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.

New Health & Safety Poster

The current version of the Health & Safety Poster has been revised by The Health and Safety Executive (HSE). Employers can now purchase copies of the HSE’s new health & safety poster (http://www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/books/lawposter.htm). The new posters, according to the HSE, are “modern, eye-catching and easy to read. They set out in simple terms, using numbered lists of basic points, what employers and workers must do, and tell you what to do if there is a problem.”

Under the Health and Safety Information for Employees Regulations (HSIER) employers have a legal duty to display the poster in a prominent position in each workplace or provide each worker with a copy of the equivalent leaflet outlining British health and safety laws. In other words it is the employer's duty to ensure their employees are fully aware of workplace health & safety requirements. The leaflet that employers can give to workers, instead of displaying the poster, will be in the form of a pocket card that is better suited to the workplace.

The current poster and leaflet from 1999 are not visually attractive enough to prompt it to be read, according to recent research. There should be a significant benefit to employers and employees by increasing awareness and understanding of this area of law. The new design should also mean less admin work and cost for employers.

Existing versions of the poster and leaflet can be used for up to 5 years from the effective date of the new poster which came into existence on 6 April 2009 ie. until 5 April 2014 but only if they can be easily read and the relevant contact information is kept up to date. You can get this information from Infoline on 0845 345 0055.

As from 6 April 2009 only the new health & safety poster and new pocket cards are available to purchase.

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.

Hoteliers - Health & Safety

The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) and the Institute of Directors (IoD) have issued guidelines http://www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/indg417.pdf to draw attention of directors and businesses to the importance of good health and safety practices and procedures in the workplace. It is a short guide providing a summary of legal liabilities, a checklist of key questions for leaders, and a list of resources and references for implementing the guidance in practice.

Research conducted by Databuild on behalf of the HSE indicated that only a quarter of business leaders surveyed knew about the guidelines. Hotels and catering organisations were amongst the lowest when it came to awareness of the guidance. So, might it be worth your while taking a few minutes to read it for yourself and be aware of it? Let me know what you think....

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.

Retirement Law

Can employers lawfully force employees to retire at 65?

The European Court of Justice (ECJ) has sent that question back to the UK High Court in the long awaited "Heyday" case. (read the decision at http://curia.europa.eu/en/actu/communiques/cp09/aff/cp090019en.pdf)

The ECJ has ruled that it is for the national court to decide whether the UK legislation based on the EU Directive has a "legitimate aim" in terms of employment policy and labour market objectives.

The charities Age Concern and Help the Aged behind the case were hoping that the retirement age of 65 be abolished but it is now up to the UK High Court to rule on whether the government's default retirement age has a "legitimate aim".

The two charities felt that the UK had not properly implemented the EU Directive in the UK legislation (the Employment Equality (Age) Regulations 2006) because they allow forced retirement and that employers have too much scope for age rules which work against employees reaching retirement age.

For the Employees: There are a large number of cases awaiting the final decision of the High Court and if it rules that the compulsory retirement age is illegal then many older employees who have been forced to retire may be able to claim compensation from their former employers.

For the Employers: On the other hand, there are signs that the UK High Court will confirm that the UK government has properly implemented the EU Directive, and that employers can use the default retirment age of 65.

Do you think retirement should be compulsory at 65? Post your comments now.

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.

Licence to Kill....

......much needed income for business, that is.

It wasn’t as if the government hadn't been pre-warned! The predicted and unintended consequences of the new licensing laws appear to be coming to fruition. Some high profile tourist attractions will stop selling little tourist gifts of whisky miniatures because of the unproportionately high cost of getting a liquor licence under the new laws. The Scotsman (http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/scotland/Tourist-sites-pull-plug-on.5008372.jp) has reported that Historic Scotland has decided not to renew its licence for selling alcohol at 16 tourist attractions: Tormiston Mill, Corgarff Castle, Fort George, Blackhouse, St Andrews Castle, Edzell Castle, Castle Campbell, Aberdour Castle, Huntingtower, Dunstaffnage, Inchcolm Abbey, Caerlaverock Castle, Dryburgh Abbey, Jedburgh Abbey, Melrose Abbey and Linlithgow Palace.

The cost of getting a licence can be as high as £10,000 due to architect and legal fees which has caused this government agency to cut back as it has.

They are not alone - The National Trust for Scotland is doing the same at Brodick Castle on Arran, Ell Shop in Dunkeld and Priorwood Gardens in Melrose.

The tourism industry has, vociferously and on many occasions, brought this problem to the government’s attention but all in vain, it seems.

Just what we need for the much acclaimed Year of the Homecoming! What better product is Scotland known for other than whisky? It is synonymous with something like the Homecoming but visitors are going to be disappointed when they discover that the nation’s major tourist attractions don’t actually sell the stuff! Oh well, hey ho…..maybe they'll buy the tartan dollies instead huh?

