Live Music Forum report - the government's reponse

Back in July the Live Music Forum (LMF) reported on how the licensing system should be improved to allow music to live, strive and survive in England and Wales. Five months later the government have responded. You were expecting maybe the cut and thrust of lively debate? Please, that's not the DCMS way.

So what have they said?

Well, they're going to "explore options for allowing certain low risk live music performances to be exempt from licensing requirements" with a consultation in the new year. The LMF's suggestion for defining 'incidental music' was ignored (or 'accepted in spirit') but that's fair enough because it wasn't that great.

The minor variations consultation is invoked a few times in the name of simplifying the application process and they say specifically that "it is very much our intention that applications to vary a licence for live music should be able to benefit from the new proposals".

There's a laugh out loud moment when they address the problem of over zealous or inconsistent Licensing Authority decisions. Get this - "There are several avenues through which applicants can take up grievances, whether it be through the formal appeals process, Judicial Review, Local authority ombudsman or simply through raising issues with their local councillor". Bearing in mind the problems highlighted were tiny groups of people not being able to sing folk songs above a pub due to the increased expense, whichever clown wrote that needs to take a deep breath and screw their head on the right way. Formal appeals process? Judicial review?! Do you know how much time and expense is involved in these? Good grief.

The marquee pledge is a £500,000 scheme to set up some community rehearsal spaces in the areas that need them most. Presumably that wouldn't include London where they could just lay off pirate radio stations for a while and achieve a similar thing at zero cost. Hmm, many a true word spoken in jest.

The rest of the response - working with the Mayor of London to maintain medium-sized venues in London and re-establishing the NUS live music network are applaudable but have nothing to do with licensing, which is what I'm interested in.

In fact, from a licensing point of view this reponse promises nothing new. Either steps have already been taken in the last re-write of the s.182 Guidance and for the rest there's a consultation on the way that will solve all problems. I'm less than convinced that everything is, or will soon be, in a satisfactory state on the licensing side of things. Stay tuned for a big, fat 'I told you so' in 2008.

Oh, and if you want to read the response in full here are some links. First to the press release and also to the PDF download page. Happy reading.

Share This Post

Committee debates s.182 Guidance

And so it came to pass in a committee room in the Palace of Westminster that a group of men declared the s.182 Guidance to be a bit rubbish in places but good enough for the time being. Isn't politics at the cutting edge exciting?

Ok, so a little more was said. There was praise for clearing up the concept of 'vicinity' and for stating that councillors are allowed to discuss licensing matters. Also, spelling out that there's no presumption in favour of trading hours being extended was seen as a good thing.

There was some confusion as a result of the minor variations consultation announced yesterday. To be fair I can see how it arose but I don't think it's of sufficient importance to go into here. Suffice to say that there's a query over whether, if you're making changes to your premises' layout of a sort that wouldn't be shown on the plans under the Act's plan requirements, whether a variation application is needed. There is then a further query as to whether this may in fact constitute a 'minor variation' scheme already in operation.

There were three substantial criticisms of the Guidance.

1. Live music. Incidental music is still defined too vaguely to be of any practical use and this is leading Licensing Authorities to err on the side of caution. There were calls for the 2-in-a-bar rule to be reinstated and/or to have an exemption for small venues or unamplified music.

Also, the gov.t's lack of response to the Live Music Forum's report was noted. As was the apparent disapprearance of the British Market Research Bureau's look into live music. Finally, elaboration on Lord Davies' statement in the House of Lords on 15 Oct 2007 that "other proposals that may benefit live music" are being looked into by the DCMS was reguested.

2. The Personal Licence Holders Register. Essentially the question was "where is it?" as the Guidance states that the gov.t aims to set one up according to the Guidance.

3. Drinks promotions. The Guidance seems a little confused in this area and the reason seems to be to do with competition law. The current situation is that LA's can't promote a ban on cut price drinks/happy hours developed at local level, although they can encourage participation with industry-wide voluntary codes, even if neighbouring LA's are not. This was described as a 'farce' which is fair enough.

Gerry Sutcliffe got to stick up for the Guidance and the Act in general a bit, although he spent far too long bandying statistics around. Surely no-one listens to, let alone believes statistics these days, or is it just me? Anyway, his comments can be boiled down thusly:

• A response to the Live Music Forum's report is coming soon. That's soon in "gov.t terms" so don't hold your breath.
• He conceded (just) that "there may be instances in which there is an unintended or disproportionate impact on certain types of venue or activity" which was big of him.
• Research examining the extent and frequency of live music in licensed premises should be available at the end of the year and this will be comparable against baseline figures from 2004.
• They are currently consulting on minor variations
• They are currently consulting on a measure for village and community halls to obtain a licence to cover all activities rather than having to apply for TENs all the time. Correct me if I'm wrong but I thought the only change here is that those places won't have to have a DPS. It's not exactly revolutionary.
• No-one seems to want a Personal Licence Holders Register so for the time being they're not going to bother with one.
  
• A consultation in early 2008 will ask whether de minimis licensing activities (which could include live music in some circumstances) should be exempt from licensing.
  

The last of these is the most interesting of the lot and will make for very interesting reading indeed.

There was a little more said but, unless you relish the site of politicians flinging statistics at each other then I think I've covered the main things here. The full text is available here for the masochists out there.

