The curfew tolls the knell

One of the key reasons for a change in the licensing system, of which the White Paper Time for Reform made great play back in April 2000, was consistency in approach.

There was criticism of the licensing justices for inconsistent and varying decisions, which was to be cured by having a new, regulated procedure with little or no possibility of direct interference from the new tribunal — the licensing committee. In fact, this committee was to have no opportunity itself of initiating licensing processes such as review. It had to wait for others to bring up objections and reasons before it could take any action. Even then, the actions permitted by the statute and regulations were laid down in advance. Where there were no objections and no representations, the licence had to be granted as applied for.

There is no doubt that this basic principle is being undermined. If the Conservatives gain power at the next election, as seems a distinct possibility, they will devolve more power to town halls to regulate and control licensed premises in their own way. In particular, according to the conference output, they will allow local councillors to set a general curfew on licensed premises, forcing them to close earlier.

In this they will undoubtedly have the support of the Local Government Association and the advisory service LACORS, which have both campaigned for councils to have more direct control over licensing issues. They do not like the premise that licensing authorities are there just to rule on other people's objections. They want to be proactive in controlling and administering pubs and clubs in their areas.

The problem is that this will inevitably lead to more inconsistency in the governing of the licensed trade, possibly even than under the licensing justices. There are as many attitudes towards the on-trade as there are local councils, and these attitudes will vary with the wind as one particular political party or dogma holds sway at the ballot box. The very virtue of local magistrates was that they were not influenced by political vagaries or tub-thumping speeches made for vote-winning purposes: they were there to uphold the law and to follow the procedures for the general benefit of the population. They had, towards the end, a code of practice that was bringing a high level of consistency, not only to licensing decisions but also to the requirements for the service of documents and general administration.

Consistency​

Consistency has never figured largely in the new licensing system among councils, as I have often pointed out. It is likely to become even more diversified if additional discretionary powers are given directly to councillors to set their own hours of opening, to impose conditions on licences without good reason and to vie with each other to see who can impose the greatest number of controls and restraints on the licensed trade.

In truth, most if not all of the controlling powers are already there, planted by New Labour and enhanced by successive changes made by the Home Office in recent years, culminating in even stricter controls and punishments under

the Policing & Crime Bill currently making its way through the House

of Lords.

Under that Bill, just two examples (not necessarily successful prosecutions) for underage sales, be they inadvertent or the result of test purchases, can result in forfeiture of the licence. This Draconian measure has only been feebly resisted

by the licensed trade and its supporters, yet it could rebound fatally on highly respectable pubs, not merely on careless and irresponsible off-licences.

Ask not for whom the bell tolls.

It tolls for thee!