Licensing reform: a missed opportunity

It is not often that I disagree with my editor on trade matters, but the claim last week that politicians got the Licensing Act right causes me a wry smile, to say the least.

The one thing on which there was universal agreement prior to the White Paper was that the then system of permitted hours was causing late-night problems; that a more flexible approach was needed to times of opening.

That was suggested way back in the '70s and given flesh later by an attempt to re-work the existing law to remove the restrictions brought in as a "temporary" measure during the First World War. So the question of hours was a live issue for some time, but it didn't need a complete re-structuring of the licensing system to bring it about. Changes in a small section of the old Act would have done it.

Of course, there were a great many other anachronisms in the '64 Act which we may be glad to see the back of. But what perhaps we were not expecting was that the new law would be quite so cumbersome and complicated for even the smallest change.

In fact the politicians had precious little to do with it. Remember that the draft of the Licensing Bill made its way through Parliament, with a couple of heavyweight "minders", almost unscathed. Very few of the suggestions and recommendations from the trade and from licensing lawyers were adopted. No consultation on the paperwork, notices or technical matters was really undertaken. Even DCMS minister Tessa Jowell, in a rare moment of candour, admitted that pre-legislative scrutiny was almost entirely lacking.

The result is a far from satisfactory Act, which is proving difficult to administer and creates headaches where none should exist. It is also, unfortunately, a very inflexible piece of legislation which may need loosening up in the years ahead if it is to serve for as long as its predecessor.

But in case I stand accused of nit-picking and not seeing the bigger picture, I consider that this was an opportunity missed rather than an achievement to be trumpeted. Licensing is, regrettably, a technical matter and some

considerable expertise is required to ensure that the wheels turn smoothly and that everyone is happy with the engine. Regrettably, that has not happened, and I make no apologies for continuing to point that out.

The editorial also takes the line of least resistance on the trade's own position. Politically correct, yes, but it would appear that much of the stuffing has been knocked out of the industry by a combination of fear and fawning. The test purchasing blitz has shown up a sorry picture, but no-one ever talks much about the youth culture that actively encourages early experimentation, and the fact that few, if any, of the young people themselves are ever hauled into court or fined for underage drinking. The fact that a landlord can lose his licence for one or two errors, is set against the happy-go-lucky youngsters who think - as did their parents - that it is a bit of a lark.

So my view of a year on is not quite so rosy. I see a vindication for our stance that permitted hours were inhibiting and unnecessary, but that was not down to politicians. I see certain areas, however, where extra hours are very difficult to get, and where most pubs still close at around the same time. I see a greater awareness of local power, but also a fear that a disgruntled neighbour can cause havoc with your trade. I think it will be some time before licensing reform can be anywhere near considered an overall success.

Editor writes: Nit-picking is exactly what the legal editor of the Morning Advertiser should be doing, and of course I accept that many technical issues of the Act need urgent attention, despite the enormous efforts at

drafting stage of Peter himself and the BBPA's Martin Rawlings. But last week's editorial aimed to acknowledge that Government politicians stuck to their guns in the face of the most ferocious attack on pubs for a century. It was an act of faith to grant longer hours across the board, when the Opposition and media were demanding they scrap their proposals. For that, and the outcome, they deserve congratulation.