It is great to see that National Pubwatch has started to campaign for the protection of licensees from thugs, which I have been banging on about
for some time now. However, I wish I could share the optimistic idea that this will change the Home Office's view that thug bans are going to be a thing of the past.
Unfortunately, the repeal of the famous "Ban the Thug" Act is now scheduled for this summer. Two Home Office reports on impending legislation have made it clear that Drinking Banning Orders will come into force earlier than the normal composite legislation time of 1 October, which is when a great many orders take effect. It has consistently refused to give a specific date for the implementation of the first sections of the Violent Crime Reduction Act 2006, which sets up these new court powers, but, as I have written before, these orders are not what the trade really needs, and the death of the previous Act will be a savage blow to the Pubwatch campaign.
What is really needed is a campaign to save the "Ban the Thug" Act itself. Although not as widely used as it should be, at least it recognised the vulnerability of the pub trade itself to violence and intimidation.
When magistrates or judges heard about the type of threats and violence that licensees face, they were quite happy to issue banning orders, breach of which could land the thug concerned with additional penalties or even jail.
That will not happen under the new laws, because the licensee simply has no voice. It is up to the police or others to pursue the drunken lout, and the court is only concerned with his rehabilitation from alcohol, not the protection of those he has assaulted or abused.
There is not much time left, but the campaign could be of immense value. While the repeal of the Act is listed in the schedule, there is no specific requirement for that repeal to go ahead. Look at the froth law. That is still on the statute book, but has never been implemented.
A forthright campaign to save the "Ban the Thug" Act could mean that even arch trade enemy Jacqui Smith could have second thoughts about the repeal, and could leave licensees with at least one weapon to use against undesirable customers who make their lives a misery.
Q&A
Pub to be sold
Q. I have heard on the grapevine that my pub is being sold, along with several others in this area. My question is: what will happen to the bond that I gave at the beginning of the tenancy? Will I need to ask for it back from the existing company?
A. A number of pubs are changing hands at the moment and this is a worrying time for tenants and lessees. According to this particular operating company's code of practice, which I have seen, all tenants on three-year leases are under the Landlord and Tenant Act and their bond/deposit is held in an interest-bearing bank account, separate from the company accounts.
The money in this client account will be paid across to the purchaser who should, legally, retain it in a separate account, as now. This is why I have emphasised to other people in your position that the status of the buyer is important to you — you should try and ensure that the deposit money is separately held by them. You cannot have it returned to you during the course of your tenancy, but you can try and receive confirmation from the purchaser's bank that the money is safely held.
Of course, if your pub is sold to another pubco that has signed up to a tenancy code of practice, this will happen anyway.
Who holds a TEN?
Q. We have some events coming up this summer run by groups connected with the pub. A local community officer has said that it is preferable for personal licence holders to apply for the temporary event notice rather than a member of the barstaff or a representative from the group. I thought anyone could apply for a TEN. Are the rules different if the event is being held on or adjacent to the pub?
A. No, the rules are not different and this is a strange idea that has been put to you.
It may be that the local police prefer someone with trade experience to run such temporary events, but it is by no means a requirement that a personal licence holder has to be the applicant.
The difference is, of course, that a personal licence holder has up to 50 opportunities per year to give such a notice, whereas someone without such a licence can only give five. This is a reflection of the attitude towards responsible retailing, but there is nothing to prevent either a member of barstaff or a group representative from giving the notice.
Thereafter, the named person will be technically responsible for the organisation of the alcohol sales, but it is quite open for the pub to do the actual supplying on their behalf.
Betting on dominoes
Q. When I took over this community pub, I inherited the regulars who like to play dominoes for money. They say it is quite legal, but I thought I would check with you.
A. You are right to be sure on this, even though your regulars think it is OK. You have a personal responsibility to
ensure that any gaming, which takes place on your premises, complies with the new laws,
now that the Gambling Act
2005 is in full force.
Although you do not need any licence or permit for dominoes (or cribbage) to be played for money, this used to be permitted only for small stakes, not large amounts of cash. There is currently no specific limit for dominoes, as there is with poker, for example, but the Gambling Commission Code of Practice, which applies to you, does warn about high-stake gaming in pubs.
Certainly, the matter of side bets could be a concern. The players are allowed to wager on the games, but non-participants should not be involved, as this is clearly unlawful betting, for which you are not licensed, and could result in a caution or even a prosecution.