Undercover at the consultations

The Government's proposed changes to the Licensing Act 2003 are going through a break-neck six-week consultation period. This week, I went undercover at a consultation meeting in London — the media has been banned — to get an idea of the tenor of the feedback that the Home Office is receiving.

The first thing you notice is that this is not a free-wheeling discussion but a box-ticking exercise overseen by five Home Office civil servants. Quite frankly, it feels like a done deal on the major changes — a late-night levy, changes to temporary events notices and the extension of the "voluntary" closure period; we were reminded that this workshop was to discuss how and not if the proposals should take effect. The consultation was more like a post-lunch conference day activity rather than a chance to seriously influence Government policy.

We were given a brief overview of the proposals, a few questions were asked, and then we were split into working groups to formulate answers to set tasks.

My group, consisting of Joe O'Riordan, of the 1066 Licensed Victuallers Association, a man from the North Mayfair Residents' Association, and two people from a regional Government office, was asked how residents could be more involved in the licensing process.

I argued they were already involved — that was the whole point of the Licensing Act 2003 — but was reminded this was not the question we had to answer. Sigh.

We were also asked how a health objective could be incorporated into the licensing process. The Home Office officials said the Government could ban selling below the cost of the invoice, but said it thought the supermarkets would find this easy to get around.

The proposed changes seem to be set in stone. The consultation is just six weeks long — half of the minimum level set out by Government guidelines. You have to wonder what civil servants will actually learn from the consultation workshops, which are dominated by non-trade individuals — 33 out of the 35 attending the one I went to — and allow a very limited discussion of the fundamental principles.

A vote in the room showed that most were in favour of extending the "voluntary" closure period — police can ask for a period from 48 hours to two weeks or more. People from outside the trade did not see a problem with police effectively enforcing a closure period of two weeks.

This is indicative of the attitude the trade faces. The proposals are largely framed around hitting on the on-trade. Delegates in the room agreed that supermarkets were culpable in fuelling binge drinking through bargain-basement pricing, but there were few answers as to how they would be made to tow the line.

The bayonets seem well and truly fixed and pointed in the on-trade's direction. Plus ça change.