Moving the legal goal posts
In the past, the City of London was a comparatively quiet place in the evening, having been deserted by the bankers and business types for their luxury pads in the green belt. In fact, some of the pubs used to close up early, because there was no trade.
But that has changed somewhat in recent years, and the pub trade has reflected this in providing later-opening venues for those who live closer to their work, or are not catching the early train home. A walk through the streets of Moorgate or the Barbican, or along the Thames, will show you that there is plenty of life left when the sun goes down.
But crime and disorder? As a result of later pub opening? That seems to stretch the point a little too far. But that is what the trading standards department of the City of London thinks, according to its recent proposal to change its licensing policy.
But wait a minute: what they propose is not a change in policy — it's a change in the law. In future they want applicants for a new licence or even a variation to include a new condition that effectively adds to the Licensing Act 2003. If you want to run a disco after 11pm, you will require written consent from the Commissioner of Police.
According to the consultation document, this is "with a view to restricting promoted events". In other words, the clear indication is that the City of London wants to remove from the pub trade a right granted by the Act itself, to have regulated entertainment at times permitted by the premises licence.
There is no attempt to hide the fact that the licensing department is promoting this initiative, in spite of the fact that it has no power to do so. A condition can only be imposed on a licence after representations have been received from one or more responsible authorities or interested parties — and then only if the licensing authority is satisfied it is necessary to promote the licensing objectives in that case (once again, refer to the recent Thwaites decision for guidance). They cannot seek to impose a blanket ban or curtailment of so-called "promoted events", simply by issuing a policy revision.
In fact, they do not seek to hide
the manipulative nature of the announcement. Effectively, they are saying: "Come on, chaps, we need you to object wherever possible, or we have to grant late-night entertainment." With respect, this is not their role: if the police have a problem with nuisance or disorder, they have plenty of avenues for prevention, liberally doled out to them by the Home Office, among others.
A blanket control of this nature is yet again a step too far.
Another problem with the issued document is that it claims to be a consultation paper. However, it presents no facts or evidence. It simply states the police are concerned, in general terms, about late-night crime and disorder, so the licensing authority is going to take action of a specific kind. This is not either the meaning or the method of a proper consultation under the Licensing Act in respect of a local policy: the document should spell out exactly why the policy is being amended; it should address the specific circumstances giving rise to the concern and suggest various options for dealing with it (some sense of a partnership approach with the trade might be appropriate).
If Government really wants us to believe local Government is handling the new-style licensing system well, it should carefully examine unilateral initiatives of this kind and perhaps nudge those organisations who control them, to put them on the right track.
