Pen-pushing pain for pubs

At a time when the police themselves have been bitterly complaining about the amount of paperwork they are required to complete — which apparently now has the sympathy of the Prime Minister — why is it that they are pushing more forms in front of the licensed trade?

This is the secondary effect of the new clampdown on pubs: the requirement to abide by new terms and conditions that are not part of the Licensing Act 2003 or even in the regulations, but come under the heading of "due diligence" and "risk assessment", and which are increasingly becoming obligations rather than recommendations.

When this is challenged, the police and licensing authorities express surprise, as they did in Bexley last year. Why should you be worried about an extra form, an extra contract, filling in an event book, completing a training report, giving details of performances and performers? This is all part of your demonstration that you are "fit" to hold a licence. If you are a good licensee, then you have nothing to fear.

Hold on a minute. Did we not dispense with the whole idea of the "fit and proper person" to hold a licence? Was it not made one of the main planks of the Government's policy on the granting of licences under the new regime? What we had was a requirement for basic training, via an approved qualification, and a set of relevant offences that could count against you. Other than that, I did not notice that completion of paperwork was made a condition of entry into the licensed trade (unless you count filling in a 23-page form at the outset, which was a pain, but a one-off event for most people).

The latest in a line of form-filling obligations has been provided by the Metropolitan Police, which has run into understandable opposition when presenting licensees with Form 696, requesting them to fill in a number of details about the performers, including DJs, that they may be using at their pubs, together with an after-event debriefing.

The form not only requires personal details of all performers, but also an indication of how those attending the event are to be searched on entry — again a highly controversial element for some venues.

The police view is that they need such prior information (14 days in advance) so that they can assess the risk element of the actual event.

I have not been given details of what this means, but it is clear that they view some performers as attracting a certain type of fan, who may come a considerable distance, and that the nature of the performance or the music is associated with antisocial or criminal elements (violence, drugs or both). That can be the only explanation for seeking the "co-operation" of the trade in detailing what is likely to happen and the home addresses of all performers (presumably so that the police can call round and wish them a happy Christmas).

That may well be their objective, but why is it the licensed trade that has to do the legwork here? One of the presumed outcomes of this exercise, it seems to me, is to allow the trade to condemn itself by putting on acts or artists that the police consider "unsuitable".

The next stage, although hotly denied by the force in question, is for the police to veto certain events on the grounds of public order.

I am all for co-operation with the authorities in a balanced approach to risk and the licensing objectives. But it seems to me that the pendulum has swung one way in the co-operation stakes. These additional obligations and requirements are a step too far.