Finally, on a lighter note (newsreader cliché ahoy) there was a joke which just about merits repeating. Mr Vaizey (Wantage) (Con) picked up on a typo in para 8.11 of the Guidance:

councillors who are not themselves interested parties or representing interesting parties may wish to be kept informed

and went on "I should like to know why there has been a change from “interested” to “interesting” parties. The Minister has left the law wide open to subjective interpretation, as councillors may from now on ignore representations from boring white, middle-aged men in suits and ties, whereas those made by people wearing cargo pants and T-shirts may be taken more seriously."

I bet they were rolling in the aisles.

Share This Post

LA03 - minor variations consultation cont.

Right, these are my knee-jerk, as-they-occur thoughts on the minor variations consultation, or “Legislative Reform Order, Proposal to Introduce a Simplified Process for Minor Variations to Premises Licences and Club Premises Certificates” as they call it.

Q1. Do you agree that the requirement for licence holders to apply for a variation to make small, low risk changes to their licences represents a burden as defined in section 1 of the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Act 2006?

Yes, without a doubt.

Q2. Do you agree with this broad definition of a ‘minor variation? If not, please explain why and give an alternative.

The definition given is “any change to a premises licence or club premises certificate which will not impact adversely on the promotion of the licensing objectives.”

This is the tricky one. There are 3 options here but option 3 is rubbish and dealt with separately by Q4.

Option 1 - Leave it to licensing authorities to decide whether a variation is ‘minor’ within the broad parameters described above and having regard to general criteria and case studies provided in the Guidance.

Option 2 - Amend the Act to introduce a new minor variations process as above, but constrain licensing authority discretion by specifying on the face of the Act which variations should be included in and/or excluded from a minor variations process.

The first option would give flexibility and allow Licensing Authorities to exercise some common sense, which I’m sure they’d welcome, although differing approaches nationwide are undesirable. However, at worst all this will do is validate the position of the ‘pragmatists’ and lessen the chance of any come-back on the councils who are trying to be helpful. I can see the more cautious councils deciding time after time that variation applications should be submitted to the full process

I have to say I’m very wary of the second option. Bearing in mind the way the Act and the related forms were drafted (hint – look up cock-up in the dictionary) I just don’t trust them to come up with a decent, workable list of specific minor variations.

I can’t think of anything better at the moment so for now this question gets a ‘yes’ from me.

Q3. Do you agree that the risk to the promotion of the four licensing objectives from minor variations to licences does not justify the current level of control afforded by sections 34-36 and 84-86 of the Licensing Act 2003?

Yes, without a doubt.

Q4. Do you agree that Option 3 – No Change – should be rejected? If not, please give your reasons.

Yes. Doing nothing would be ridiculous. I’m certain even the person who drafted the Licensing Act would admit change is needed

So I think on balance I’m fine with what they’re suggesting – it’s an improvement on the current system at least. To be honest I’m more interested in the practicalities. How much will the fees be? What sort of minor variations would the Guidance mention? Have they employed someone smart enough to test out the form they draft?

I'm going to have a think about Q2 though. Would it be better to name a couple of specific minor variations and then have a flexible catch-all? What would you name specifically? I've tried to think of a few things but have got myself into a small tangle so maybe a broad definition would be better with clarification in the Guidance.

Hmm. Something to chew on there. Oh, and I promise the next post will have at least one photo with it.

Share This Post

Licensing Act 2003 - minor variations consultation

The DCMS have just released a consultation document looking at allowing minor variations to Premises Licences and Club Premises Certificates. Finally.

A huge problem with the Licensing Act 2003 is that in order to make an alteration to a licence it is necessary to follow a process that, in terms of time and cost, is similar to applying for the licence all over again.

The issue of minor variations arises most often when someone is looking to change the layout of their premises. It may simply be a case of extending a counter, removing a partition or carrying out DDA works – why should they pay through the nose to for an application when the work is of such trifling significance?

For some time now there’s been a marked difference between how Licensing Authorities have dealt with the issue of minor variations with two camps:

1. The pragmatists, who would rather there was some flexibility in the law to allow inconsequential amendments, especially to plans, to pass without comment. They only wish to be told of the amendment made, preferably with copies of updated plans to be sent to the responsible authorities.

2. The fundamentalists, who follow the letter of the law to the word and demand a variation to account for every little change made to plans attached to licences. Their entirely reasonable view is that they’re charged with administering the Licensing Act 2003 and nothing authorises them to step outside that legislation, however much they would like to.

The problem is that, when deciding whether to let a minor variation pass a Licensing Authority is leaving itself open to criticism/complications/judicial review if someone turns round at a later date and says that they believe a variation interferes with the licensing objectives in some way and they would have objected given the chance. A formalised procedure for minor variations might provide some protection from judicial review but I can imagine caution being the watchword, especially by the historically ‘fundamentalist’ authorities.

Ok, so I’ve explained what the position is, I’m now going to have a proper read through of the consultation document and see how (or if) they’ve dealt with everything.

Share This Post

Happy 2nd Birthday LA03!

Yay! Happy birthday and, as my parents used to say to me, well done for making it this far.

But how much further will our beloved Act make it? Are changes afoot? Well, we might get an inkling in the coming week. As previously reported the s182 Guidance is up for consideration by the Delegated Legislation Committee. That's happening on 29 November at 8.55am in Room 9 (pop in if you're about).

We'll see what comes of that and go from there I suppose. I've still not picked up on the reasoning behind the Guidance being sent there in the first place. If anyone knows then please let me know in the comments.

Photo by Pink Sherbert Photography via Flickr.

Share This Post

Will the s182 Guidance be up for reconsideration?

Ah, now this is interesting, although it does show me up slightly. Having just said that the govt's standard procedure on anything alcohol-related is to refer to their pending review (which Gordon Brown did have the kindness to do in the Commons this morning) they've now gone a step further.

