DCMS drags heels on licensing review

Related tags Committee

A well-known technique of government to buy time is to set up a committee or announce a review and then, when it eventually reports, say you need...

A well-known technique of government to buy time is to set up a committee or announce a review and then, when it eventually reports, say you need time to study the implications before proposing any changes. You can spin out a decision for months, even years, using this technique, under the guise of "careful consideration".

This is just what is happening to alcohol and entertainment licensing. In spite of clear indications from a number of committees, forums and independent panels on issues that need to be addressed in licensing, the Department for Culture, Media & Sport (DCMS) is still far from embarking on any meaningful changes, as we head towards the end of 2007.

Much play was made last year of the so-called "simplification plan" requested by Tony Blair from his government departments. The DCMS duly produced a set of simplifying measures in a table, to show how pro-active they were. In fact, many of the suggestions and proposals had already been aired and represented clear criticisms of the current Act and its implementation: the complexity of the forms, the effect on small businesses, the high level of fees for even small amendments to the licence and several other matters.

Under the heading "Deadline for delivery and any key milestones" the department has written "2007/8" in many cases. Apart from the fact that this is hardly a deadline, more a ball-park date, absolutely nothing has so far appeared and it is now well into the fourth quarter of 2007. So it's 2008, then.

Much play has been made of the revised Guidance. It has clearly been improved, but it does not, and cannot, contain any simplification measures. These will probably require regulatory reform orders (to change the Act itself) or new statutory instruments. For example, you cannot dispense with the designated premises supervisor for village halls and small venues without amending the requirements of the Act. Similarly, if you are to provide a fast-track approach to minor variations without going through the costly application procedure.

DCMS ministers are now falling back on the fact that a post-implementation review is due out later this year. It appears that nothing can be started until they have digested that, which will add another few months on to the delayed schedule. But why? According to the simplification plan, the department is so well in touch with stakeholders, including scrutiny councils, fee panels, local government and the rest, that the first blip of criticism will show up on its Geiger counter, and it can then take action.

That isn't the way it has panned out. There have been numerous criticisms of the implementation of the Act, from parliamentary committees, independent reviews, even their own internal groups, most of which have been robustly defended. Could it be that the department thinks everything is really more or less OK, and that the moaning minnies have nothing to complain about, so why take any action?

The minister James Purnell has, as I commented recently, been strangely silent on licensing issues. All the alcohol comments have come from the Home Office and the Department of Health. This is in stark contrast to his high-profile time as a junior minister responsible for licensing. Clearly, licensing as a departmental priority has slipped way down the list.

But there are considerable flaws in the legislation that could be put right, without compromising the Government's current anti-alcohol stance. It is not as if the industry is looking for further relaxation - more a corrective order that will remove difficulties, cut costs and simplify the system for hundreds of small traders.

So let's hear from you, Gerry.

Related topics Legislation

Property of the week

Follow us

Pub Trade Guides

View more