CCTV cameras: the eyes have it
The phrase Big Brother may be a TV reality show, but it has a far more sinister meaning for many of us brought up to relish personal liberty. George Orwell's predictions in the book 1984 are coming true 25 years after the title date!
I find the police publicity machine's claims that they are not insisting on CCTV in pubs entirely misleading. Anyone who has had dealings with police forces in licensing will tell you that the first thing on their agenda is CCTV compliance, and in Westminster it is even on the list put forward by environmental health, although it is absolutely nothing to do with their remit (they claim the "public safety" licensing objective).
Often, no examination is carried out of the necessity for CCTV installation: it is treated as a precautionary measure, the licensing application being an opportunity to install yet another set of cameras, often outside the building as well as inside, so that sections of the street may be covered by surveillance.
Some years ago, I discovered that one outer London police force had the habit of ringing up or writing a day or so before a licensing hearing in front of the justices and saying, "we will not object to your licence as long as you agree to these conditions, which include a contribution to the borough CCTV system or paying for the installation of cameras outside your pub/club."
For a peaceful life, many operators paid up. Some challenged the tactic, although they feared for their relationship with officers in future.
Increasingly, intrusive techniques and practices used on a blanket basis are being justified by arguments over public protection and combating crime.
Several times I hear the phrase: if you are innocent you have nothing to fear. That in itself is of dubious validity — many innocent people are put in fear every week of being harried and victimised in order to prove that they are innocent.
There is no cast-iron certainty that justice is always done, especially where such global techniques are employed.
But I am fearful of a future in which my personal data is increasingly available to anyone with the right equipment and contacts, and my every move covered by cameras with or without my permission.
I am sure that the Government considers civil liberties important, which is why the Information Commissioner has been able to criticise the police approach on CCTV in
this way.
But given what I know of current Home Office policies, state security is seen as the greater priority.
Q&A
Renewal notice
Q. I took over the contract for hygiene equipment from the previous tenant, but was not happy about the price and when I received the renewal notice, about three weeks before the new annual period,
I said I would not go ahead.
The company is now claiming that in the small print it says that I had to give three months' notice or the contract would run for another full year.
They say they will sue me for the money. Is there any way round this?
A. Contracts like this are always written in favour of the supplier, but the first thing to discover is whether the contract was assignable in this way, or was personal to the previous tenant. It may be that assumptions are being made here. Secondly, a renewal invitation — if it really was that, rather than a demand for payment — should give you the opportunity to say yes or no. However, where there is a cancellation clause, this should be reasonable in all the circumstances, and where equipment is installed in a fixed manner it cannot be taken out overnight and some cancellation lead time would be appropriate.
Clearly, the current contract suits the company because there is a tendency in the licensed trade not to look at the renewal date very carefully and give the required notice. It may well be that you have to pay up for this coming year, making it clear in writing that the contract will not be renewed.
Where to smoke?
Q. I am puzzled about the host sacked for smoking when the pub was closed. I thought the ban only applied to public enclosed areas when people were using the premises. Does the council have a right to inspect when the bar is closed?
A. You are not alone in making this assumption, but the relevant council has clarified the position, which I have mentioned on these pages several times. The ban on smoking applies totally, which is why the premises in question are described as "smoke-free". Once it is clear that the area in question meets the criteria laid down in the Health Act and the regulations, it must remain smoke-free all the time, and cannot be changed unless the actual use changes (ie, it becomes part of the private quarters, or ceases to be used by customers or employees).
On the question of inspection and enforcement, the Act and the regulations again give wide powers to ensure that the ban is total, including the right of entry. The fact that a penalty notice was given should indicate clearly that an offence can be committed outside trading hours if there is sufficient evidence, as there was in this case.
Drinks for employed members of staff
Q. The other evening we had the bar open for a leaving party for a member of staff. All drinks were on me, as the premises licence holder.
A police officer said that the bar had to be closed for "public use" in accordance with the hours on the licence. Does this apply to staff drinks?
A. This seems to be a misinterpretation of the law.
The 1964 Licensing Act had a specific reference to the concession for staff drinks, which were supplied "at the expense of the employer or person carrying on the business". There is no similar provision in the 2003 Act, but in my view there does not need to be.
Supplying alcohol as a gift is not a "licensable activity" under the new law, which only covers the sale by retail of alcohol.
So where a clear gift is established, the terms and conditions of the premises licence will not apply to set fixed time limits. It seems perfectly in order to continue with this long-established practice, as the premises are not "open to the public" and no condition of the licence is being broken.
