Nice time for a consultation

Not all of you will be reading this. By that I mean that many regular readers of the Morning Advertiser​ may be away on a family holiday or enjoying a break from the office.

What a good time to launch a consultation on radical reform of the licensing laws! Even better, let's halve the recommended time for the consultation from 12 weeks to six.

That means hundreds of potential objectors will not have time to get their act together and we can pretend that everyone was in full agreement with our new harsh clampdown on the whole drinks industry.

The six-week period, as experienced licensing solicitor John Gaunt has pointed out in his letter of protest, is made even more appalling by the clear guidance given by the Government's own published Code of Practice, which is highlighted in the Alcohol Consultation document itself (although somewhat conveniently the URL given there for the Code does not even work). It is worth quoting this at length:

• 2.1 Under normal circumstances, consultations should last for a minimum of 12 weeks. This should be factored into project plans for policy development work. Allowing at least 12 weeks will help enhance the quality of the responses. This is because many organisations will want to consult the people they represent or work with before drafting a response to Government and that takes time.

• 2.2 If a consultation exercise is to take place over a period when consultees are less able to respond, e.g. over the summer or Christmas break, or if the policy under consideration is particularly complex, consideration should be given to the feasibility of allowing a longer period for the consultation.

Not meeting standards​

So this extremely far-reaching proposal to change several of the key legal elements affecting every licensee in England and Wales is not even meeting the very minimum standards recommended by the Government. There is absolutely no practical reason why a proper and measured consideration could not be given to these proposals, other than a desire by the Home Office to rush them into a convenient Bill so they can be enacted quickly.

The problem for trade leaders, however, is that the widespread sense of outrage engendered by this unexpected turn of events (we expected it was going to be bad, but not this bad) leads to a strong reaction which the Government can use against the industry.

The rationale might be, "We knew they were going to protest but this only proves that we are hitting the right spots". Bitter and violent trade criticism of the measures, while in my view justified, may just result in a deaf ear to the more appropriate complaints over enacting such one-sided legislation.

As I pointed out in my earlier article, there are some elements in this package which simply go against the basic principles of English law, and even EU law, come to that. The very idea that the "recommendations" of the police ought to be accepted "nem. con" by the licensing committee smacks of totalitarianism.

The undermining of the appeals process by which the magistrates re-examine the decision of the committee and can substitute their own decision on the matter is a disgrace. It may well be that because this whole document smacks of a "think-tank" approach, this element may need to be modified when the lawyers get their hands on the proposed legislation.

But there is not a moment to waste. It is essential that on this occasion the licensed trade expresses its very real concerns across the board. The email address is: Alcohol.consultation@homeoffice.gsi.gov.uk​

No stamp is necessary! Get on your keyboards!