Check this out from today's House of Commons order of business:

Ms Harriet Harman - That the Guidance issued under section 182 of the Licensing Act 2003, which was laid before this House on 28th June, in the last Session of Parliament, be referred to a Delegated Legislation Committee.

Which means what then? Well, according to the Financial Times "A Downing Street spokesman said ministers were “actively considering” a tightening of legislation to defuse growing criticism from opposition MPs, health experts and police.""

So how does sending the Guidance off to a committee achieve that? From what I know of Delegated Legislation Committees they will be charged with quickly debating the Guidance and then have to report back to the Commons that they have done so. I think the Commons can reject the Guidance if they want but what would this achieve?

The Guidance is simply that - guidance for the Licensing Authorities and the Police to follow in the discharge of their duties. It can't override or modify the Licensing Act itself or the Regulations. Licensing Authorities must have regard to it but must deviate from it where necessary (eg when it was riddled with mistakes not so long ago).

Interestingly, there's nothing in the Licensing Act that refers to the hours premises can carry out licensable activities, there's just no barrier to applying for 24 hours a day. Could a revised Guidance put a barrier there? What about the premises that already have extended hours? Surely amending their licences would require some more serious legislative moves.

I'll be watching with interest.

Share This Post

Public Health: ethical issues

A report was published by the Nuffield Council on Bioethics today. It's job was to "consider the responsibilities of governments, individuals and others in promoting the health of the population."

Their conclusion was that, left to their own devices, people do not lead healthy lives and that there needs to be some state intervention to help people make healthy choices. The Council looked at four case studies obesity, infectious diseases, fluoridation of water and (the reason I'm typing this) alcohol consumption and smoking.

It's an interesting report actually. It's been put together by a bunch luminaries including doctors, health economists, lawyers, philosophers and other experts. There's a lot of professors listed which is always reassuring. They've come up with the 'Stewardship model"

They recognise that some public measures are intrusive in their nature and considers the ethical issues involved in deciding in what circumstances those measures should be used.

As far as the govt's alcohol strategy is concerned this bit is quite damning:

the Government’s alcohol strategy has focused on public information campaigns and voluntary labelling schemes – measures that have been shown not to be effective.

and as an (effective) alternative the report recommends "increasing taxes on alcoholic beverages and restricting hours of sale". Of course, the govts current stock response is to refer to the pending review and change the subject.

The Sun have jumped on this in their amusingly shrill fashion and the Guardian have reported on this too. If you want to have a read of the reports for yourself (and they are pretty interesting - maybe just read the 'short guide' if you're busy) then you can download them here.

Share This Post

Licensing statistics released

These came out yesterday but unfortunately my phone and internet connection stopped working for 24 hours. Coincidence? You decide.

Anyway, there are plenty of spreadsheets to get one's teeth into here - spreadsheets - and for some other links go and check out the DCMS press release, also regurgitated by the Morning Advertiser.

I'm going to have a look through these over the weekend, but in the meantime shake your head wearily after reading some MPs desperate to get their names in the papers - here. Do their criticisms add anything to the debate? No, of course not, but that's politics for you. Perhaps they need reminding that Tory and Lib Dem councilors sit on Licensing Committees too.

These figures have all been taken from Licensing Authorities. What I'd like to see (and I don't know if it'd be possible) is some sort of comparison between the number of offences committed by these evil 24 hour drinking establishments as a percentage of the whole and how these compare to places with standard hours. My feeling is that the places licensed 24 hours are less likely to attract offences, either because of the sort of premises they are (hotels, offices, airports make up a big chunk) or because they're throttled by conditions.

Anyway, I'll have a wade through and report back on the interesting bits.

By the way, the picture is by Clint M Chilcott and is titled Cheese Bar Graph. No, it doesn't make much sense but have you tried finding an interesting photo to accompany a piece on stats?

Share This Post

Licence offences - press round-up

I've been meaning to do this for a little while now and might make it a semi-regular feature. Stories about people being caught carrying on licensable activities other than in accordance with their Premise Licence (or any licence) appear in the press on an almost daily basis.

The main alcohol-related offences are selling to under 18's, selling without a licence and tipping (substituting branded spirits for cheap, unbranded ones).

The following stories have been harvested from a search of Google News using the search term 'alcohol licence'. Stories are from the past 7 days only. Even a fairly limited search turned up the following:

• Pubs face checks on cheap spirits swop (Coventry Telegraph)
• Shop banned from selling alcohol (Basingstoke Gazette)
• Shop loses licence for selling booze to teen (Reading Chronicle)
• Walton store loses booze licence after underage sales (Wimbledon Guardian)
• Neighbours bid to cut club's hours (News & Star, Carlisle)
• Brothers' shop closes after booze sale ban (icBerkshire)
• Off-licence caught out in underage booze crackdown (The Asian News)
• Shop loses drink licence (Milton Keynes Citizen)

A gentle reminder, in case one were needed, that operating outside the terms of a Premises Licence is a really bad idea. Publicity of this kind is bad but it's the loss of livelihood in several of these cases that should really drive the point home.

Share This Post

Children & alcohol: Britain's latest scare story

"It's amazing that the amount of news that happens in the world every day always just exactly fits the newspaper" - Jerry Seinfeld's words, not mine. You can generally get an idea of whether anything important is happening by comparing the story on the front page; if everyone's leading with the same thing it's important. If everyone's got something different then there's nothing much going on.

On the latter type of day you'll find the Independent resorting to trying to scare people. The last memorable one was to do with the rising strength of cannabis, a story swiftly and effectively ridiculed by the excellent Ben Goldacre in his article Reefer Badness.

