Which councils are approaching the new licensing regime in the best way asks Robert Humphreys, secretary of the All-Party Parliamentary Beer Group.
When the All-Party Parliamentary Beer Group published its recommendations for the reform of the licensing law in 1999, it said that the abolition of the terminal hour, then strongly advocated by the police, was fundamental to changing the country's closing time problem.
Crucial to our argument was the proposition that if customers leave when they want to, instead of when a general rule says they must, the stress and friction around the terminal hour would be substantially alleviated. Reflecting on the words that we chose at the time, I believe we should have talked of "staggered leaving times" rather than "staggered closing times", since it was the voluntary principle which underpinned our theory.
We did make the point that the increasing polarisation of customer ages tends to lead to reduced inhibition. Put simply, we all behave better in front of the young and the old, but town-centre bars, in particular, attract narrower age groups.
One key point we failed to make, though, is that this inhibiting effect occurs on the streets as well.
Here the policies apparently being adopted by Westminster and Kensington for example, ostensibly in breach of the letter as well as the spirit of the new Act, seem heartbreakingly bigoted and short-sighted.
By turning down applications for an extra hour or so from ordinary traditional pubs, the kind of pubs that attract the middle-aged or older trade, such committees are missing the opportunity to reverse the ghettoisation of the high street.
Some authorities have set admirable examples. Selby, for example, no thanks to the influence of my chairman local MP John Grogan, tells him that they have already received AND GRANTED over 95 per cent of the licence applications they expect, with two thirds seeking variation, without one single hearing.
Where objections have been lodged, the licensing officer resolved the issue by personal negotiation. Can this be the only such authority?
Westminster, Kensington and others who are turning down variations wholesale after objections cannot see that having the customers of more traditional pubs on the street later will help dilute the impact that is worrying them so much.
We may well see many refusals reversed by the magistrates. But over the next couple of years it will be intriguing to see which authorities achieve the greatest public order gains from the Act: the Selbys, or the Westminsters.