Striking the right balance
Given the attitude of the Home Office revealed opposite, it may be clutching at straws to draw any comfort from the sixth report of the House of Commons Culture, Media and Sport Committee, also published last week.
This is a review of the workings of the new Licensing Act, because the Government last year suggested that its own review of the Act had revealed a "mixed picture". Taking evidence from those most affected, this committee also found a very mixed picture, although it drew the conclusion that the new system was working well in general. However, it has recommended a number of changes, most of which have been highlighted before on these pages, in the hope that whoever is in charge of licensing will take them up.
Judging from the last three reports on the Act, that is hardly likely. The DCMS has repeatedly used exactly the same few minor adjustments to prove it is "doing something" to improve the Act, while ignoring completely some of its fundamental flaws. I pray for the day when it will get a professional to look at the application forms, rather than doing them in-house on a old Amstrad, which is the only explanation I have for their appalling layout and style. It has never implemented a national database for personal licences, in spite of clear indications that this would assist everyone and is an essential ingredient of almost every other UK licensing system. It should have changed the law on bereavement at the earliest possible opportunity (it was mentioned on these pages in the early stages of transition, incidentally).
It has resisted any changes to the temporary event notice system, which is flawed and not "fit for purpose". It has also, since the Act was a Bill, set its face against assisting travelling performers, or having portable licences. It has not done the music industry any favours with its convoluted "concession" on small-scale events and needs to look at it again.
However, I suspect it will do almost exactly what it has done with the previous reports: make either dismissive or conciliatory noises and then do nothing to make the system better. Remember, it was perfect in the first place and if you have to tinker with it, it means something was wrong. And we can't have that, can we?
Back to Jacqui's sledgehammer approach. That's the way!
Q&A
Metered beer and glasses
Q. We don't have meters, but a friend in the trade has told me
it doesn't matter what you serve in, or whether you have Government stamped glassware, if you use meters. Please comment, particularly in relation to plastic glasses.
A. Under current law, you cannot sell draught beer or cider unless it is measured accurately in some way at the time of purchase. This can be achieved either by having Government-stamped glasses which are, or show, a capacity measure, such as a half pint or pint, or by having equipment that pours a measured amount of beer or cider each time.
Most pubs use the first system, with glasses showing the customer what he is entitled to receive. With lined glasses, the lines indicate the correct measure; these can also be used with free-flow pumps.
When you install beer and cider-metering equipment, there is no need to use stamped glasses. The measurement is done by the equipment, and the markings are irrelevant. Metering equipment dispenses a full
half pint of liquid, so the "froth" argument is also a non-starter.
The container into which metered beer or cider is poured is not relevant for trading standards legislation, and unstamped or non-regulation glasses or containers may be used, including plastic glasses where appropriate.
In spite of comments you may have read, the use of plastic glasses by many licensees is inhibited by the fact that certain trading standards departments do not think they are lawful.
They will not even allow the licensee to measure into a stamped glass and then pour
the liquid into a plastic glass, although in my view this is perfectly acceptable.
If you are considering using plastic glasses, it is important to find out about the attitude of your local trading standards officers to this type of container.
Off-sales from hotels
Q. Are people allowed to purchase off-sales from a residential hotel, if they are
not residents?
A. It depends entirely on the conditions on the premises licence held by the establishment in question.
Where an hotel holds a full licence, as many of them did, even before transition, this entitles them to sell alcohol for consumption both on and off the premises. A separate off-sales permission is not required.
The premises licence will also entitle them to make sales to non-residents, and where no condition restricting off-sales has been imposed, sales to non-residents can include take-away sales, where appropriate.
However, an hotel which previously held only a residential, or restaurant and residential, licence would have been subject to more restrictive conditions on the supply of alcohol. A converted residential licence would mean sales are restricted to residents, who themselves may entertain their private friends to a drink. But the friends may not pay for drinks themselves; they must be entertained by the resident.
Under such a licence, take-away sales are permitted, but only to residents and only for alcohol supplied with a meal. The condition was intended to cover packed lunches and similar meals provided by the hotel or guest house.
Morris men in a pub garden
Q. Is it true that morris men are exempt from licensing if they are on the road, but not in the pub garden, a large area with no bar facilities?
A. No, it isn't. The exemption from the regulated entertainment conditions under the Licensing Act 2003 applies to morris dancing generally, wherever it takes place. It is a specific paragraph in the Act and also covers "dancing of a similar nature", so presumably a performance of other kinds of ethnic dancing would also escape the licensing provisions.
