The Licensing Act 2003 - Culture, Media and Sport Committee Contents


Annex

EXAMPLES OF INCONSISTENT OR POOR REGULATION

DIFFERENT ENFORCEMENT PRACTICES MAKE IT HARD TO PROVIDE UNIFORM TRAINING PROGRAMMES

    —  Some local authorities use forged ID during test purchase operations and use volunteers over the recommended guidance age. This is designed to catch out retailers rather than to validate high quality training programmes.

    —  Constant test purchasing—some Local Authorities will test a store constantly until they find an illegal sale when they will then review the licence. This approach fails to take into account any risk based assessment and does not tackle the demand side. It also risks turning a decent, hard working check out assistant who has made a mistake into a sacked worker who has a criminal record.

PROCESSING OF APPLICATIONS

    —  Some local authorities require conditions to be placed on licences, sometimes without prior discussion or consultation, to meet perceived local problems or concerns, as opposed to issues which directly relate to the premises which are the subject of the application.

    —  Some authorities are simply not aware of what documentation is required. Stores are therefore often unnecessarily asked to produce and copy documents which aren't needed for consideration of applications for variations of licences.

    —  There is considerable inconsistency in the processing of new personal license applications. Delivery ranges from a couple of days to months for the council to respond.

    —  Minor variations have been the subject of a recent consultative proposal from DCMS. At the moment, there is considerable inconsistency between local authorities as to what they consider to be minor and how they handle the process.

    —  When hearings are required, some authorities provide notice for applicants to attend whilst others refuse to acknowledge that the applicant has any rights to be at their own hearing. Submissions are sometimes required well in advance of a hearing and sometimes not.

PERVERSE CONDITIONS

    —  We have seen Local Authorities require all beer or cider over 5.5% to be removed from shelves. This restriction has no evidence base and includes all the fine quality varietal ciders and beers on offer to the discerning drinker.

    —  Some local authorities require impossible training demands such as requiring all the staff in a supermarket to complete a BII qualification examination.

    —  Some local authorities are asking stores to mark their bottles and cans. Again there is no indication that they have considered the cost to companies and examined how this will help prevent under age drinking.

    —  Stores are asked to enter into voluntary agreements with each other and with the police/local authority not to sell alcohol to those under 21. We have strong legal advice that companies cannot enter into this kind of agreement because of competition law.

    —  Some local authorities have sought to impose conditions on retailers to restrict price-promotion activity which is also likely to put those retailers in breach of competition law if they agree to the condition.

October 2008






 
previous page contents next page

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2009
Prepared 14 May 2009