I WRITE to you as a local publican and secretary of the Wessex Region of the British Institute of Innkeep-ing with reference to your article on licensing.

While we fully support the proposed licensing reform, it has to be said the majority of our 16,000 members, and the majority of publicans nationally, are against the transfer of licensing control from magistrates to the local authority.

The object of the new Licensing Bill was to relax licensing and red tape, and allow the consumer more freedom to drink when and where they chose. However, it is becoming clear that the local authorities want more control than the proposals envisaged. Their proposals, to dictate who can open and who can't and when, is fundamentally against the spirit of the Draft Bill.

While it is true to say the majority of publicans are not interested in opening 24/7 nevertheless the Bill was supposed to provide that freedom. Councillor Bawden's comments clearly indicate that political interference, another worry for our members, will be actively pursued, another breach of the Bill's intentions.

I think Coun Bawden should tread carefully when questioning licensing extensions as the obvious question would be, why was sheltered housing built behind leisure outlets in the first place? Has the King's not been there for over a century?

I would re-iterate that the Bill fully supports the outdated Licensing Act, but our members are against the politicisation of the process which councils are seeking.

Your readers should make their feelings known to their MPs before what started as a deregulation of control becomes far more draconian.

R FEAL-MARTINEZ

Carpenters Arms

South Marston