Simplification? Now that's a tricky one

It was inevitable that the Department for Culture Media & Sport (DCMS) would claim, as part of the Prime Minister's strategy for all Government departments, that the new licensing system is "simpler" than its predecessor. But the "Simplification Plan", published last week, simply does not bear analysis at the present time.

In particular, I do not think that the ordinary licensee or operating company would consider that the current system was any more simple or straightforward than its predecessor. You still have to prepare plans, advertise, make an application (of far greater length and complexity than in the past), probably attend a hearing, instruct solicitors and possibly appeal. You also need a Designated Premises Supervisor (DPS) with a separate licence procedure, and possibly other licence holders as well. You also need to pay a far larger fee each year, and if you want to make a change to the licensed premises, instead of a quick trip to the magistrates' court and a fee of just £16, you have to make a full, advertised application for a variation which will cost you at least £600.

The claim that hundreds of thousands of transactions have been abolished has already been made, as has the claim that the industry will save billions of pounds. That part has certainly not come true yet, but of course everyone lives in hope.

The plain fact is that the new system is not in essence any simpler than before, and the new gaming laws are even more complex, although the licensed trade itself comes out of those changes relatively well. Modern law-makers try to cover every base, and they are, to my mind, constitutional and intellectually incapable of simplification in the normal sense of the word. Licensing is not a simple science, and the current system is by no means simple for the user, in particular the small businessman. Thankfully, a number of local authorities are trying to be helpful to those who are confused, and there are some excellent websites covering council licensing activities. But even the administrators find aspects of the new law entirely baffling.

However, the new document does offer some interesting pointers on aspects of the new law which were crying out for simplification, many of which could have been incorporated in the original Act, if certain people had been open to suggestions. My main concern is that these will take far longer to come into law than is necessary, given the amount of agreement already in place.

Take forms. More or less since publication, people were complaining that the application form itself was too cumbersome and complex and the accompanying notes were of an appallingly low standard. It is now some two years on, and suddenly the DCMS agrees. It could have changed the forms some time back, but the suggested timescale is 2007/08.

Early on I criticised the fact that forms could not be submitted electronically, while for other aspects of a licensee's work, such as tax returns and PAYE, the Government offers a cash incentive to use electronic filing. Many council services can be accessed via the internet. Slowly, the DCMS crawls to the same conclusion. The current forms can be downloaded, filled in on-screen, but then have to be printed out (seven times!) and submitted via post or courier. Simplified? I don't think so.

The main bugbear is the complexity of making minor variations to the premises, which used to be covered by a simple application process. Although some licensing authorities are already using a "fast-track" system, this is technically outside the legal framework. So other councils are insisting that even a small alteration to the premises layout requires a full variation application, at which questions can be raised on other issues to do with the conduct of the premises.

This is unfair and over-complex. It should already have been picked up and changed. But we may have to wait until 2009 for a simplified system to be put in place.

The real simplifications will not involve the licensed trade directly. The DCMS has realised that "one size fits all" is unfair on certain small-scale operators and is now wondering whether they need to be licensed at all, or pay a fee. Now that is true simplification. It was one of the greatest failings of the new licensing system that it took no account of scale and was entirely rigid in its approach to the need for a licence. Now, the outcry from various sectors, including charities and small businesses, has forced a re-think. I think there will be one or two grudging concessions, but there will still be operations on the edge of licensing that will not escape the system.

This report at least clears up one question: whether the DCMS was going to consider amendments to the Act itself, which has some glaring flaws. It concedes that there may well be changes to legislation through the medium of the new regulatory reform orders, rather than a full-scale amendment Act. But how much, and when, is the burning question.

The next eagerly-awaited production from the DCMS is the revised statutory Guidance for local authorities, which everyone hopes will clear up the numerous questions over the operation of the new laws and may even make the administration simpler.

Christmas is coming, and the Guidance is not. Happy New Year to you all!

Licensing@aol.com

Poker permit puzzle

QWe have started to run poker sessions that have come to the attention of the local council. They say we need a permit from them to run these. No session fee is charged and there are no direct prizes, the winner being announced and their name is put up on a notice board. Do we need a permit?

A If no money changes hands and there are no prizes, there is no gaming. You only need a permit from the licensing authority if games of chance other than dominoes and cribbage are to be played for small stakes. Then you must apply to the council under the existing law, which is section 6 of the Gaming Act. Previously, you applied to the justices, but this was switched at the same time as alcohol licensing.

Following advice from the Gambling Commission, some councils issue leaflets or notices reminding licensees of their legal obligations. But if the poker sessions are truly for amusement only, and no money or prizes change hands, either directly or indirectly, then there is no requirement to apply for a permit and, more importantly, the card games cannot be prohibited.

Mixing measures

QIs it possible to have a single measure of 35ml and a "double" at either 50ml or 70ml, both of which are legal? Someone has suggested this as a good way of "trading up".

AThe measures may both be legal but not in the same premises. As the law stands, there is a choice of 25ml or 35ml measures for gin, rum, vodka and whisky. The choice of metric measure is up to you, but it must be the same measure all over the pub, and that includes multiples. So you can serve 25ml and 50ml, or 35ml and 70ml. But you cannot mix measures in the way suggested.

For anything on the backbar other than those four named spirits, you may use any measure you like. But it would be sensible in most cases to standardise your measures for spirits, in line with your choice for the most popular ones.

You must also post a notice up in each bar stating the measure in use for the four spirits. Failure to do this is an offence. If you change the measure, you must obviously change the notices.

TENs and machines

QSeveral local clubs have applied for temporary event notices (TENs) to allow non-members to use the club for events, ie members of the public. If that is the case, can they still use their jackpot machines during these events?

A Under the terms for registration of jackpot machines (covered by the Gaming Act 1968), the machines must not be made available for play "when the public have access to the premises, whether on payment or otherwise".

There is no definition of what constitutes the public, but it is clearly not guests of members, or visitors admitted under the rules (namely, members