Weakening concept of 'due diligence'
I should not desert my post! Every time I go away, disaster hits the licensed trade. I have only just seen the review of the effects of the new Licensing Act, which in essence seems to say that it has not resulted in the predicted mayhem, but anyway we should devise additional powers to pursue licensees and even change the meaning of the word "persistent" - not three times but twice.
This seems wholly unreasonable, and I know that there has been widespread criticism both from within and without the trade, from those who know exactly how difficult it is to avoid the occasional underage sale. I am deeply surprised that a government that was recently lauding the success of the alcohol-misuse enforcement campaigns has now decided that the existing powers, which are considerable in scope, are not wide enough and that a new set of battering rams should be devised.
The three-strikes system was already widely cast, in that it did not need to be three prosecutions, nor even against the same people. There could be a situation, as I have already pointed out, where the actual holder of the licence, if an operating company, would be the last to know, because there is no requirement to advise them of cautions and on-the-spot fines.
If it is only two actual incidents, then the dangers are many times multiplied, especially in busy town and city pubs, where even the best licensees, in my experience, have had the occasional lapse. This has nothing to do with widespread underage drinking, because it is clear that responsible landlords are not the ones fuelling the street-drinking problems which exist, nor are they deliberately selling to youngsters. But if the law is made too tough, then it could have a devastating effect on the viability of a pub that may be on the brink. A period of closure could be the last straw, and that means another pub going under.
It seems as if there is a deliberate attempt to undermine the concept of "due diligence" when it comes to licensing matters. The set of announcements from ministers seems to suggest that these are absolute offences, requiring the most draconian punishment. Yet I have pointed out many times before that it is not entirely illegal for those under 18 to consume alcohol. This new proposal seems a step too far.