I know from almost first hand experience how difficult and costly it is to get the necessary licence under the new licensing laws. David, my husband, has recently managed to successfully obtain the liquor licence for the top tourist destination he manages in Angus, Glamis Castle (http://www.glamis-castle.co.uk/). I know from discussing his experiences of their licence application that it was a complex task. I was able to help by providing background information about the legislation.

David has been at the forefront of the tourism industry’s campaign to highlight these unintended consequences to the government and I know he is not surprised about this latest development. Extremely passionate about tourism, he has unlimited energy when it comes to selling Scotland as a major tourist attraction both nationally in the UK but across the world. He has travelled the length and breadth (well just about) of the world with kilt packed neatly and weighing heavily in his suitcase to promote Scotland. Visitors to Glamis Castle come from just about every corner of the world and so it was crucial for them to be able to offer tourists not just the national product, whisky, but also the more civilised glass of wine with lunch which visitors from many other countries enjoy without getting legless or causing any problems of the type that the new licensing laws are designed to stop. Thanks to his efforts visitors will continue to enjoy the Scottish experience.

However, I suspect that it won't just be Historic Scotland venues who will be unable to fulfil visitors' expectations of the Scottish experience but also the lovely little cafes and restaurants privately owned around Scotland where one could normally enjoy a lovely lunch with a glass of fine wine!

What do you make of all this? Look forward to hearing your views...

More on Tips

Employers in the hospitality industry have made a last-ditch attempt to get the Government to delay introducing new laws that will make it illegal to use tips to top up the national minimum wage. The BHA is asking The Department for Business to do this as this week sees the end of a three-month consultation on the proposals.

The department reports that the initial feedback from the consultation suggests that there was “significant support” for the proposals, set to cost the industry between £7m and £73m a year.

However, the British Hospitality Association (BHA) has warned that the true yearly cost would be nearer £400m, and that the industry needed more time to absorb the impact.

“We believe the consultation paper seriously underestimates the number of people involved, and the cost to employers,” said a BHA spokesman. “There is little doubt that the legislation will go through, but we are saying this is not the right time to do it.”

Last week, the Unite union held a demonstration outside the House of Commons calling on the Government to close the loophole. A YouGov survey of nearly 2,200 consumers, commissioned by campaign group Consumer Focus, revealed that 94% believe all tips “should always go to the staff with no deductions by restaurant owners”.

Len McCluskey, Assistant General Secretary of the union Unite, said: “The Government must ensure employers give a decent living wage, with 100% of tips added on top.”

The Government is already cracking down on employers who fail to pay the minimum wage in full. This week a South Yorkshire hotelier was fined £2,500 for breaching minimum wage legislation. Ahmed Yassine, who runs the Phoenix Hotel, Rotherham, was fined after being found guilty of failing to keep required records and failing to produce appropriate documents when asked by officials from HM Revenue & Customs.

FSB Warning of new Business Laws

The Federation of Small Businesses (FSB) is urging the Government to delay new laws such as extending flexible working to parents of children up to age 16, which they say could cost small businesses nearly £800m a year. They are asking the Government to hold off on passing new laws on the next business law start date, because it will only put more financial pressure on already-struggling small businesses.

In a recent poll of FSB members, one in four said they believe small firms will pull the UK out of recession. However, the FSB is concerned that they will be unable to do so, or to retain or employ extra staff if they are burdened by new legislation. The FSB is calling for the Government to review the introduction of the following laws:

- Extending flexible working to parents of children up to the age of 16;
- Increasing staff holidays by four days;
- Switching gas watchdog from Corgi to Capita;
- Changes to Home Information Packs; and
- Extra Waste Control measures.

The FSB believes that a recession is no time to be making changes to existing laws, which will have such an enormous financial impact on small firms.

With two common commencement dates each year, the FSB wants to see a moratorium on new employment law until October. The FSB has urged the Government to take a “common sense approach”, and assess the economic situation and consequences this could have on small businesses before new legislation comes into effect later this year.

John Wright, National Chairman at the Federation of Small Businesses said:

"The cost of new laws to small businesses this year is huge. Small businesses should be concentrating on keeping jobs, rather than spending time and money carrying out paperwork.

"The FSB demands that the Government reconsider all regulation that will cost small firms and help our small business community thrive. This is no time to hold small businesses up with extra costs and burdens. The Government should wait until October to see if the economy is in a stronger position to cope with this added pressure.

"In these tough economic times, small businesses are already battling with red tape; with the burden and confusion of existing legislation. In 2008, we saw 57 new or altered pieces of regulation affecting small companies. A similar number is expected this year. The small business sector is confident it can help pull us out of the recession. Suspending legislation that could cost small firms up to £800m will allow them to concentrate on getting the economy back on track."