Well I knew it wouldn't be too
long before the current coalition government got back in to the swing of things
after their summer break and the diversions of foreign policy and the economic
situation lost their ability to stop ministers spouting utter nonsense.
Today, it has been reported the minister
responsible for crime prevention, Jeremy Browne, has revealed the government's
thinking on the future of Personal Licences having considered its extensive Alcohol
Strategy consultation responses. Earlier this year it was mooted the current
need to renew Personal Licences every ten years might be scrapped. Now the
honourable gentleman is proposing getting rid of Personal Licences altogether.
(For those not in the know, there
are two types of licence related to the sale of alcohol in the UK, the
aforementioned Personal Licence ensures individuals receive adequate training
to enable them to sell alcohol safely and responsibly, the second is the
Premises Licence which regulates how venues such as pubs and restaurant and
retail outlets such as off-licences and supermarkets are operated).
If you cast your mind back to
2003 when the current Licensing Act came into force there were, and are, four
principal Licensing Objectives, to wit (and in the order they are enacted):
1.the prevention of
crime and disorder
2.public safety
3.the prevention of
public nuisance
4.the protection of
children from harm
The minister should take note,
the area of government he should be principally concerned with, the prevention
of crime, is right up there at number one. Strange then, that his concern
should be the 'administrative and financial burden' on businesses which sell
alcohol. This ΓΌber-nuMPty reckons the move could save businesses around £10m a
year as the Government finds the
personal licence system may not always be the “most targeted and proportionate
way to ensure alcohol is sold responsibly, for example, all premises – from the
riskiest to the quietest – must comply with the system regardless of whether it
is locally appropriate or not”
So with a conservative estimate
of some 100,000 premises licensed to sell alcohol the 'saving' might be £100
per business. That's just under two quid a week, hardly a financial burden and
not a great amount to worry about 'saving' in the grand scheme of things. I
wonder if the minister has considered the "unintended consequences"
of his proposals? But what are they?
Well, I'm glad you've asked. The
consultation (into personal licensing) proposes enabling targeted, local alternatives to personal
licences through locally applied conditions to premises licences.(At the moment,
all alcohol sales must be authorised by a personal licence holder, who must
have completed training on the risks alcohol can present if handled
irresponsibly. They must also notify licensing authorities if they commit any
offence which suggests they may be unsuitable as a manager at licensed
premises.)
Browne said that the decision came
after "extensive discussions" with the trade, police and local
Government during the recent Alcohol Strategy consultation (sic) and he reckons
the saving would still allow licensing authorities to keep "a focus on
measures to tackle crime and disorder at licensed premises. This consultation
is an opportunity for licensing authorities, the licensed trade, police
officers and the general public to share their views on this proposal. In
particular, the Government is seeking views on whether it would cut costs for
businesses and maintain appropriate safeguards against crime and disorder at
licensed premises.”
Notwithstanding the continued focus and demonisation on the on-trade I wonder if Mr Browne, has carried out a full
cost-benefit analysis? I think the hospitality industry should insist one be carried out on this proposal as the switch, ten years
ago, from the old Justice's Licence system to the current licensing regime cost
the industry hundreds of millions of pounds to implement. Does the minister
think it would cost any less to needlessly re-jig licensing arrangements again?
Going back to his ministerial
brief, does the minister think removing the professional qualifications a
Personal Licence holder has to hold, the training licensees have to undergo
to achieve those qualifications and thence obtain their licence is going to do
anything to promote the four licensing objectives? Surely if one is serious about
lifting those in the pub trade from "trades (wo)man" status to that of professional practitioners who operate their businesses with the best standards of conduct and adherence to the law, then scrapping the de minimus requirements of the Personal Licence
isn't going to improve the situation.
There have long been rumblings
from local authorities, who are charged with administering our national alcohol
laws, for them to be allowed to set their own local licensing fees as opposed to
nationally imposed rates. If this ridiculous proposal comes into effect and
licensing is on a local basis with the myriad of regimes this will give birth
to then only one logical conclusion can be drawn and that is licensing costs
will sky-rocket as cash-strapped councils seek to further "monetise"
the licensing process.
And let's not stop there. Under
the current regime a Personal Licence holder can pretty well work anywhere in
the UK (with a
few minor variations in Scotland
and Northern Ireland).
There is one national qualification, one national set of criteria for obtaining
and retaining the Personal Licence, so how would several hundred individual
licensing regimes and requirements help keep costs down, let alone protect the
licensing objectives? How would this help the labour market? Surely it would
lead to less flexibility for individuals and businesses alike. I think Browne's colleagues in the DWP, the Department for Business and Industry, the Treasury,
Numbers 10 & 11 might have something to say if he knackers the free flow of
qualified licensees around the country. Even Lord Tebbit would be hard-pressed
to suggest licensees "get on their bikes" and go where the work is if
these barriers to free movement of labour are imposed.
What, pray minister, is your
proposal for the role of Designated Premises Supervisor (DPS) on existing
Premises Licences? At present the DPS is, what under the old system was the
"landlord" or "landlady", the person responsible for
ensuring licensing laws are adhered to. A DPS must, for now, hold a current Personal
Licence. So who will be responsible under your mad-cap proposals? A new
qualification and new licence for the DPS? How will this save businesses money?
Local councils will still have to administer some form of licence for those who
actually sell the booze, there will still need to be a minimum level of
training and there will still need to be an "examining board" to
ensure only those who pass the test get a licence. Who will pay for this? Who
will pay for the transitional costs? Well my guess is it'll be business and
ultimately their respective customers. Will there be a refund for the thousands of Personal Licence holders for not only their licence fees but the training they underwent?
Here's another thought, under the
existing arrangements the Premises Licence has been fairly well protected from
the short-comings of an individual DPS in the event of a review. What
protection will there be for owners such as freeholders and yes, even the
dreaded pubcos, who by and large hold the Premises Licences for their pubs and
bars? I for one can see the potential for huge costs for owners of licensed
premises when licences are lost on the football field of local council politics
and local police commissioners' re-election campaigns.
Clearly Mr Browne has not
considered the consequences of these proposals, perhaps he never had a wise old
grandmother to remind him that "if it ain't broke, don't fix it". Equally clear is that "joined up thinking" isn't part of the minister's vocabulary either. For,
imperfect as our licensing system might be now, think how completely bollixed
it'll be if the hospitality industry and the off-trade have to deal with any
number of variations. I can see the likes of Tim Martin having a nervous
breakdown as he tries to reconcile disparate licensing regimes to the needs of
his national pub empire. And pity the poor local government officers who have to implement any changes, imagine the (wo)man hours that'll go into dismantling the current system and building a new one.
I've maintained for some time
this government has a schizophrenic attitude to its Alcohol Strategy and Mr
Browne's latest wheeze does nothing to change my view. And to think I was doing
so well over the summer, I'd managed to reduce my intake of pills, I'd stripped
the padding out of my cell and nursey even had time for a well-deserved break.
Back to the drawing board on that one. Thanks a bunch Mr Browne.
Well at least I won't have to
change the motto on my coat of arms as it will firmly remain " Nutrix, medicina, nunc!"
No comments:
Post a Comment