Politicians' licence to intrude

Two news items caught my eye recently. The first was the MP criticised for intervening in a complaint over a pub disturbance; the second was the comment by former licensing top cop Simon O'Brien that licensing authorities were "too passive" when it came to dealing with licensing.

Both of these involve the issue of politicians becoming involved more directly in the licensing process and it is something of a dangerous road to tread.

Licensing is swiftly becoming a repository for every politician's desire to control alcohol and its effects. It is an easy target, because changing the licensing laws, or imposing new controls on licensees, looks like positive and proactive engagement.

In fact, it does nothing to address the underlying issue of over-indulgence or the binge culture, which is a far more difficult nut to crack.

It seems to have been forgotten that the reason the licensing laws were drafted in the way they were was because the licensing authority — a committee of local councillors, was replacing the justices — an independent body of magistrates with no political affiliations.

The new Licensing Act was therefore designed so that they, the councillors, would sit in judgement on the merits of an application before them, listen to objections and representations, and make their minds up on the evidence.

Representation​

The problem with putting politicians in this situation, as we warned at the time, was that they saw themselves as representing exclusively local residents. Indeed, Margot James, MP for Stourbridge, made this clear in her response to the Morning Advertiser​ last week. But of course she is there to represent all constituents, including the licensee of the pub at the centre of the complaint. As such, she has a duty to consult with everyone concerned before taking sides.

If, by "passive", Simon O'Brien means the licensing authority does not take a controlling role over the number and type of outlets in its locality, he is technically wrong.

Local councils can, and do, set up cumulative impact areas, even though they are not mentioned in the Licensing Act at all, in which they can control exactly that element. Such an area applies both to on and off-licences.

Witness a recent case in Brighton where the issue of "pre-loading" was given a complete airing.

But clearly the role of the licensing committee is to hear and examine evidence, not to come to the table with pre-formed ideas or — as in one classic example from Westminster — with the refusal already written down on a piece of paper before the application was heard!

There is no doubt that the original idea of moving control of licensing from the magistrates to councillors was to allow "local democracy" to govern this important social element. We will not disengage politicians from the licensing process, because pubs are still an integral part of local society — mainly for good rather than ill. But what we do not need to have is more political interference in the licensing process as a method of proving your credentials to the electorate.

Planning​

Of course, that is exactly what the Government seems to be planning for later in the year. So far, most of the pronouncements I have read focus once again on using the licensing laws as a method of controlling drinking and anti-social behaviour, as if that is the acceptable and most practicable route. But those licensing laws should not be used as a blunt instrument, targeting the whole of the trade with more punitive sanctions. The vast majority of licensees conduct their business properly and well. The target should be those who do not.