What's really in a name?

We all laughed or shrugged our shoulders when the Government announced — late in the day — that a new being was to be created under the Licensing Act, called a "designated premises supervisor". There must be a special department, somewhere in the bowels of Whitehall, where a dedicated team of extremely serious-minded men and women come up with names like this, on request. They do not emerge into the light much, they do not watch television and they have no newspapers. They are alone with the English language — or a version of it.

Be that as it may, the DPS, as we call him or her, has achieved great importance, not the least because their very existence is the critical factor in selling alcohol. Without one, says the Act, you are not allowed to sell at all.

But the key question remains: what does "without one" actually mean. In fact, the Act simply says that you cannot supply alcohol "at a time when there is no designated premises supervisor in respect of the premises licence." This does not mean a person present on the premises, so it can be a DPS at a head office or at another pub that the same person or company owns. As long as the person holds a personal licence, they can become the DPS for any pub in the group — and indeed can be the DPS for more than one pub.

The problem occurs, it seems to me, when someone leaves employment, for whatever reason. In such a case, although they are still named on the licence and still have a personal licence, they are technically in no position either to supervise the premises or react to a request or communication from the police or the licensing authority.

I suppose if they were contacted, they could refer it back to their previous employer (if they left amicably). However, my own experience is that the police will attend at the premises first and ask for contact details for the DPS. If they then find out from staff that he or she no longer works for the company, then their reaction may well be adverse, and they could, potentially, seek to close the premises down forthwith.

This, of course, will be more likely if the DPS has been sacked or left after a disagreement, and puts in an immediate notification to the licensing authority, as they are entitled to do. Tipped off about this, the authority an either gently remind the company about the situation, or come down heavily.

This is why procedure for the formal notification should not be left until the last moment, but should be started before the last day of employment. I am sure, like a lot of other things, that this chore gets put to the back of the queue, and that as I write there are a number of "outdated" licences with an old DPS named on them. But be warned of the consequences if this notification is allowed to slip.

There is one helpful aspect of the new Act: notification of a new DPS can be done instantaneously, if the lapse is discovered. Under section 38, a change of DPS can be given immediate effect on the receipt by the licensing authority of a variation request. It is quite in order to take the paperwork round to the licensing office, at which point you are covered and the pub can open for business. This is, of course, always assuming that you can find someone with a personal licence available to take over the role. But do not let this little job drift. There is more to a name than the name itself!