Jowell's chilling script

On the same day that I applaud-ed the flag-waving campaigns for local pubs this newspaper is spearheading, I read a somewhat chilling announcement from Tessa Jowell and James Purnell, which shows where the pressure is really coming from.

Make no mistake: the anti-pub lobby has the upper hand. The promised review of the Guidance, which the Department for Culture, Media & Sport (DCMS) has now brought forward, is a direct result of the binge-drinking campaigns and expert lobbying by local government, which could tip the balance even further away from the trade.

I want to examine the four key elements proposed by the Local Government Association (LGA), which the DCMS says 'helped to inform the proposed new measures.

I should say at the outset that the announcement makes no mention throughout of any proposals or demands made by the trade or its representative bodies mainly because the script is entirely negative about the industry.

The consultation period to be lengthened from a month to six weeks.

I take this to mean that the 28-day period for objections is considered too short to marshal campaigns or to have environmental health officers prepare a list of extra conditions for pubs to meet!

Longer consultation, of course, means much more opportunity for objections not necessarily based on evidence but, as now, on a large degree of mass hysteria informed by fear rather than the full facts.

The introduction of more effective methods of consultation, such as a letter drop to affected residents.

As above. They did it in St Albans, right on Roger Protz's back doorstep, to 'encourage local people to object.

Once representations are received, of course, the discretion of the licensing authority is engaged. No representations and they cannot do anything and they hate that!

I wonder what the letter will say: 'local pubs are great places for people to meet for an extra hour or so or 'here's how to object. What's your guess?

l The presumption to support later opening to be removed from the Guidance.

A-ha! The very cornerstone of the philosophy behind the new legislation to be axed, via the Guidance.

What a U-turn that would be. Remember what we were told back in 2001?

Flexible choice of opening hours would mean a more relaxed approach and remove flashpoints.

If the support for potential later opening (subject as now to the views of local residents, for which provision is fully made) is removed, it means the anti-pub views prevail over the pro-pub views of the local community.

If this suggestion is adopted, back will come the imposed curfew times, permitted hours will be restored on a zonal basis and no flexibility will be allowed.

The council will control licensing hours and the greatest fear of the trade will become a reality.

A clear and unambiguous role for elected members to represent their constituents.

What this really means is a clear and unambiguous role for councillors to influence colleagues.

Anyone turning up to a local authority hearing and seeing opposition to a licence orchestrated by a local ward councillor on first name terms with the committee chairman knows what I mean.

The LGA does not want to see licensing decisions taken by an impartial tribunal, as now, but wants to weight the dice as far as it can against the applicant.

I hope the trade bodies get off their Canterbury-softened posteriors and get some positive proposals of their own on the table PDQ.