It's time to call a halt to legislation by the back door

Increasingly I am becoming concerned that, prompted by Government ministers, local authorities are trying to run the licensed trade.

Many years ago, in a similar situation, a High Court judge gave the opinion that licensing justices were in place to administer the licensing laws, not to tell licensees how to run their pubs. It seems to me that this warning might well be voiced again.

There is, of course, a fine dividing line between what is seen as preventive or precautionary action — heading off potential trouble — and downright interference, setting terms and conditions for everyone in the mistaken impression that this will be for the greater benefit of all. Yet the basic principles behind the Licensing Act 2003 were seen as a lack of interference, a "light touch" approach, for the vast majority of licensed premises, run professionally by suitably qualified persons.

To judge from the recently-revised guidance note issued by my good friends Lacors, the regulatory advisory body for local councils, this is not the way forward for licensing.

Now Lacors is not a statutory organ of Government: its statements do not have the force of, say, the Guidance from the Secretary of State that

goes with the Act. But it does have a persuasive influence on local auth-orities, and if it begins to pronounce on the effects and scope of the law, then a number of councils may well think that this represents the course to be taken.

I do not think that Lacors has acted unilaterally here. I think that the present climate against the licensed trade, orchestrated and controlled by the Home Office, gives it confidence to push the bounds of licensing further than was originally intended in the White Paper that preceded the new Act. I think there is a move to make all pubs toe the line when it comes to terms and conditions that are seen as supporting the licensing objectives.

The problem is that some of these conditions are expensive to maintain as preventive measures, and this is really important at a time when the trade is strapped for cash. If one follows the Lacors line, conditions may be imposed upon licences that are not strictly borne out by the circumstances of the individual case, but will ensure that adverse events that may impact on the licensing objectives will not happen.

An example would be the universal imposition of Challenge 21, including premises where there was no evidence at all of under-age sales. If this is imposed as a condition, it has the force of law. Failure to make the challenge would then be an offence, even if there were no sales to under-18s, contrary to the Act.

Another example is the increasing requirement for door supervisors, as effectively floor managers, to monitor a number of activities, including smoking, to ensure that they do not cause a nuisance.

So the conditions that councils are being encouraged to consider involve controls on activities that are not licensable in themselves, or on areas of the pub that are not within the strict bounds of the licence.

In other words, licensing authorities are being led to believe that their licensing controls may extend to the actual management of the premises as a whole, rather than simply ensuring compliance with the licensing laws, which appointed them only as administrators.

That is where I draw the line. No other business has its activities so controlled and constrained, under the official guise of licensing.

It seems to me that because conditions such as these become binding, the Licensing Act is being extended, without adequate challenge, by those who were originally cast as the independent and impartial administrators of the system.

Someone has to call a halt to this legislation by the back door.