Lack of Licensing Applications by Pubs & Hotels

The Scottish Beer & Pub Association have revealed that at least a fifth of pubs and hotels in Scotland have not lodged their licensing applications.

Under the Licensing Act 2005, licensees had to apply for a new premises licence in order to be able to sell alcohol by January 16. 3,100 of the anticipated 16,306 applications, which should have been lodged in the first 12 months of the licensing transition were not received. The Association believes that is because the cost and complexity of the new Licensing (Scotland) Act 2005 has discouraged pubs from doing so, and because a large number of premises have already ceased trading. Moray, the Shetland Islands and Orkney had the largest number of pubs failing to submit applications.

It will however only be on 1 September this year that a full assessment can be made of how many hotels and pubs have actually made the transition.


Disclaimer: the contents of this blog are not intended form the basis of legal advice. Independent legal advice should be taken from your own solicitor for all cases.

Employees Working Off Site - Liability under Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998?

The House of Lord have issued their decision in Smith v Northamptonshire County Council - a case concerning an employee injured on a crumbling wooden ramp while wheeling a wheelchair user (Mrs Cotter) from her home to the minibus driven by the employee who also worked for the Council as a carer. The ramp in question had been installed by the NHS some 10 years earlier and had a latent defect in it. It had been inspected by the Council but not for the purposes of these Regulations. The House of Lords held that unless the equipment in question, ie the ramp, was actually in the "control" of the employer then there was no liability. In this case the Council did not install the ramp, did not have any responsibility maintain it and had no control over it's maintenance or use. For that reason, the House of Lords decided in favour of the council because it did not have the necessary level of control over the ramp and so were not liable under the Regulations.

So, from this point of view, businesses can relax because they will not be held liable for equipment used by their employees whilst working off site, which is not within their "control".

Their Lordships also considered the principle behind the Regulations which is that they are there to promote employees health & safety and not to give employees a right to claim compensation.

Disclaimer: the contents of this blog are not intended form the basis of legal advice. Independent legal advice should be taken from your own solicitor for all cases.

Minimum Alcohol Pricing

Interesting article in The Telegraph today on the continuing debate surrounding minimum alcohol pricing - see: http://tinyurl.com/ofcomf.


Disclaimer: the contents of this blog are not intended form the basis of legal advice. Independent legal advice should be taken from your own solicitor for all cases.

Keeping a weather eye out....

There is an important legislative proposal by the EU in relation to the display of Energy Performance Certificates, in the draft Recast Directive on Energy Performance of Buildings (COM (2008) 780 Final).

At the moment Article 7 of Energy Performance of Buildings Director 2002 only applies to public authorites and public services where the floor space is over 1,000 square metres . The legal requirement is that an Energy Performance Certificate must be displayed in a prominent position clearly visible to the public.

The proposed legislation looks to widen that requirement to premises which are "frequently visited by the public" and proposes to reduce the floor space from 1,000 square metres to 250 square metres. If this proposed legislation is passed, it will catch private sector buildings as well such as hotels, shops, and offices.

The timetable for the proposed legislation is for member states to implement it in their national law by 31 December 2010 for public authorities and public services, and all other premises by 31 December 2012. It would be a good idea to look out for the government consultations when change is proposed to the domestic law so that any issues or unintended consequences of the law can be dealt with at an early stage.


Disclaimer: the contents of this blog are not intended form the basis of legal advice. Independent legal advice should be taken from your own solicitor for all cases.

National Minimum Wage & Tips, Gratuities etc

BERR has just issued the Government's Response to its Consultation on Service Charges, Tips, Gratuities and Cover Charges. The National Minimum Wage Act 1998 came into force in 1999 and since then it has been legal to use service charges, tips, gratuities and cover charges towards payment of the national minimum wage when payment is made through the employer's payroll.

The responses to the consultation came from a broad spectrum of interested parties: from individual customers, to business and trade unions and bodies. Unsurprisingly, those on the employee and customer side support the change in the law while business and trade bodies suggest delaying the change until the economic climate improves. However, the majority of responses support the change. So on that basis, the government, having taken evidence from stakeholdes and having carried out an impact assessment, believes the time is now right to change the law to create a level playing field in wages paid by employers. The government's response states that it will also create equity for employees, plus create transparency for the customers leaving tips in good faith for the employee so that they will know how their money is to be used.

