Losing the war over proof of age

Returning to the subject of proof-of-age cards — which seems constantly in the news these days — it would appear the Home Office is winning the propaganda war in persuading the general public that the real "guilt" lies with the licensed trade in persistently selling alcohol to those underage.

None of the publicity from the Government suggests that there is a relevant "crime" in trying to buy alcohol when you are 17 years old. But they constantly speak of the criminal activity of licensees, who will soon be able to lose their licence for just two instances of test purchase failures by separate members of staff, or a couple of inadvertent sales to someone who looks older but has a fake ID card.

How this can ever be described as "persistent" selling defeats me, but again the Home Office appears brazenly defiant of both logic and proportionality. It is not as if the licensed trade is not bending over backwards to comply, even going as far as requiring only passports or photo driving licences for validating age, as I commented very recently.

What really worries me is that "due diligence" now means extreme caution — even expelling a group who ordered soft drinks because one (considerably over-age) person did not have ID. This is the behaviour of a trade that is not just on the back foot, but cowering behind the sofa!

Let us hope that the new chief executive of the British Beer & Pub Association, Brigid Simmonds, manages to turn around this climate of fear somewhat and create a better public image. I have no doubt that she will use her considerable talents to that end — and she will certainly champion the British pub in a more constructive way than may have been done in the past.

Above all, there needs to be at least some admission that even in the best-ordered and most diligent pubs, there may be one or two lapses that allow youngsters to slip through the checks. But turning sociable pubs into regimented checkpoints and indulging in "ritual humiliation" seems to me to be an indicator that the obsession with criminalising underage sales has gone too far.

The Home Office should turn its attention to changing the social attitudes of young people and perhaps — heaven forfend! — criminalising them once or twice as an example. A few on-the-spot fines would have quite a sobering effect, and the news would soon get around.

Q&A​

Siting of machines

Q. Can you tell me whether the licensing committee has any power to tell us where our AWP machines should be? We were told by someone else that they should be shown on the premises licence plan, as previously the justices used to insist on knowing.

A. There was some confusion about this point at the time of transition, for the reason you give: there was indeed some interest shown by the justices in the siting of AWP machines, mainly in response to their role as the betting and gaming authority responsible for the issue of permits.

In truth, there is and was no direct authority to supervise siting, and there certainly is nothing in the new law that would give licensing committees the right to insist machines should be shown on the plan submitted with the operating schedule.

The plan should only show the simplest of outlines of the actual public areas and be confined to those elements listed in the regulations. It should not present movable furniture or equipment whose siting may be varied from time to time.

If anything is shown on the plan that is either redundant or not legally required, it can be removed by the use of the minor variations procedure. But in any case, it is doubtful whether the re-siting of a gaming machine to a position not shown on the plan could result in any action by the council for breach of the actual authority to supply alcohol.

Free drinking water​

Q. Is there a legal obligation on a premises licence holder to provide free drinking water on request?

A This question crops up very regularly, so it clearly concerns licensees. There is no legal obligation on the holders of new premises licences to provide this service, although the vast majority would do so if asked.

It certainly cannot be made a condition of the licence, although in the case of late-night discos it may have been included as a condition of the public entertainment licence carried forward on transition, and can also be volunteered by the holder.

In the past, customers might make a claim of this type because the old Licensing Act stated that it was an "implied condition" of the grant of any restaurant or residential licence that suitable beverages other than intoxicating liquor (including drinking water) were equally available for consumption with a meal. But for most pubs, no such condition actually exists.

Removing a DPS​

Q. If we are not satisfied with the work of our in-house manager, who is also the designated premises supervisor, can I take over for the time being as DPS? My wife and I run the company and I hold a personal licence.

A, Leaving aside the employment issues, it is clearly possible to remove a DPS if you are the holders of the premises licence.

Authority to apply to the licensing authority for a change of DPS is given specifically to the premises licence holder and does not require the prior consent, written or otherwise, of the existing DPS. It does, however, require a consent form from the person you wish to install (which in this case is you).

Under section 38 of the Licensing Act 2003 you can apply for the change to have immediate effect, and you can deliver the application to the offices of the licensing authority, at which point the change is made and the person with whom you are not satisfied no longer holds the position of DPS.

Remember that the authority to sell alcohol rests principally with the holder of the premises licence. Unlike the previous situation, where the licence was tied to named licensees, the DPS is not the licensee and can be changed at any time, as can those entitled to sell alcohol on the premises.

Do you have a question for Peter Coulson. Email licensing@aol.com​.​