Slip Rules
79. Some application processes do not allow any latitude
in their administration - the passport application form is a prime
example. Many others are far less prescriptive and allow certain
mistakes, including spelling errors and minor omissions, which
can be easily rectified. Such allowances are what is meant by
a slip rule. At present, the licence application process does
not have this provision. We had several calls for the introduction
of a 'slip rule' into the application process, and have examined
this idea.
80. Such inflexibility has meant that applications
have had to be turned down because of very small errors. One example
is the public notices which must be displayed on every premises
applying for a licence. Applicants who have used the wrong size
or the wrong colour paper have found that their applications are
refused or challenged by others on those grounds. This is not
productive for anyone. The Wine and Spirit Trade Association told
us that a slip rule was put in place for applications for premises
licences without variation[93]
(i.e. those who merely wished to renew an existing licence without
any changes to hours), but witnesses proposed a similar system
for all applications.
81. The Wine and Spirit Trade Association felt that
a slip rule would provide more certainty for applicants,[94]
the Institute of Licensing provided several instances where it
would ease the application process[95]
and the Association of Licensed Multiple Retailers claimed that
it would avoid "incurring additional costs in time and money
for applicants and local authorities".[96]
Others also supported the idea. Councillor Lewis illustrated her
argument for a slip rule: "I was asked by my local Japanese
restaurant whether I would help them with their application and
I told them precisely what I thought should go in every section;
I did not actually fill out the form. They got it back with five
mistakes which I had not been able to predict. [The rules] were
very prescriptive and there was no slippage. We should like to
have been allowed to say "Oh that's not going to affect the
outcome" and proceed".[97]
82. Next time the Government is implementing legislation
which requires large-scale applications from businesses or the
public, we would like to see local authorities given the flexibility
to allow re-submissions of incorrect forms if necessary, rather
than being forced to reject the application outright, leading
to unnecessary delay and expense.
83. The Minister for Culture and Tourism told us
"In terms of the slip rule, we were specifically
requested to do that earlier on before the summer and we did not,
because we were worried that it would actually make the system
less flexible. If we were to have passed a slip rule saying you
can be flexible about A, B, C, we were advised that there was
a risk then that local authority legal departments might say "Ah,
well, they have not said that you can be flexible about D, E,
F" and therefore it would have reduced people's flexibility.
Instead, what we did was to write to people and say that we were
encouraging them to be flexible about this and please exercise
that flexibility as far as they can".[98]
84. While we understand the point that the Minister
is making, it is not possible to ask authorities to be flexible
if the legislation prohibits them from doing so. We realise that
any slip rule put in place would need to be very specific; we
have already expressed our disquiet at the level of inconsistency
between authorities. Nevertheless, we think that there is an acceptable
level of latitude that could be included in new guidance. At the
very least, spelling mistakes and inconsequential matters should
not on their own cause an application to fail. We urge DCMS
to consider the evidence presented to us on the matter of overly
prescriptive regulations when reviewing their guidance, and to
investigate the feasibility of a 'slip rule'.
87 
