Avoiding the paper chase

A few months after the new licensing system took effect, I commented on these pages about how time-consuming and wasteful it is, particularly of paper.

Throughout the period, we have made a number of useful suggestions to cut down on this profligate misuse of trees. The sheer duplication of effort required to make even the simplest of applications has caused concern everywhere, from the Better Regulation Commission to Sir Les Elton, and now the Local Better Regulation Office.

Even before the whole process started, I noted how much unnecessary form-filling there was. Even the so-called "summary" of the licence can be as long as the licence itself. What other country expects you to post up three or four sheets of A4 just to prove that you are allowed to sell alcohol?

The length of forms, and their complexity, runs through the whole process. It is a clear policy — the applicant has to prove everything in writing, produce yards of paper evidence from various sources, bundle these together and send copies to up to eight other organisations, many of whom inhabit the same building. In the majority of cases, at least two or three of these bodies will have no interest in the application at all. In other examples, only one of the sheets will be relevant.

Now Gerry Sutcliffe, on behalf of the Department for Culture, Media & Sport, has said that his department is reviewing the workings of the Act, in the light of several highly critical reports and a clear indication from many sources that they did not get it right first time around. Proposals have been made on a number of the burdensome effects of the legislation, most recently from the Community Pub Inquiry team of MPs, but this prime candidate for improvement — waste of paper — should be uppermost in their minds.

Praise, then, for the handful of local authorities I am aware of that have taken the extremely positive step of asking for one copy of the application and then distributing the relevant parts themselves to the "responsible authorities". This has resulted in a much more efficient processing of the application, with those agencies that have no input merely being allowed to say so, and those with representations coming to the fore.

I deal with local authorities on a daily basis. They all have computers. Some are more efficient than others, to judge from the responses to the latest licensing statistics report. But they do most things electronically, they send out payments over the internet, and can provide you with a list of licensed premises at the touch of a button.

So why no electronic handling of forms and applications? I note with interest that this is the proposed system for Scotland. They looked at the paper-chase down south and decided that there was a better way to do things.

I commented recently about the holding of the full licence in its original paper form at the actual licensed premises. Yet every local authority I have spoken to has that information on computer. One licensing officer told me it was important that the premises user had a paper copy "so that all the staff could check what their legal responsibilities were."

With respect, that is really not the point. Of course it is important that the licence holder knows the conditions applying to his licence. But making paper into a legal issue is an outdated concept. The DCMS should look at all the applications — personal licences, temporary event notices, variations — and ask why so much duplication and additional pages are required. There has to be a simpler way to run a licensing system.