Ups and downs of variations

The manner in which the new minor variations procedure has been changed shows just how far the pendulum has now swung against the licensed trade in Parliament — and how much a stronger lobbying group is needed to turn the tide.

What started off as a helpful gesture by the Department for Culture Media & Sport (DCMS) to overcome the elaborate procedure for varying a licence has turned into a pedantic nightmare, as MPs and peers entirely missed the point in their committees. They have insisted on extra safeguards which in effect turn the measure into a useless addition to the Licensing Act.

Why useless? Because the only virtue of a minor variations procedure was to provide a quick, cheap and easy method to change uncontroversial elements in the licence which might be wrong or inappropriate. It was already ringed round with safeguards — you could not add to the permitted hours for alcohol, or include alcohol in the licence and there had to be absolutely no impact on the licensing objectives. If the licensing officer did not like the way the application was put together, or had any doubts, he could refuse it on the spot and there was no appeal.

If any of the responsible authorities had any doubts, they could indicate that to the officer and he could simply tell the applicant that a full application would be necessary.

As a measure, apparently, of their distrust of licensing officers, the committees decided their opinion was not good enough. The people had to have their say — even though it was accepted that any impact on licensing objectives (which is what people are basically worried about) would have scuppered the application anyway. The DCMS has been forced to build in a 10-day consultation with local residents, an advertisement on the premises (consultees even argued about the colour of the notice!) and a fee increase, pushing it closer to £100, which may be like throwing good money after bad.

It has been changed from a useful short-cut for minor changes into another bureaucratic and time-consuming exercise, with no guarantee of success. One bleat from a local resident, and the licensing officer will take the safe option of referring it for the full procedure. Bye-bye £89. Back to the start of the variation process. Rather like snakes and ladders.

Interestingly enough, the DCMS has taken the unusual step of actually criticising the changes in the Explanatory Memorandum, which accompanies the revised Order. They will "reduce the flexibility and efficiency of the process to a significant extent" and will lead to "some dilution of the simplification and cost benefits". That is parliamentary language for saying that the proposed revisions are wrong and have effectively scuppered the whole idea. But nobody, it seems, is prepared to take on the might of the committees, and the current anti-trade stance has led to this additional nannying — just in case someone slips through a clever upgrade or "does a deal" with the licensing officer.

I repeat: we had a simple form of minor variations procedure under the old law, with the licensing justices giving instant decisions, and it worked pretty well. Residents were not prejudiced, but it gave operators the opportunity to alter their premises, usually for the better. Now, suspicious neighbours will be objecting on principle to even the most uncontroversial of actions, simply because they can.

The process will be slowed down, there will be extra costs and many a legal advisor to operating companies will be saying — don't bother. Go for the certainty of a full variation, rather than waste two weeks or more on a fruitless exercise.