In the manner of modern government, the brief consultation period offered to the industry (and others) by the Home Office on tightening up the licensing laws will change little of the main thrust of anti-trade measures. Basically, pubs and other licensed traders are going to foot the bill for stricter licensing controls.
The new proposals effectively dismantle the concept I wrote about recently of the licensing authority being in the shoes of the justices. Jackboots would perhaps be more appropriate now. Everything that Westminster Council and others wanted in terms of licensing control has been handed to them on a plate by Home Secretary Theresa May.
In fact, the consultation could have been written by the hawks at the Local Government Association, with a little input from similar birds within the police service.
Stricter controls on hours, longer notice periods, limited appeals and a bump in fees to cover local government costs entirely are joined to a presumption to adopt police recommendations and consider health issues in relation to a licence application. In place of a forum for licensing we are likely to have a kangaroo court system, run by the very people who seek the controls.
The new consultation document goes further than many people expected in terms of cutting the trade's options. Far from being convinced of the benefits of making temporary event notices (TENs) easier (see opposite), the Home Office seems to have been persuaded of the minority view that the TEN system is being abused. Westminster Council, in particular, has long cried that TENs are used to prop up licensing mistakes. But everywhere else, for the most part, they are used for genuine events and have created few problems.
The consultation does not go into detail on why the stricter measures are necessary, other than to complain of Friday and Saturday night mayhem on the streets and a need for "individuals to become increasingly responsible for their own actions". But there is no mention of greater sanctions against youngsters who drink to excess. All the measures in this document are aimed at the licensed trade generally.
Concerns
What concerns me — and will concern many practitioners — is the final lurch from a balanced adversarial system where each side presents its case to one where the licensing authority is itself in the ring already. If, as is proposed, the authority can launch its own objections to licences, or can start a review, how is it to act in an even-handed way? The answer is, of course, that it is not expected to do that.
The plain fact of local government constitution has been acknowledged openly by the coalition — it represents the people, not the businesses; the complainers, not the revenue providers. Every single licensee in the country is going to have to pay in future for enforcement of stricter licensing controls, and any complaints to local government are going to be met with a blank stare.
The undermining of the appeal system is particularly worrying. The consultation document seems to suggest that examining whether the licensing committee acted fairly or accurately — the job of the magistrates — somehow betrays local controls. I know some authorities who bridle at being taken to court by aggrieved operators or licensees, and they have won the day. I predict there will be some arguments against removing this democratic process.
Policies about alcohol and licensing go in cycles. I have known governments on both sides switch from hostility to leniency and back. But this is a very hostile agenda. It will take a great deal of argument to rein in the more unfair and unreasonable elements of these plans — and it may not even succeed.