True cost of red tape

Cynical I may be, but not naïve. Councillor John Gover (Morning Advertiser, Letters, 31 May 2007) is right to comment on the red-tape issue that we raised with MPs, but this is not just a question of money.

In the main, the loud cry from local authorities when approached by Sir Les Elton about fee levels was: "This is costing us an arm and a leg!" He decided that in the introductory period of the new Act, councils were considerably out of pocket, and he has recommended that the Government pick up at least some of the bill - some £43m, to be precise. The rest of the shortfall they have to meet themselves.

But he also criticised some councils' approach to the job the Government had given them of overseeing alcohol and entertainment licensing. He noted that several authorities seemed over-zealous, taking on unnecessary enforcement and supervisory roles, and the much-vaunted "light-touch approach" was missing. This is one of the very things we pointed out to MPs, because they may not have been aware of how the Act is actually being implemented.

My simple definition of red tape is unnecessary compliance with a regulatory regime for its own sake. I always ask: would removal of this compliance damage the system or result in additional illegality? If the answer is no, the relevant authority should dispense with it.

Local government employees are notorious for pen-pushing conformity. It is manifestly clear that they do a lot of this work for its own sake, rather than thinking about the reason for it. The main response, when challenged, is that central Government has given them a job to do, and they must do that particular job thoroughly, in a way which attracts least criticism. Thoroughness means red tape. And red tape means additional cost to the industry.

So it is not surprising that local Government itself has set up a whole department, called LACORS (Local Authorities Co-ordinators of Regulatory Services), whose alleged brief is to make sure that regulatory services, such as licensing, run satisfactorily for all, within the constraints set by central Government.

Here's the rub. Each can blame the other for licensing-regime deficiencies - the one because laws and regulations are badly framed, and the other because councils are not up to the job.

A plague on both your houses! It may be six of one and half a dozen of the other, but the losers are some of those community pubs that have to face this muddled regime. I have pointed out areas in which I think the Act is deficient, as well as local councils that have been so tardy in issuing licences and do not yet understand the licensing laws properly.

My main criticism is still lack of consistency - the main plank of the attack on licensing justices which led to the White Paper and its avowal that there would be "consistency in procedures across England and Wales". Well, it hasn't happened. The same criticism could be levelled at different licensing committees as at different licensing benches. So much for change. This is why I crave a new good-practice guide for licensing authorities and their committees, based on experience of the new regime and wisdom of those in local Government (yes, there are some) who know what a "light-touch" approach means. And there's one key point for Town Hall treasurers: it's cheaper!