Kept in dark on conditions
Very quietly and with what appears to be the minimum of publicity, the Government has chopped and changed its stance on the power to impose conditions on premises licences by the Home Secretary and local licensing authorities.
While the Policing & Crime Bill was in its Commons committee stage earlier this month, non-pub-goer and Home Office minister Alan Campbell slipped in a vast array of amendments to the new sections of the Licensing Act dealing with the condition-making powers of local councils.
Gone is the emphasis on "particular localities". From now on it is going to be "particular pubs", chosen by the licensing authority as the focal points for nuisance or disorder in any area. While this will come as a welcome relief to those good licensees who thought they would be caught up in a general blitz of extra conditions, whether they were guilty or not, it does not make good reading for the trade in general. It seems clear the Home Office has discovered, rather late in the day, that alcohol disorder zones (ADZs) are a no-no, and this is the best alternative they can come up with.
But Campbell confirmed that the decision on which pubs would be targeted would not be taken after a hearing, but by the licensing authority itself, presumably in consultation with responsible authorities (such as the police) and the licensees involved. "There is an appeals procedure," he told the committee, although as yet we do not know what this is.
Unlike both ADZs and cumulative impact areas, the new procedure now does not need an identified locality. In fact the word "locality" has been dropped from the Bill entirely. Now, all that is needed is two or more pubs that collectively create a perceived problem and the council can issue fresh conditions on their licences without going through the normal review procedures that would apply to individual premises.
The number and scope of the changes to the Bill in this area are breathtaking. Of course, such changes do take place at committee stage, but this set has all the hallmarks of putting right a botched job, based as it was on a policy commitment rather than a practical approach. "It was never our intention to target well-run pubs" seems to be the plea from the minister, although anyone studying the original draft would have picked this up straight away.
What I find inexplicable, given the problems that the Department for Culture Media & Sport got into with more or less the same situation, is that the Commons standing committee has not seen any of the proposed conditions or code of practice on which they are basing their judgments. They are just being asked to give a rubber stamp to a system that could have a profound effect on pubs throughout the country, without knowing the first thing about what the Home Secretary intends. They have an idea it is to combat binge drinking and disorder, but that is now something of a mantra. They do not know any of the detail in which, as my old friend Nick Bish never tires of saying, is where the Devil lurks.
Mr Campbell used the phrase "in due course" or something similar quite a lot, just to keep the committee members happy. But the Home Office may have more trouble with the House of Lords, who do not like to be kept in the dark and made it very clear during the passage of the Licensing Bill.
Oh, and one other gem: they have scrapped the idea that licensees should post their mandatory or special conditions up with the licence summary, for all to read. Now they can keep them in the safe, along with the licence!
