News that the pub trade might soon be getting a two thirds of a pint measure may cause a further degree of confusion at a time when one part of the Government seems intent on progressing minimum quantities. But this latest move is seen as a way of offering the consumer a better choice, although it is going to be difficult to see how confusion will be avoided if there are both halves and two thirds on offer in the same bar.
But it all points to the general unsatisfactory nature of quantity measurement in this country. A quick look back at the questions I have answered this year alone shows that measurement for beer, wine and spirits still features strongly on these pages — only recently I confirmed that the third of a pint measure is still legal, in spite of the increasing tendency to go metric for almost everything else. It is milk and beer that still hold true to the idea of the pint — although I see that the worthy councillors of Newquay in Cornwall are also upholding the glorious imperial tradition by insisting that lap-dancers, many of whom come from other parts of Europe, must stay "three feet" away from their customers. No metric invasion here, then! After all, 91.5cm doesn't have the same ring about it.
It does, however, call into question how long it will be before draught beer and cider can be served in metric measures. All attempts by licensees to switch to metric have been stamped on by trading standards, even in one case prosecuting a Slough licensee for an offence, despite the fact that the exact comparison with pints and half pints, including pricing, was prominently displayed where customers ordered their drinks and none of them had objected.
The truth is that we are having to get used to metric measurement in almost every facet of our lives, reluctantly for some of us, it must be admitted. It does seem strange that the pub trade was compelled to switch from imperial measure to metric for the four named spirits some years ago, and it is now illegal to serve them in imperial quantities, but exactly the reverse is true of beer and cider. To get a criminal record for using a measure that is widely and commonly used in every other business seems slightly perverse. But then, when have I ever said that the British legal system is anything else?
Q&A
Tory repeal plans
Q. Can you explain how the Tories would repeal the Licensing Act, as they are reported to be planning, and how would this affect those of us who have premises licences under the new law?
A. I have read the reports and it seems that the main plank of their objection is so-called "24-hour licensing", so the only major reform they could bring in is likely to be some kind of curfew. It would be both unnecessary and expensive to tear up the whole Act and the new licensing system itself, so it is likely that you would retain your premises licence. However, there could under a Tory government be some additional controls on
how long you stayed open
for business.
They could, for example, have a curfew of midnight for pubs and 2am for nightclubs, which would curtail existing hours. They could introduced a ban on granting round-the-clock licences, but they would probably have to exempt hotel residents from this, which would mean the vast majority of the existing 24-hour permissions.
There is a suspicion that this is pre-election positioning, which will never actually see the light of day if they get into government. However, the licensed trade can expect some attempts to change the drinks laws under a new administration.
Presence of children
Q. The licensing officer for this district came to a local club recently when they were hosting a children's party in their main concert room, which they have done regularly for a number of years. She told them that they could not serve alcohol in the room when children were present. There appears to be nothing in their operating schedule that prevents this, but she was insistent. Is she right?
A. I have to be careful to comment only on the circumstances you describe, but there may be a case here of turning the law round in an inappropriate way.
As you know, there have always been legal controls on the presence of children in licensed premises. Until the new Licensing Act, there were no controls on the presence of children in members' clubs. Now, such clubs are governed by more or less the same rules that apply to pubs. This means that unaccompanied children under 16 may not be in the bar, and to allow them there constitutes an offence under the Act.
However, the concert room of a members' club does not come within the definition of a bar, even if alcohol is consumed there. If the licensing officer considers it falls within the definition, these children are not "unaccompanied" in the legal sense, if there is some form of supervisor or organiser present, as there always is with such parties.
To suggest that the mere presence of children requires a "dry" room is not correct. Parents and other adults are at liberty to consume alcohol in this area of the club while the children are enjoying their party.
Must licence be by door?
Q. Do I have to display my licence in the porch of this pub? I display it next to the bar where it is safe, to avoid vandalism.
A. Nothing in the Licensing Act or the regulations requires the summary of the premises licence to be visible from outside the premises, or to be positioned by the entrance door. The Act merely says that it must be "prominently displayed" at the premises. Given the fact that other types of notice are specifically required to be placed where the public can read them, it seems clear that this is not necessary in the case of a licence summary.
However, the summary should be capable of being read, both by customers and relevant authorities. Positioning it high on the wall, out of reach and sight, as I saw in a bar recently, does not strictly comply with the law.