No opposition to re-balancing

In spite of very well-argued criticism, it seems that the Government is determined to press ahead with its idea of 'strengthening' the position of local authorities in dealing with pubs, as if the sanctions and controls they have are not good enough already.

Even some of my local authority friends are somewhat bemused by this. They do not recognise the picture painted of them in Home Office and ministerial pronouncements — as scared lame ducks, unable to stop the progress of powerful, monolithic brewers and retailers as they corrupt the young and create mayhem on the streets.

They point to the range of sanctions already available, to the increased police powers, to the review system and the use of these powers regularly to suspend or revoke licences. They do not see themselves as lame at all, but they like to take a balanced view of what is going on.

Balance is not a political concept, it seems. Even in the House of Lords, which is currently considering the licensing stages of the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill (what is 'social responsibility', someone?), there is talk of wealthy drink sellers employing top barristers to come out from London to overturn democratic decisions — as if paying for a silk guaranteed you could re-write the law of the land.

That, to my mind, is absolute claptrap. The 'decision' is taken by a judge or by magistrates, based on the law, which in this country still requires conclusions reached by tribunals and committees to be fair and based on the evidence. Remove that and you have a kind of totalitarian control in which the whims and fancies of locally elected political people have complete control over business, and traders are never sure whether their venture is going to be approved or condemned.

I have commented before that I consider the proposals in this bill, although somewhat watered down from the original eye-popping Draconian ideas, still to represent a manipulation of the law and legal principles, so that the local licensing authority becomes effectively judge and jury in its own cause. It is, truth to tell, a very un-British concept, smacking of pre-revolution Eastern Europe. If the prosecutor decides on the verdict and the punishment, you have a very skewed view of justice.

Yet there are few voices raised against this move, even in the Lords, where a sense of justice might still be seen to be paramount. True, Lord Clement-Jones, that redoubtable campaigner, has had a few words to say about the manipulation of the wording of the Licensing Act and the lack of clarity this will bring.

But there is no sense that in the long run the Government will not get its way, and the so-called 're-balancing' will simply mean stronger controls by those local authorities who wish to impose them.

There is no sensible person in this trade who does not agree that controls over the sale of alcohol, especially to young people, are necessary and important for society. Similarly, controls over noise pollution and disturbance cannot simply be shelved or removed. But what concerns the responsible elements in the trade is the exercise of those controls in inappropriate situations by those whose agenda is entirely different, or the idea that the abuse of alcohol can somehow be relieved by re-working the licensing laws.

Changing control legislation is easy: dealing with the social problems of alcohol in the home and on the streets is far more complex and is quite outside the licensing laws.

It also seems to be quite outside the wit and wisdom of successive Governments to find a competent solution, short of prohibition — and we know how that turned out!