Today that same paper presents us with Children & alcohol: Britain's deadly cocktail. Please forgive my scepticism as yet another scare story is thrown at us, especially as this one looks rather similar to the last. Compare the first sentence of the cannabis story:

Record numbers of teenagers are requiring drug treatment as a result of smoking skunk

with the first sentence of the alcohol story:

Record numbers of children are in treatment for alcohol abuse

Both stories written by Jonathan 'template' Owen, incidentally. Now, I've looked for the statistics to see if there's been any more funny business but the paper seems to have an advance copy so I can't do that. Which is a shame - after the Indy's last foray into this sort if thing it'd be reassuring to know that they're not making it all up this time.

The main figures used show an increase in under-18s in alcohol treatment programmes from 2006 to 2007. The stated causes of this rise are predictable enough - celebrities, lack of understanding by children about long-term detrimental effects, higher incomes (for children?) and promotions making alcohol more affordable, increased accessibility and scarce alternatives to drinking. Speculation on other factors in this is not possible without the statistics to hand - availability of treatment programmes would be the obvious one. Actually the oldest figures quoted are from 2005 - we're not exactly given the chance to judge trends here.

As far as licensing goes, the bit that got my pedantic goat (let the image sit a while) is this:

Although still in its infancy, there are already 3,000 premises licensed for 24-hour drinking. Government thinking on 24-hour drinking is being reviewed amid fears that the promotion of cheap alcohol is leading to more alcohol abuse

The point they're trying to make is (I think) to do with increased accessibly of alcohol. Consider how many hotels there are in the country. Now how many of them must not have the usual residents' exemption if the figure is only 3,000? Some of those 3,000 premises are office buildings licensed 24 hours just in case the poor sods who have to work in them finish a big deal at 4am; others are (landside) airport lounges and other quirky little places like that. Once those places have been considered (not havens of underage binge-drinking, I hope we can agree) then how many of these evil 24-hour outlets are we left with? There are of course a few 24-hour shops about - often not dedicated off-licences, but convenience stores or supermarkets. I live in one of the biggest Licensing Authority areas in England & Wales and still I can count the number of them on one hand. One of them's actually my local shop and I've never seen anyone buy alcohol there (although I'm sure it's happened), let alone anyone underage.

Anyway, is this point about '24 hour drinking' (a term that cries out 'I'm a journalist who doesn't know what he/she is talking about) making alcohol more accessible to under-18s valid. Are kids more likely to buy alcohol after 11pm? Really? Is there a report that backs that up? And while we're at it, I'll be where does the seemingly automatic correlation between 24 hour alcohol licences and cheap alcohol come from?

Anyway, as far as I'm concerned the article's just the latest in a line of youth-demonising scare stories. It's alcohol this time, it was cannabis last time. Before that we had the terror of jumpers with hoods on - I'm actually wearing a hoodie right now but not (yet) considering mugging an old lady. Really, the law of diminishing marginal returns is at work here, no matter what the validity of the message.

Another problem I have is that it's Alcohol Concern's annual meeting on 7 November. They have a new report that apparently recommends setting up a regulatory watchdog for the drinks industry and "will call on the Government to set aside £1.6bn ... to tackle the (underage drinking) crisis". We know there's a crisis because we saw it in the paper.

So what's my angle on this? Well, I help people apply for alcohol licences. That isn't to say that I'm an advocate for absolute liberalisation of drinking laws. It's my job to tell clients what they can and can't do as far as their licence is concerned. My advice is always to stick rigidly to the letter of the law and obey the terms of your licence, and whatever you do don't sell to kids.

Some children are likely to have a problem with alcohol and they need help. Charities such as Rainer, the NSPCC, Alcohol Concern and others do excellent work in this area. However, this is yet another scare story from a discredited lineage and has a slight (I'm sure well-meaning) taint of money about it. I just don't like it.

Share This Post

New PSA for reducing alcohol-related harm

Policy documents aren't a favourite of mine, but this one is alcohol-related and touches on licensing so here goes.

Alcohol Policy UK have flagged up the new Public Service Agreement aimed at reducing alcohol-related harm in the spending period 2008-2011. To gauge whether this is being achieved the govt will measure:

1. The percentage change in the number of drug users recorded as being in effective treatment;
2. The rate of hospital admissions per 100,000 for alcohol-related harm;
3. The rate of drug related offending;
4. The percentage of the public who perceive drug use or dealing to be a problem in their area; and
5. The percentage of the public who perceive drunk or rowdy behaviour to be a problem in their area.

Whether the targets are realistic, achievable and so on I really don't know. The reason I raise this is because the 'delivery strategy' (ugh, please) for achieving the above goals has three strands, one of which states that:

the laws and licensing powers introduced to tackle alcohol-fuelled crime and disorder, protect young people and bear down on irresponsibly managed premises need to be used widely and effectively

Which seems to suggest the belief that licensing powers are not currently being used widely and effcetively enough, perhaps meaning there will be an increase in Licensing Authority enforcement budgets.

What occurs to me is that this might be a rather clever subsidy for Licensing Authorities, some of which are feeling hard-pushed under their current budgets. Despite this, there's currently a review of licensing fees going on and the general feeling is that (and my sources are purely anecdotal) fees can't rise very much, if at all. In this situation I'm sure an allocation for licensing enforcement from elsewhere would be most welcome.

Here are some links to the PDF of the PSA and a PDF overview from Ranzetta Consulting (the people behind the Alcohol Policy UK blog).

