Staff training is key to avoiding under-age trap

It still surprises me just how many licensees are failing test purchase operations which are being carried out by the police and trading standards officers. The police are often surprised as well, because in most cases they have been given clear warnings about upcoming tests.

So, what's the problem? There is clearly a need for adequate training. Some will have no documented training at all, with licensees relying on word of mouth to pass on details of the various legal responsibilities under licensing legislation. This is simply not adequate to enable reliance upon the statutory defence of "having exercised all due diligence to prevent the offence".

Most licensees will be aware that the person who actually makes the sale (found serving under-aged), will normally be issued with a fixed-penalty notice of £80 to avoid legal proceedings. It does not give rise to a criminal conviction and discharges all liability for the offence. The situation for the licensee, however, is rather different. It is often the case that the licensee will find themselves being invited to an interview, under caution by the police or trading standards, to discuss the adequacy of staff training within the venue.

In the worst cases, the police simply proceed straight to a summons for the licensee in the event of an illegal sale having been made by one of their staff. Again, in the subsequent court proceedings, it is open to the licensee to rely on the due diligence defence as mentioned above.

It is, therefore, imperative that proper training is carried out for all staff and that the training is also documented and regularly refreshed.

The licensee's position can also be bolstered by the positioning of notices at points of sale to remind members of staff to request identification if they are in any doubt as to someone's age. Both research and common sense dictate that people do find it difficult to accurately determine another person's age. In those circumstances it is often wise to adopt an over-21s policy.

Doorstaff are the first layer of protection licensees have against such sales being made. They, and other staff, should ask for high-quality photographic identification.

Graeme Cushion

Poppleston Allen

Licensing Solicitors

37 Stoney Street

Nottingham

Getting to grips with new premises licences

I have regularly read Peter Coulson's contributions to the Morning Advertiser since I entered the licensed trade in 1980. I have attended, as secretary of our local Licensed Victuallers Association and a member of Oswestry Borough Council, numerous seminars on the 2003 Licensing Act.

I found the handbook written by Mr Coulson ­ Guide to the Licensing Act 2003 ­ that accompanied my copy of the MA in November most helpful.

However, I now find that his views in this book conflict with the views of the licensing officer for North Shropshire District Council. The guide indicates that when applying for a variation of premises licence you only have to apply to your local council with a copy to the local police within 48 hours, together with appropriate notices on your premises and in the local press. North Shropshire District Council, however, insists ­ when my members apply for the transition to a premises licence with a variation in hours ­ that copies of the application have to go to seven different authorities. Has the Government changed the goal posts since November 2004?

W Benyon

155 College Road

Oswestry

Shropshire

Peter Coulson writes: The booklet does not say that only the police and the local authority need notice of variation, only of straightforward conversion. If you just convert your licence as it stands, only two notices need to be given, as I wrote.

In the case of both an application for a new licence and variation, all the "responsible authorities" must be notified, which can mean up to seven extra copies. Your licensing officer is right, and I am sorry this was not spelled out more clearly in the variation section. The requirement to notify responsible authorities is clearly stated on the form.

Small licensed hotels at mercy of licensing laws

As an owner of a small family-run licensed hotel, I feel we will be adversely affected by the enormous increase in costs caused by the new Licensing Act.

The bar in our hotel is provided as an extra service or facility for our residents. It represents a very small part of our total turnover, small enough to question its existence under the new costs.

It seems that many hoteliers locally are questioning the viability of continuing this service.

We strongly feel that there should be some kind of rate relief or sliding scale to assist small licensed properties such as ours. It is imperative that hoteliers who are in a similar situation write to as many organisations as possible and air their views (for example, the Federation of Small Businesses and Federation of Licensed Victuallers Associations). We may be able to force change by acting in unison.

Name and address supplied

Urgent action neededto avert doorstaff crisis

The Morning Advertiser's article ("Trade 83,000 doorstaff short'", 3 March) over a possible shortfall of qualified door supervision staff is a matter for serious thought as we progress through the transitional stage of the new premises licences.

If there is such a shortfall, what will be the outcome if those applying for variations to their premises licence are additionally required to increase either the number of door supervisors or introduce them at locations where supervision has not been previously required? How will they do it? Probably by having existing in-house staff trained and licensed for door supervision.

Whilst this might make the Security Industry Authority happy, as it will meet its requirements and generate the revenue it needs from licensing to exist, what will be the consequence for customers and the trade as resources are diverted away from primary roles?

Unless some urgent action is taken to either encourage more individuals to become licensed or for licensing authorities to rationalise the use of door supervision in terms of numbers, I foresee the trade once again having to address serious supervision problems generated by poor implementation of well intended legislation.

Malcolm Eidmans, QPM MSc FCMI

Potters Bar

Hertfordshire

(Writing in a private capacity, not as National Pubwatch secretary)

Head goes across here in two decks

Copy to come

Head goes across here in two decks

Copy to come