Police should not exceed their powers

Along with many others, I do not think for a moment that we live in a police state. There are far too many checks and balances to ensure that enforcement does not get out of hand. While not everyone agrees with it, the European Convention on Human Rights also provides an important focus on some fundamental principles to guarantee that we all get a fair deal.

But two items in last week's MA may suggest a worrying trend within this industry that I would not like to see going too far. The first was the Lincolnshire pub host who "permitted" police to take drug swabs from everyone coming into his bar. The second was the suggestion from a police inspector in Reading that late-night venues refusing to switch to plastic glasses may have their licences reviewed.

Both of these measures seem to me to be a step too far in legal and social terms. Certainly, the first issue has been raised with me before, when a well-liked licensee of a young people's venue risked police criticism for refusing to allow them to "swab" her queue. She pointed out to me, quite rightly, that such a blanket approach was unfair, that she herself would refuse to take such a test and that the action taken by police could in fact seriously damage her trade.

What concerns me is that the people who refused to take the test were banned from entering. This suggests refusal is tantamount to guilt (of having taken drugs, incidentally, which is not in itself an offence) and that refusal on principle results in a penalty as well. I also note that nine out of 355 proved positive, which means that 346 innocent

people were pronounced "clean".

Where does it end? Do we search everyone leaving a store in case they have shoplifted? Do we breathalyse everyone who steps into a car, in case they are over the limit? If we want to do this, we need a proper legal basis for doing it, and a national debate on the human rights issues involved.

The second point, if it was made as reported, is just plain wrong. The police are not in a position to call for a review of a premises licence because a licensee does not comply with their proposal on plastic glasses. A review may only be started in specified circumstances, either in terms of the four licensing objectives or after a closure order of some kind.

If polycarbonate glasses are not a condition on the licence, then failing to use them is not a breach of condition. If there were glassing attacks and the problem could be laid at the door of the premises licence holder for bad management, then a review might be appropriate. But again, the police do not lay down the law - they enforce it.

The decision on whether or not to impose a condition requiring plastic glasses is one for the licensing authority, based entirely on the individual circumstances of each venue. Imposing blanket conditions has already been condemned by the statutory guidance as inappropriate, but of course the licensing authority itself has an opportunity in drafting its own licensing policy to make proposals and recommendations for certain types of venue which could result in special conditions being imposed.

However, these will stem from a proper examination of all the circumstances and input from everyone affected by the proposals, not from what has been described as a "knee-jerk" reaction from the police.

Fortunately, glassing incidents are rare. But they do occur. The risk, and the precautions, must be closely analysed.