Share This Post

Temporary Event Notices? Rubbish.

A timely warm-up to something I intend to post on shortly. Chris Maclean, blogger of sorts for The Publican, has had to apply for some TENs and is less than impressed by the new 'light touch' the regime affords them. He has 14 events to apply for and describes the process thus:

Today I have downloaded the 10-page TEN document, omitted the four unnecessary pages and copied them four times for each application – two for the council and one each for me and the police. So that is 56 forms, 336 pages in all. They then have to be correlated. Each form has 63 questions. That is 3,528 questions that have to be answered. Because the envelopes are so vast they exceed the postage limits. The bill for the photocopying and postage stamps alone was £34.03. And with TENs costing £21 apiece the cost of today’s licences is in excess of £320.

Compared to the old system under which letters to the mags and police plus a £10 fee would have accomplished the same.

Poor Chris should count himself lucky he hasn't had to contend with licensing authorities refusing to accept TENs signed by solicitors on behalf of clients, confusion regarding the notice period or the council (is there more than one?) that bizarrely insists on producing a special certificate rather than signing and dating the 2nd TEN they're sent.

Summing up the shoddiness of the TEN form, Chris points out:

"for me, the crowning glory is the simple fact that it isn’t until page two you find out where the event is and page three before you find out when"

As easy as it is to think of government workings in the abstract we should remember that someone got up one morning, had their breakfast, went to work, sat down and designed this form. And the DPS consent form. And the licence application forms. Is this person proud of their work? Are they even aware of the problems they've caused to people all over the country? Of all the expletives muttered in their direction?

Presumably their work was checked by someone too but it took Chris Maclean a matter of moments to spot the problems. I know the forms are due to be mentioned in the upcoming review - can the guy that designed them be given something else to do.

Chris's full rant can be found - here.

Share This Post

Awful press release says PM to "look again" at licensing laws

The PMs widely reported remarks about binge/underage drinking have today been released in the form of a press release. It's rubbish and yes, I could do better. I'm in a mood having done something very nasty to my big toenail (and carpet as a result) so I'm going to vent some irritation.

Two lines stand out:

Shops that sell alcohol to those who are under age face having their licences taken away, the Prime Minister announced today.

and

the PM announced plans to "look again" at licencing (sic) laws that allow 24-hour opening hours for some pubs and clubs.

Now forgive me for mounting my pedantic hobby horse here, but if I don't point out what's wrong here then who will?

1. The first quote. Am I missing something? Is this new? From what I can tell plenty of councils are getting into the swing of prosecutions quite nicely. If you get the licensing-related stories from Google News every day (yes, I do - I'm a geek) then you'll see local papers regularly reporting on licences being forfeited. What do the hard-working council licensing officers think about this comment - glad of the support or hacked off at being told to get off their backsides and take some scalps?

2. What have opening hours got to do with it? Most pubs and clubs, certainly those with Premises Licences converted
from the old regime, are permitted to open 24 hours a day. That's not
what they mean here though is it? Hours for opening and providing licensable activities are not
one and the same.

3. Exactly how many pubs and clubs are open, let alone serving alcohol, 24 hours a day? Hmm? I can't name my nearest one and it's the sort of thing I make it my business (as opposed to pleasure) to know.

4. There's a typo - it's licensing, not licencing. I know that and so does my spellchecker.

Would it be so hard to find someone working in the government to check over what's being released? There must be someone there who understands licensing law. Feel free to insert your own snide comment.

Anyway, so far so uninformative from me. What does Mr Brown mean by 'looking again' at the Licensing Act? Bearing in mind that the Act was brought in at huge expense and disruption to a large number of industries what are they going to do? Of course there's the review taking place at the moment, due by the end of the year. Maybe he's warming people up for the changes to be suggested then.

The thing is, that report's expected to contain mainly technical changes such as improving the application forms, setting a single date for annual fees and altering the application advertisement requirements. In other words nothing that would be noticed very much by the public at large. However, some legislative changes will be required so maybe it'd be a chance to slip in some other measures.

It's hard to see what those measures could be though. Mr Brown's comments seemed to imply toughening enforcement but the current measures are pretty extensive. So as far as licensing is concerned the bit about not hesitating to change policy if it's 'in the interests of the country' just doesn't seem very likely from where I'm sitting.

In fact to my ears it sounds like a case of 'Talkin' Loud and Sayin' Nothing'. Still it makes for a strongly worded press release doesn't it?

Technorati Tags: licensing, gordon brown, binge drinking, underage drinking

Powered by ScribeFire.

Share This Post

Many a true word spoken in jest

There's not a lot happening in licensing news at the moment. If it carries on like this then I'm going to have to post up one of my many rants on the LA03, I'll just pick an infuriating grey area at random.

For the time being the Morning Advertiser has picked up on some excellent comments by Nick Palmer, the Labour MP for Broxtoe (that's Nottingham-ish) which I thought I'd bring up, mainly because it made me laugh (in a geeky, licensing insider way). Essentially, Mr Palmer floated an idea in his recent newsletter (here) of introducing a 'drinking licence' for 18-21 year olds that could be taken away if the holder was "cautioned or convicted or given an ASBO".

The best bit is the comment that "it would explicitly target problem drinkers while leaving others to enjoy a drink without government interference" (my gleeful emphasis).

The MA article says that residents have since pointed out the obvious flaws and 'the MP has since chosen to shelve plans for drinking licences'. Which is a shame, they should've egged him on a bit to see how far he'd have taken the idea. I mean really, what on earth was he thinking? Free publicity I suppose. From someone with a regulatory reform remit it's a bit worrying.