The government states it is working with the Hospitality, Leisure and Service Sectors to ensure there will be no unnecessary additional administrative burdens on employers.

The change in the law will come into effect on 1 October 2009. (The current National Minimum Wage is £5.73 per hour.)

How will it affect your business? Will it cost you more or are you already paying tips in addition to the national minimum wage?

Disclaimer: the contents of this blog are not intended form the basis of legal advice. Independent legal advice should be taken from your own solicitor for all cases.

Working Time Directive

MEPs and EU governments failed to agree a draft Directive amending the 48 hour individual opt out and ‘on call’ time rules means the opt out stays in force probably for many years and without fresh restrictions (on how and when it can be signed and on annual renewal). This is good news as it applies to around 120,000 hospitality employees.

Employees can still be asked to “opt out” and be able to work more than 48 hours a week, but they continue to have the right to reject this request or change their mind on no more than three months’ written notice, without suffering any adverse treatment as a result.

Disclaimer: the contents of this blog are not intended form the basis of legal advice. Independent legal advice should be taken from your own solicitor for all cases.

Raise the Bar

Cabinet Secretary of Justice Scotland, Kenny McAskill, MSP, key note speaker at today's Bar Scotland Show in Edinburgh spoke of his vision for managing alcohol consumption in Scotland for the benefit of the nation's health, public finances, and generally in the public interest. He said that "alcohol misuse-not use" has a detrimental effect on the healthcare system and costs. He was pleased to see that the transition period to the new licensing regime is progressing "smoothly" which contrasted with the panel session earlier where many on the panel and in the audience expressed their concerns at the inconsistencies in policies and decisions of licensing boards across Scotland.

The subject of the proposed Social Responsibility Levy was also debated in an earlier Question Time style Strategy Session. The general consensus on the panel was that social responsibility should really lie with the individuals abusing alcohol and not just the licence trade. Mr. McAskill stated that the imposition of such a levy on the licence trade was some way off with a "number of issues still to be fleshed out". He informed the audience that the government will take the current economic situation into account and that a social responsibility levy would not be imposed "until the economy warms up".

The Cabinet Secretary expressed his concern on the growing trend of more people opting to drink at home rather than go out. He said that this is obviously the cause of the "irresponsible" cheap pricing of alcohol in supermarkets. As a result more alcohol is consumed at home than would be the case if people went out to pubs and clubs where they would be drinking alcohol in a controlled environment and where it would be more expensive. (So, state control appears to be the motivating force here). Mr. McAskill said "alcohol should not be cheaper than a bottle of water". He said that high strength alcohol at cheap prices has to stop so that health problems can be reduced. Home drinking is more of a problem than the pubs and clubs. Mr McAskill quoted the Strathclyde Police who have named a certain well known brand of bottled beer as "wife beater". He wants a "radical new approach" with clear mechanisms in place and would prefer to see people going out and enjoying a social drink in pubs, cafes, clubs and restaurants, rather than drinking heavily at home.

He remained committed to bringing in a minimum pricing regime but now by a different legislative route. He talked of the need to persuade the public, colleagues and parliament on the benefits to the nation's health from minimum pricing. £2.25bn is the figure he put on the cost of alcohol misuse.

He was keen to point out that pubs are an important part of all communities whether urban or rural and recognises the "difficult journey" the licence trade has to undertake in the current economic climate. He would like to see a vibrant pub trade where people can go to enjoy a drink whether it be a coffee, soft drink or alcohol - not places where people will abuse or consume alcohol as quickly as possible.

When I asked if the government have comparative data from other countries where minimum pricing may already have been introduced as a possible tool to "persuade, educate and change the culture" Mr. McAskill replied that there is comparative data from places such as Canada and the Scandinavian countries, but they do not have the same level of abuse as we do in Scotland.

Do you think minimum pricing should be imposed on alcohol?

Disclaimer: the contents of this blog are not intended form the basis of legal advice. Independent legal advice should be taken from your own solicitor for all cases.