Oldham jumps the gun

It was with some incredulity that I read the long and all-embracing "grounds for review" document issued by Oldham's trading standards department last week.

All 22 of the pubs and bars in the town centre are being targeted in a mass exercise aimed at imposing new conditions on their licences. So far, individual examples of the reasons for review have not been given. The justification for seeking so many reviews at the same time is to prevent an unfair competitive advantage. The move has been welcomed by the British Beer & Pub Association as a measure to tackle irresponsible drinks promotions.

What I find problematic is that there are already procedures in place to deal with the issues raised by the applicant and the police, and these are not being used. Principal among these is the establishment of an Alcohol Disorder Zone: everything in the application document points to this, but Oldham clearly does not want to go down this route and instead has sought a very unsatisfactory (but less costly and time-consuming) alternative.

But what the licensing officer has to consider is whether these 22 applications have been made properly. The Act requires a review to be

initiated against specified premises on one or more specified grounds that are relevant to the licensing objectives.

This has not happened in Oldham. The grounds are entirely general in nature, referring in particular to irresponsible drinks promotions without mentioning any of the premises. It may be that several of the pubs or bars named do not run promotions that are irresponsible, but are simply part-and-parcel of the normal offers occurring in a competitive marketplace. They are being included solely because they are in the target area.

Also, the remedies that are being sought are themselves controversial and go far beyond any of the likely conditions that are thought to be included in the Department for Culture Media & Sport code of practice. Remember that under the new Policing and Crime Bill, local authorities can only unilaterally impose those conditions the Government sets — not any old condition they come up with. Oldham seeks to pre-empt this statutory move by setting its own trading rules for all premises in a specified area.

The application document concedes that it is not open to a licensing authority to ban "irresponsible" drinks promotions. Nor is there any proper definition of what constitutes "irresponsible" — it would appear that all promotions involving drink fall into this category. However, the conditions that the applicant seeks will have the effect of regimenting and controlling access to the bar in such a way as to make the whole experience entirely unpalatable for all those concerned. This is entirely the objective: it might as well say "don't do it" and have done with it.

But of course, it knows it cannot do this. And it also knows that operators will object. What it hopes is that the licensing committee will take on board at least some of the conditions and reach a compromise on the others. The result will be a disincentive to Oldham bars to run promotions of any kind.

There seems to be no doubt that Oldham has taken this step in full recognition that it will prove controversial, and that other local authorities and police forces are following the saga with a considerable degree of interest. This is why the statement of support from the BBPA is so damaging — it somehow gives the green light from the industry to draconian measures of this kind under the guise of combating irresponsibility.

In reality it places the local authority jackboot firmly on the neck of the licensed trade.