The reason this made me chuckle was that around the time of the transition period (mid-2005) there was a joke email going round with what was apparently a consultation document on the next stage of government licensing policy. The idea was that everyone in England and Wales would have to apply for their own 'drinking licence'. Oh, how we laughed...

Incidentally if anyone reading this has a copy of that email could you send it over? Ta.

Powered by ScribeFire.

Share This Post

Gambling news (yawn) and something about qualifications

It's been a little while since the last post but that's only because nothing newsworthy has been going on in the licensing world. The soap opera concerning the Premises Licence review at Jane Seymour's pad has been gleefully reported in some quarters but I'm declaring myself above that.

Instead, as of midnight tonight, children and vulnerable people will be better protected, crime will be cut and games will be kept fair. Praise be to the Gambling Act 2005! Rejoice! Etc!

Now, I don't want to cover gambling too much on this blog because, quite frankly, it doesn't interest me. I don't like the thought of having to learn about a new Act to see what's changed but I suppose I'll get around to it when it suits. That's fine for me, but pity the poor beleaguered local authorities - the Act will be

empowering more than 1500 licensing officers (alongside 50 specialist Gambling Commission compliance officers) to inspect gambling premises to enforce the new laws.

Which for those authorities still struggling to issue Premises Licences almost two years on (naming no names, I'm not that heartless) is surely not good news for any of the parties concerned.

There's more information on this momentous event via a DCMS Press Release and a barely more informative Media Fact Pack.

In other, more interesting, news - a comment piece in the Guardian's Education section has come to my attention. I've never really considered the meaning of the name given to every Personal Licence holder's favourite qualification but this journalist has.

As you'll know it's called the Level 2 National Certificate for Personal Licence Holders. Well, it seems that a 'Level 2' qualification is meant to be equivalent to a GCSE at grade A*-C. Seeing as how one of the government's policies is to get everyone qualified to this 'Level 2' the journalist queries whether this really is an equivalent qualification and

If it is, my advice to the government is to dump the demanding GCSE, with the endless study it involves, and put everyone in for the level 2 national certificate for personal licence holders. At a stroke - well, it would need a few days - the government will have achieved quite a large part of its aim to get everyone qualified to level 2. Our skills profile will have improved internationally and we'll have a substantial pool of skilled people to call on to help sell alcohol.

He's got a point y'know.

Share This Post

A little knowledge is a dangerous thing

Public debate is to be broadly welcomed, I sincerely hope I'm not dividing opinion by saying that. However, when the mass media get hold of a topic that you have some awareness of it's very frustrating to see the most basic of facts get mangled. This was the case in 2005 when the Daily Mail lead the charge against '24-hour drinking'. In many of the stories printed (and the Daily Wail wasn't alone in this) the basic facts were plain wrong, which meant that the public at large was ill-informed on a subject of some importance.

I haven't commented on the recent flare up of angst over underage drinking because generally I'd like to use this blog to highlight things that are important from a licensing authority/solicitor/practitioner's point of view. I've been provoked into sniping at one particular addition to the debate having had the misfortune to stumble across this on the letters page of one of today's eminent Sunday newspapers:

Sir - Police have the power to control drunkenness in the streets.

The terms of a premise's licence are that a licensee should not serve anyone who is drunk. If the police see a landlord serving a customer who has consumed too much alcohol, they can oppose the renewal of his licence.This would tighten up immoderate consumption of drink.

(Name withheld to spare the writer's blushes when Googling his own name)

Hopefully if you're one of the few people in the country to whom this blog is aimed then the mistakes and wrong-thinking will jump off the page at you.

• 'Should' - ok, woolly as it is I'll let that go.
• 'Renewal' though? That's going to be a long wait.
• 'Terms of a premise's licence'? Surely that'd be a duplication of pre-existing legislation?
• The assumption that anyone drunk in the street has been in a pub/bar? I can name some who'd take vigorous issue with that.

Maybe I'm splitting hairs but surely if someone wants to spout forth on a topic, telling the police how to do their job in such a high-minded manner you should know what you're talking about? I don't want to limit debate to the few specialists in a given area but unless lay people educate themselves to the issues they're only going to get slapped down by anyone who does have an inkling of what they're talking about. For such a short letter it really does show a horrendous lack of knowledge of the matter - and it gets printed!

Best of all though, is the idea that the police have the manpower to spend their evenings rounding up each one of these drunk people (who, lest we forget are in the streets at this point) and finding out where they might have been served alcohol at a point when they were already intoxicated - surely a nigh-unpoliceable offence if ever there was one. Yes, I'd like a front-row seat to that show, please.


Technorati Tags: licensing, licensing act 2003, bad reporting, media, premises licence

Powered by ScribeFire.

Share This Post

Premises licences at risk in Avon & Somerset

Police in Avon & Somerset have issued an exasperated-sounding warning to premises licence holders in the area. This follows the disappointing results of a round of test purchases to catch those selling alcohol to under 18's.

The figures don't make for pretty reading:

• Of 36 on-licensed premises (excuse the sloppy terminology - you know what I mean) 67% failed.
• Of 38 off-licences checked 39% failed the test.

Which is funny, because I keep hearing a lot of blame being thrown in the direction of the off-trade for this sort of thing. Childish 'on' vs 'off' name-calling is one of my little bugbears - it's blinkered thinking of the worst kind. The point is that there seem to be a significant number of licensed premises in the Somerset & Avon area that need to clean their acts up, especially with the police being given more and more enforcement powers under recent legislation.

