Foster's own view differs slightly from the party line. He says: "It's not that I disagree with [the Lib Dem line] on the need to do it, it's just how you get there, because I think that taking people with you ­ building up the popular support for a measure ­ is really very important."

Pub-Friendly Rating (PFR) ­ 2/10. A complete ban is preferable to allowing local authorities to decide, and at least it is more consistent than the Government's compromise solution of a ban in pubs that serve food. But the impact of a complete ban for the pub trade could be huge.

Business rates

A Business Rates Allowance will be introduced, offering pubs with a rateable value of less than £25,000 the chance to claim a business rates allowance of up to £1,500 a year. This would save the average small business £600 a year ­ but it will be funded by an increase in business rates for businesses with a rateable value above £25,000.

PFR ­ 5/10. Could be a boost for smaller pubs. But larger operators could end up out of pocket.

Red tape

The Lib Dems have pledged to review all businesses regulations, and promise to scrap the unnecessary ones, particularly those that affect business the most in the crucial first 18 months.

The Lib Dems would establish a Small Business Select Committee to scrutinise Government actions and monitor the cost of bureaucracy. They would also set up a "Deregulation Unit" to monitor the cumul