Unpopularity of minor licence variations
I am not really surprised at the news revealed in the House of Lords last week that there have been only three examples of the minor variations procedure being used to relax live music conditions.
The whole procedure is not popular with lawyers acting for the licensed trade anyway. They know they are on a hiding to nothing, because the decision on whether to accept the proposed change is entirely in the hands of the licensing officer, for the most part, and he will inevitably err on the side of caution.
I personally know of several areas where even a verbal objection of no merit to a minor change will be treated as a "red card" for the application. And when local councillors start to get involved in the representation process, then no officer will want to be seen to grant anything in the face of his "boss" on the council.
That may be seen as a cynical view, but we have now had well over four years of the new system of local government administration, and the shortcomings of local democracy are plain to see.
While it is true that decisions on licensed venues should have an input from the community and be decided in the light of local needs, there are too many examples of rigid and inflexible policies that do not take account of the circumstances of the pub in question.
The minor variations procedure was originally seen as a good, cheap, quick and effective way of "cleaning up" a licence that may have been cobbled together during transition from the old law and bits of the new.
But the cautious elements in Parliament forced strings to be attached to the procedure, after which it became very much less attractive as a route for change. Indeed, many lawyers took the view "why waste your money?" and went instead for a straight variation.
Indeed, news has reached me of one council where, instead of rejecting the variation, they sought to hold a hearing on it and although there were no representations they "refused" it as being contrary to the licensing objectives! As an example of getting the law and practice wrong in every respect, that takes some beating.
Entirely in the opposite direction is an enlightened council that grants minor changes to the licence for free, after a quick discussion with representatives of responsible authorities. Their website is a prime example of how to convey the complexities of licensing in a clear and straightforward manner. For once, well done!
Q&A
Replacing lost licence
Q. I have been working in hospitality, but not directly in a bar. Now, the company wants me to take over as DPS, but I cannot locate my personal licence, although I have the details on my computer. What should I do, as they want me to take over next week?
A. I receive a great many emergency emails such as this. I can understand that if you have not been directly involved for a couple of years you may have mislaid the documentation, but of course you are still technically licensed, because a personal licence lasts for 10 years without renewal.
In the first instance, under the terms of the Licensing Act you should report the loss (or theft) to the police and obtain a crime reference number. You are then in a position to contact the authority that issued your personal licence and ask for a replacement. There will be a charge of £10.50 for the issuing of a new document or card.
You may be able to do this electronically. Although personal licence applications are not covered by the new electronic system, some local authorities will already be in a position to accept an email or web application and payment for this, because it is not a legal requirement under the Act for this to be done in writing.
Make enquiries about this first.
In reality, your company will only need the details of your licence in the first place, not the physical licence itself, to make the switch of DPS.
Betting on the web
Q. We have a Wi-Fi connection for the use of customers in this pub. My question is: if they use their laptops for betting or gambling online, is there any comeback against me for having provided "betting services". One of my regulars says any form of betting that takes place is down to me and that I could be prosecuted.
A. There was a similar question a couple of years ago concerning illegal activities on computers. The point is: are you knowingly permitting your premises to be used for betting transactions contrary to the Gambling Act?
I would put it in the same category as a landline phone, which enables people to telephone their bookmaker. You are providing a connection service only, not the facility for betting, which takes place at the premises where the bet is received.
Therefore, as long as you monitor the situation carefully and do not allow group activities to take place on the computer, which could involve direct transactions in the pub, then you are probably in the clear. You are in a position to warn customers, however, about the use of computers in the premises and to withdraw the facility if you feel it is appropriate in any circumstances.
Licence for mooring?
Q. I understand that boats need a licence to sell alcohol on board if they are using rivers or canals, but what happens if they moor in another borough? Don't they need a licence there as well?
A. If you mean, do they need an extra premises licence just to call at another location in the course of their pleasure cruise business, then the answer is no. They only need a premises licence in respect of the location where the boat "is usually moored or berthed". This will normally be its home quay or port from which the business of the cruise company is conducted.
It is only if the vessel is permanently or semi-permanently moored in another place to conduct its operation (eg as a floating restaurant) that a premises licence would be required for that location. It would then be treated as if it were a building in that place and all the normal rules would apply.
Unlike vehicles, which may need a licence for the places where they park to undertake licensable activities, a boat needs only one licence.
