Minor should mean minor

Those of us who watched the inauguration of Barack Obama will perhaps have grinned a little at the stumbling manner in which the oath was administered. It will remind us of the way potential licensees used to perform in the frightening atmosphere of the magistrates' court when they had to present themselves for a protection order.

In fact, the rather less than impressive work of the chief justice reminded me that in ancient Greece if you got a single word wrong in a religious ceremony, even after four hours or more, you had to go right back to the beginning and start again!

To judge from the recent reaction of the House of Lords to the simplification proposals for minor variations, it looks as if that measure too may have to be started again. I hope not, but the signs are not all that good. If you want to make a change to your premises licence or its conditions, you must make a variation application to the licensing authority — currently a full-scale and costly exercise very similar to applying for a new licence entirely.

So the Department for Culture Media & Sport proposed a minor variation procedure that could be granted by a licensing officer, in consultation with certain responsible authorities, which did not require advertising and cut down on the expense. Under the proposed order such a procedure would only cover very small matters and could not include any extension or variation of hours of service of alcohol.

From the trade perspective, this seemed a very sensible idea, although the limitations provided by the order meant that it could not be used for certain elements of the licence which might need amendment, including structural work beyond a certain level. Under the old system, what was called a "section 20" order could be obtained at very short notice from the justices to enable structural changes to the pub to be carried out. They would require "before" and "after" plans and someone to come along and explain the reasons for the change. Apart from that, at least you obtained a consent on the spot.

Now, the House of Lords is concerned that local people will not be given a voice in the matter. It seems they are wary of the idea that changes will be "stitched up" behind closed doors if no public advertisement is required.

This may be an unfair summary of their views in one sense — I do not think they suspect collusion in any way. But in truth that was the system for alterations in the old days and it seemed to work pretty well. But the present political climate seems to be going entirely against the licensed trade, including the proposed new powers to add conditions to licences, rather than to subtract them. So a proposal to make it easier to get a condition knocked off a licence without the public being made formally aware is one that arouses suspicion.

This is not to say that the minor variation procedure will be entirely scuppered. But after more detailed scrutiny than was originally proposed, the order may well end up in an even more watered-down version than at present, meaning that it will only cover procedural slip-ups, or wrongly-worded conditions that do not affect the conduct of the premises at all.

That was not what the trade or for that matter local authorities wanted from the measure. It was intended to simplify procedures in cases where the public interest was not affected. But the House of Lords may see to it that every move that an operator makes is put under full scrutiny.