Tarred with the same brush

There is a great attraction for administrators in blanket or standard conditions.

They make life a great deal easier. You can impose them across the board, you need make no exceptions, and you can then ensure, in political terms, that "everyone sings from the same hymn-sheet". You can also preach a form of equality, on the basis that no-one is being singled out for any special treatment.

The problem is, of course, that such an approach is unfair on the majority of generally law-abiding people. It creates a climate that suggests the whole of the regulated industry is of criminal intent, and the only thing stopping it is the regulators and their rules.

Certainly, to judge from the pronouncements of the Home Office, not enough rules have yet been introduced for the licensed trade. At least, not enough of the rules are being fully enforced, which means that the Licensing Act needs a bit of tinkering to make it stronger. Which means the same thing.

There is no differentiation here. It is the whole of the licensed trade that is seen as the problem, not just a tiny minority. So blanket rules should be the order of the day.

Central Government is not alone in this. In some areas, the police are seeking a blanket condemnation of glassware in pubs and clubs that open late. They want to see polycarbonate introduced, arguing that glassing attacks would be a thing of the past if no glasses were available.

That is like saying kitchen knives should be banned, because they are often the weapon of choice in domestic and local knifing attacks. Or that cars should be banned, because of their potential for killing and maiming innocent pedestrians.

Or take Bexley, where they have issued the equivalent of a blanket ASBO for licensees. It even shares a name — the Acceptable Behaviour Contract — as if the current behaviour of all the licence-holders in the borough is unacceptable and has to be brought into line.

What is missing is what both the originators of the Licensing Act and Sir Philip Hampton, in his review of local regulation and enforcement in 2005, wanted — proportionality. This means balancing the way you impose and enforce conditions with the actual threat posed by the person or establishment you are regulating. Low risk — light touch. High risk — all guns blazing.

In fact, the Licensing Act guidance made it clear that blanket conditions should be avoided and only those necessary for that particular establishment should be imposed.

But what do I see on innumerable licences? Blanket conditions — even the so-called mandatory conditions that are clearly marked as applicable only in specified circumstances added to every licence — licensed door supervisors, children's film conditions, plus a raft of other general-purpose rules, many of which cannot have been imposed as a result of a hearing or of any perceived risk, but put forward as a "good idea" by environmental health or the police.

The problem with all these conditions is that each of them carries the force of law, over and above the risk which the premises pose. Breach of these conditions is either deemed a criminal offence under the Licensing Act, or can lead to the issue of a closure notice by the police, thanks to an absurd manipulation of the existing law.

And don't the compliant licensees of Bexley realise that it will not be the people who refuse to sign the behaviour contract who risk a review of their licence, but the ones who do and then fail to comply? They will be hauled up and the licensing committee told that they have "breached" the contract — so proving themselves unworthy to hold a licence.

It is clear that a sense of proportion needs to be re-established within the licensed trade.

Not everyone is as bad as they are painted.