Vendetta against the trade
My comments in the last issue about the Government's sustained attack on pubs appear to have been well timed.
On the one hand, we have the published results of the Community Pub Inquiry, which show how weighed-down with regulation the bedrock of the industry is and emphasising how important pubs are within their own communities. And on the other hand, a pressurised Gerry Sutcliffe has issued details of how his political masters at the Home Office want to turn licence reviews into some sort of Guantánamo for the trade.
The All-Party Parliamentary Beer Group, which produced the community pubs report, made wide-ranging recommendations, among which were some proposals that I made about licensing laws. I am pleased to note a recommendation for a good-practice guide for licensing authorities, never produced by local-government regulators LACORS, but possibly in the minds of the new Local Better Regulation Office, which is well placed to ensure greater consistency in the way licensing is run. I understand that the Department for Culture, Media & Sport is still considering other proposals, including electronic forms and applications, and the problems surrounding widows and bereaved relatives when a licence-holder dies.
The fact that the Group studied the issues for more than two-and-a-half years and managed to gain responses from certain Government ministers is pleasing, and has certainly placed the issues in the public eye once again. But as we read last week, it is at the Home Office that the principal strategies for alcohol-related action are being promulgated — and they make eye-watering reading.
The proposals ostensibly signed by Gerry Sutcliffe last month give details of how the "yellow and red card" system would work. Effectively, they turn licence reviews into a kangaroo court. What are proposed are not conditions but punishments, both financial and personal, which runs entirely counter to the principles outlined in the Guidance.
The whole tone of the document is one of retribution for perceived wrongdoing, but taking place outside the ambit of the courts, which are there in order to ensure a fair, unbiased hearing for offences. Police and local authorities are actively encouraged to pursue "failing" licensees by this means, with reviews being seen as opportunities for a "package" of conditions, which include a raft of personal obligations and some that, frankly, ought to be the province of primary legislation.
Given this proposal, it is clear that the statutory authorities are being encouraged to pursue a vendetta against premises, with a view to making life so tough that they either comply totally or go out of business. In fact, the document makes a virtue out of conditions that might impact heavily on profitability and competitiveness, or might be exceedingly costly. Apparently, it is OK for a government to suggest that a new-style sales condition will cost a company millions of pounds, because it will make it think more carefully about the licensing laws!
Reading both documents has left me with a sense of complete double standards. We either love and cherish our pubs, or we do not. Some MPs seem to think drastic action is necessary to save businesses, while others think drastic action is necessary to close them down.
The nearest thing to orange jump-suits that Gerry Sutcliffe has come up with is an idea that pubs called in for a review should place a yellow card in their front windows saying what offences have been committed against the licensing objectives. What next? A public apology? The village stocks? Does the licensed trade really deserve this treatment?