Superintendant Gary Davies summed up the police's position on this saying "With continually disappointing results like these we are going to have to consider revoking the licenses of certain premises. I urge licensees to respond to our plea to improve standards. We want to work with the licensing trade but with these results tougher enforcement is becoming the only option."

Letters have gone out to all licensed premises in the area to inform everyone of the police's hardening attitude.

Full story on the Avon & Somerset Constabulary website - here.

Photo by Andy Welsh via Flickr.


Technorati Tags: premises licence, avon and somerset, police, licensing, alcohol, entertainment, enforcement, test purchase, under-age drinking

Powered by ScribeFire.

Share This Post

Licensing minister Gerry Sutcliffe speaks

The Morning Advertiser has an interview with our erstwhile licensing minister, the full text of which is here. The most interesting points for me are:

1. A DCMS response to the Independent Licensing Fees Review Panel's report will be out at the end of the summer with any proposals to be consulted on. That report came out back in January - expect this one to drag...
2. There's an amusing claim that the Act will reduce bureaucracy. Presumably the proposals mentioned above will be pretty far-reaching.
3. It sounds like application forms and advertising requirements will be simplified.
4. A commitment to looking for a new process for 'minor variations'.
5. No guarantees about a universal annual fee date but they are assessing the implications. This may well be consulted on with the fee level proposals.
6. A DCMS evaluation of the Licensing Act is expected at the end of the year. Expect this one to drag...

There are questions on gambling in pubs, and a few questions on MA hobby horses (the smoking ban and blaming the off-trade for everything) that are batted aside. It looks like it was a written interview so although there was no scope for following up any questions at least the answers seem to be considered.



Technorati Tags: gerry sutcliffe, licensing, interview, licensing minister, morning advertiser, licence fees, minor variations, consultation

Powered by ScribeFire.

Share This Post

Cansei de Ser Sexy - Alcohol

Ok, something a little more light-hearted and just about on-topic (but only barely). If you've not discovered the charming Cansei de Ser Sexy yet then here's a nudge in their direction with the video for their latest single 'Alcohol'. See? Alcohol and entertainment - I told you it was (just about) on-topic.

It's not on-message as far as responsible drinking goes but it does feature dancing bunnies and you can't have everything. If you get the chance to see CSS live then I heartily recommend it because they're a heck of a lot of fun. For more info about them follow this link to their myspace.

Share This Post

Free alcohol gets the chop

Telling clients they can't do what they'd like to do isn't fun (usually) but it's a very necessary part of being an advisor/solicitor/whatever in the world of licensing. Keeping clients on the right side of the tracks is what we're there for.

Sometimes it's difficult though. A generally accepted criticism of the Licensing Act 2003 is the disproportionate burden it places on businesses (especially small ones) where the provision of licensable activities is a minor part of the overall operation. A particular example of this came to my attention recently.

I was contacted by a hairdresser who, in addition to offering complimentary tea, coffee and soft drinks, also offered a glass of wine to customers. At most this amounted to a few glasses a month but with some hair treatments taking time to complete she believed it was important for her customers to feel well looked after and pampered.

There had been a misunderstanding though, and I'm sure that she was not alone in this. As far as she was concerned the alcohol was given away for free, so no licence was required. However, with customers paying for the service they receive at the salon, the law takes a different view - the cases of DPP v McVitie and Doak v Bedford (citations on request) established that principle long ago. The test that has evolved is this - 'would any person walking in off the street and not paying for a service be entitled to a free drink?'. The answer here would surely be no.

So the advice has to be either apply for a licence or stop giving away alcohol and I suspect that most salons would be forced choose the latter, to the sole detriment of their customers. I say forced because the cost of applying for a premises licence (council fee, advert, plans, any advisors' fees) as well as the cost of at least one personal licence is unlikely to be covered by any extra business from the wine offer.

That said, there are those for whom having an alcohol licence will make good business sense. Jacks of London make a bar an integral part of their branches and the salons at the highest end, some of which serve food as well, will see an alcohol licence as necessary for offering the highest levels of customer service.

It's tough to see who benefits from this approach though. How many of the country's hairdressers are likely to become centres for crime, disorder, public nuisance and be of potential harm to the public and, in particular, children by giving away the odd glass of wine? The salons' impact on the licensing objectives is surely negligible at most.

Hair and beauty salons aren't the only sorts of business that are affected in this way, just the most recent example to come to my attention. The problem was flagged in the Better Regulation Task Force's report of April 2006 (PDF), let's hope some sense can be knocked into the Act at some point.

Powered by ScribeFire.

Share This Post

News roundup

There are a couple of interesting items on the Publican and Morning Advertiser websites at the moment.

The Publican covers a report from the Department of Health that "nearly all businesses are complying with the (smoking) ban". 97% of premises inspected in the first couple of weeks of the ban were properly smoke-free. Although there was criticism of the gov.t's advertising of the ban prior to 1 July the message, at least as far as the start date was concerned, seems to have got across.

I've not taken a look at the report myself but would suspect (from my general wanderings) that the percentage of premises showing the correct signage is less impressive. That seemed to be a common problem when Eleanor Goodman from The Publican spent a day with a smokefree officer (is that really their title?) inspecting premises in Herne Bay and Canterbury.

Meanwhile, over at the Morning Advertiser there's news of what sounds like rather over-zealous policing by the Merseyside Police. There's a few interesting aspects to the story involving the closure of the New Market in Newton-le-Willows in particular:

1. Carrying out sting operations on Friday evenings when the relevant Council department is closed until the following Monday;
2. Use of the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001 to order closure of the premises - "a complete abuse of the legal powers under the 2001 Act" as Peter Coulson points out; and
3. Whether the premises had in fact failed to "adopt and adhere to" the Challenge 21 age-check policy.

