Blunkett's pub blitz
"We had the summer campaign," said the lady at the Home Office press office, "and now we're going to have the Christmas blitz." This was in response to my request to find out what chummy Tony (Blair) and his friend David (Blunkett) were going to announce in Sheffield last week.
Underage drinking and its attendant evils was the name of the game, and although the media is tending to concentrate on other aspects of the Home Secretary's activities, it is important to know exactly what they propose should be done.
It appears to be an attempt to widen the scope of police powers for on-the-spot closure of pubs, currently enshrined in section 179A of the Licensing Act 1964 and re-enacted in a slightly different form in section 161 of the 2003 Act. Clearly, because this is a statutory provision, it would require primary legislation an Act of Parliament, no less to change the scope of the section, and you cannot do that overnight, certainly not before Christmas. So readers need have no fear of instant closure during the festive season if a police "sting" finds one or two under-age consumers.
It may be part of the multi-agency approach to this aspect of unruly behaviour that the PM and his pal wanted to highlight in the run-up to Christmas. Any legislation would have to be introduced by Tessa Jowell at the Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS), who has presumably been asked to look at how it could be brought in. But the chances of an early introduction of legislation seem to me to be remote. It has to be assumed that this was, therefore, a convenient sound-bite, rather than a firm promise of legislation.
There are, after all, already strong penalties available to the courts to deter those who deliberately sell alcohol to youngsters under 18, including the threat of licence revocation.
Under the new licensing system, the range of sanctions is even wider, and the premises licence can be called in for review and also revoked if the situation is found to be serious. But I do not quite see how an instant closure of the premises is relevant to the offence.
Disorder I can understand. A very rowdy pub, or one with fights, chants or abuse spilling out into the street, or persistent loud music, can clearly be identified and dealt with by way of a closure order. But how many young drinkers does it take to make a pub a closure target? Is finding one canny 17-year-old swigging an alcopop in a corner sufficient to shut the premises and turf 200 adults onto the street? Where is the proportionality so beloved of Lord Haskins and his licensing think-tank?
It seems to be part of a media message to the licensed trade that it is now firmly on the back foot. The threat of closure and the attendant loss of profit is seen as a potent reminder. But the TV vox pop interviews following the announcement, made it clear that among young 16 and 17-year-olds, getting a drink in a pub is a rite of passage which was not going to disappear overnight, seeing as it has been around for as many years as I can remember.
However, what I will watch with interest is to see whether the DCMS will take the opportunity to produce a Licensing (Amendment) Act to clear up some of the anomalies and casual drafting which bedevil the new legislation, and then dress it up as a "response" to the PM.
That would be such a loyal gesture!
