Agenda and minutes

To approve the record of the meeting held on 28 November 2013 and the record of the Joint Meeting of all Committees held on 14 May 2014.

The record of the meeting of the Committee held on 28 November 2013 and the record of the Joint Meeting of all Committees held on 14 May 2014 were agreed and signed by the Chairman as correct. 

There were no apologies for absence received. However, Councillor Baker did not attend the meeting. 

The Chairman will announce any late items which do not appear on the main agenda but which she has agreed should be considered by reason of special circumstances to be specified in the report. 

There were none. 

A member need only disclose at any meeting the existence of a disclosable pecuniary interest (DPI) in a matter to be considered at that meeting if that DPI has not been entered on the disclosable pecuniary interests register maintained by the Monitoring Officer.

A member disclosing a DPI at a meeting must thereafter notify the Monitoring Officer in writing of that interest within 28 days from the date of disclosure at the meeting.

A member may not participate in a discussion of or vote on any matter in which he or she has a DPI (both those already registered and those disclosed at the meeting) and must withdraw from the room during such discussion/vote.

Members may choose to voluntarily disclose a DPI at a meeting even if it is registered on the council’s register of disclosable pecuniary interests but there is no legal requirement to do so.

Members should also ensure they disclose any other interests which may give rise to a conflict under the council’s code of conduct.

In line with the training provided to members by the Monitoring Officer members will also need to consider bias and pre-determination in certain circumstances and whether they have a conflict of interest or should otherwise leave the room for Code reasons. 

Disclosable pecuniary interests

There were none.

Other interests

Councillor Gulvin declared an interest in item 5 – Kent and Medway Compliance and Enforcement Protocol in that it referred to the Kent Fire and Rescue Service and he was a member of that organisation. Councillor Godwin stated he was also a member of the organisation but had been advised that it was not a disclosable pecuniary interest.  

The purpose of the report is to seek approval of the Licensing and Safety Committee for the Medway Licensing Team to adopt the joint Kent and Medway Licensing Compliance and Enforcement Protocol in as much as it applies to the activities carried out by this section of the Council.  

Discussion:

The Licensing and Local Land Charges Manager advised that the reason for the report to come to Committee was that certain elements of the Protocol were not covered by the Council’s Licensing Team for example, items covered by trading standards. The Protocol enhanced and encouraged partnership working, joint understanding and the co-operation of shared objectives. There would be regular consultation to keep the information up to date.

Protocols had been established with organisations the Council worked in partnership with on licensing compliance and enforcement issues. The Kent & Medway Regulatory Licensing Steering Group, of which Medway Licensing was a member, had formalised these protocols including liaison agreements and effective practice by way of an agreement between all relevant parties.

In adopting this document the parties agree to:

·                    Continue to promote the spirit of co-operation that exists between the relevant agencies;

·                    Recognise the benefits to be derived from developing close working relationships;

·                    Seek to enhance the understanding of the advantages and opportunities which joint activity can bring to effective enforcement and community safety;

·                    Promote the legitimate exchange of information and operational co-operation in support of shared objectives.

Each party to the protocol undertakes:

·                    To regularly consult with each other upon matters of policy and strategy;

·                    To ensure that the information it holds is accurate and up to date;

·                    That information disclosed by any party will be kept secure by the partner to whom it has been provided.

When handling the media, all parties to this protocol agree:

·                    To be fair to other organisations and maintain their integrity;

·                    When providing information to do so honestly and fairly;

·                    Statements must reflect the multi-agency decision process or, clearly identify the statement as the independent position of an individual organisation;

·                    Consent of the data owner will be sought prior to releases of information to all third parties.

In response to a question about the “Golden Rules” (page 32) and the application if the Data Protection Rules, the Senior Licensing and Enforcement Officer advised that personal information such as a home addresses, contact telephone numbers and dates of birth were all protected under the Data Protection Act. However, if the Council was liaising with the Police, for example, about an individual, personal information could be shared for a specific and valid reason and an audit trail must be created.  The Council could not share personal information with local residents.

A further question was raised about, for instance, a Designated Premises Supervisor or a licensee transferring from another county into Kent. The Senior Licensing and Enforcement Officer advised there was no central database holding personal information such as this and the only central agency was the Audit Commission. If Medway Council had an issue with such an individual, the Council could apply to the issuing authority for information. The Council could also ask the individual to verify their identity if necessary.

The Committee noted that the year after the Crime and Disorder Act entry on page 25 of the report should read 1998.

Decision:

The Committee adopts  ...  view the full minutes text for item 175.

The purpose of the report is to update the Licensing and Safety Committee on the current list of Mandatory Conditions under the Licensing Act 2003. 

Discussion:

The Committee was updated on the current list of Mandatory Conditions under the Licensing Act 2003. The Licensing and Local Land Charges Manager advised that the Government had published revised Mandatory Licence Conditions at the end of June, which the Order indicated would come into force on the 1st October 2014 and the amendment would deal with changes to irresponsible drinks promotions. The Mandatory Condition preventing alcohol being dispensed directly into another person's mouth had been incorporated into the definition of an irresponsible promotion.

The main change however, was that the previous qualification that any drinks promotion was only irresponsible if it was carried on in a manner which 'carried a significant risk' of undermining one of the licensing objectives had disappeared. The Order then went on to split definitions of irresponsible drinks promotions into five categories, some of which were not qualified by the requirement that it carried such a significant risk. Three categories would be illegal under any circumstances: dispensing alcohol directly into a person's mouth; a game or activity which encouraged people to drink a quantity of alcohol within a certain time limit (other than drinking up time), or to drink as much alcohol as possible; and selling alcohol in association with any posters / flyers in the vicinity of the premises, which could reasonably be considered to condone, encourage or glamorise anti-social behaviour, or the effects of drunkenness, in a favourable manner.

However, two other forms of promotions - unlimited or unspecified quantities of alcohol being sold free or for a fixed or discounted fee, and the provision of free or discounted alcohol as a prize, to encourage or reward purchase or consumption of alcohol over a period of 24 hours or less, were only irresponsible if they were carried on in a manner where there was a significant risk of undermining one or more of the licensing objectives.

Therefore, drinks promotions which were commonly run across the country which discount alcohol on a certain evening of the week, were only deemed to be irresponsible in the event that they were carried out in a manner which carried with it a significant risk to the licensing objectives. The draft order was significantly different to the situation in Scotland, where all specified drinks promotions were banned outright. Only those games or activities requiring individuals to drink alcohol quickly, or selling alcohol in association with posters or flyers glamorising drunkenness or anti-social behaviour, would be banned completely.

The Chairman requested that information in relation to Mandatory Conditions be circulated to the Committee by email as and when any changes occur and that the changes then be reported to the Committee for information.

The Licensing and Local Land Charges Manager stated it had previously been the focus of the licensing authority to advise licensees of any changes to their mandatory conditions and when it happened. However, the Government now recognised the burden this put on licensing authorities and had advised that the Council just had to ensure  ...  view the full minutes text for item 176.