To expand on that last point, serving alcohol to an under-18 is an offence under the Licensing Act, fair enough. However, Challenge 21 policies are less absolute and in fact have a very subjective basis so it must be very hard to prove that one is not being adhered to - particularly if you're going to use it as the basis to close premises. Essentially the policy is only as good as the barstaff's perception - if the staff in this case said they thought the customer looked over 21 then there's no problem as far as adherence to a licence condition imposing the policy is concerned. I'm sure training could help but really, what does the average 21 year old look like?

Of course there may be other factors here that we're not aware of. As is often the case there is an element of confusion - in this case the police have denied saying that the premises must close over the whole weekend.

As far as the Challenge 21 policy is concerned, if it has been implemented there should be signage, training records and a refusals book to back this up. The latter two are the sorts of records often considered to be a pain to keep up but they are absolutely invaluable when they're needed - neglecting them is rarely a mistake made twice.

Powered by ScribeFire.

Share This Post

Live Music Forum Report 2007 published today

Honestly, you wait ages for a meaty bit of licensing-related news and then everything happens at once. Today the Live Music Forum, chaired by Feargal Sharkey, published it's report into the live music scene in England & Wales and how it has been affected by the Licensing Act 2003.

PDF copies of the report can be found on the DCMS website here and a statement from licensing minister Gerry Sutcliffe (I must have missed the press release about his appointment) is here.

There are 28 recommendations in all, 13 of which concern the operation of the Licensing Act itself and some very good points and suggestions are made. Although the emphasis is on live music rather than the provision of regulated entertainment generally, many of the Licensing Act-related recommendations highlight areas where the legislation is downright unhelpful, even for those doing their best to comply with it.

Having read through the review theses are the recommendations I'd like to highlight, either because I found them especially thought-provoking or because I agreed with them most:

Recommendation 4 - "A mechanism is created to allow a representation in favour of an application for live music to be framed in a way that it can be justified by a member of the general public". This is an interesting one. The report mentions the difficulties for making representations in favour of a licence application, the system allows them in theory but is skewed greatly in favour of objections. It's also true though that members of the general public who wouldn't meet the criteria of an 'interested party' could be negatively affected by loss of amenity if a music venue were to close. The report doesn't suggest how such a 'mechanism' would work which is fair enough - I'm at a loss to how it could work too.

Recommendation 5 - "As a matter of some urgency a definition of ‘Incidental Music’ should be placed on the face of the Act". I'm not sure I quite agree with the LMF's recommedation for the wording to be inserted into the Act but it's a step in the right direction. The report is pretty on the money as far as highlighting the apallingly drafted area of incidental music is concerned. It's a subject I intend to come back to in more detail.

Recommendation 7 - "Ministers should review the current variation system with the express goal of providing a simplified, fast-track licensing process....especially for smaller premises". I think this is a must. The current system places a disproportionate burden on smaller businesses.

Recommendation 8 - "Ministers should take whatever action necessary to ensure that both the letter of the law and the spirit of the Section 182 Guidance is adhered to". This is a reference to practices by certain Local Authorities aimed at proactively restricting applications for live music and three further recommendations continue the theme. The case studies provided in some cases are startling. However, it is stressed that it is a small minority of councils that "have developed repeated patterns of heavy handed, negative decision-making."

Please read the report itself for the whole text of each recommendation and the other matters raised. This blog isn't here to cover the items on the better promotion of live music and the planning issues that have been uncovered but they make for interesting reading (well, if you're into that sort of thing).

I'm always interested to see how this sort of issue is handled in the media. The headline-seeking press release shouts that:

"some very small scale live music events have had to be cancelled or had unnecessary restrictions placed on them"

but of a more generalist conclusion can be found on page 32:

"The Licensing Act 2003 has therefore not brought about the devastation which some had feared and it would be irresponsible to suggest otherwise."

It doesn't take a genius to guess which quote the press will jump on but both are equally true. I'm a great fan of live music and it was clear from the outset that the Licensing Act, in all it's badly drafted glory, would lead to absolutely unnecessary disruption of some live music events. This is a shame and was perhaps (being generous) unforseen. However, if steps are not taken to rectify the errors made then it would be quite unforgivable.

Share This Post

News round-up

Yesterday was a busy day for licensing-related news:

1. The guidance issued under s.182 of the Licensing Act was re-published in a revised form. They've tweaked the layout to make it much more pleasing to the eye and made several amendments which I'll report back on shortly. In the meantime you can have a look at it here - revised guidance June 07.

2. The licensing minister Shaun Woodward was appointed Northern Ireland Secretary in Gordon Brown's cabinet reshuffle. An annoucement on who is to fill the position next is expected today.

3. Another MP who was given a cabinet position yesterday is James Purnell - you may remember him from such fiascos as the Licensing Act transition period, during which time he was the licensing minister. He'll now be overseeing DCMS in his new position as Culture Secretary.

Share This Post

Welcome

For those who don't understand the title of this blog it refers to a magical day. It's the day 28 days after the date a licence application is submitted to a Licensing Authority and their Responsible Authorities. It's the last day on which anyone can make a representation (cf objection) to it and so is often a day of much finger-crossing.

This blog is an area for news, articles and general thoughts on matters relating to licensing, by which I mean the regime in place to regulate alcohol, entertainment and late night refreshment in England & Wales. Don't be surprised to see articles on related subjects though.

Share This Post