EU directive hampers councils regulating sex shops

Westminster City Council is challenging the interpretation of an EU directive 2006/123/EC which is making it harder to act against illegal sex shops.

The court believes the EU requirement is that the licence fee paid to the council can not include the cost of enforcement. The council wants to use money charged from legal sex shops to tackle illegal ones. 15 other councils backed Westminster.

Also in the news I see that a Lib Dem MP, John Pugh, is among those objecting to an EU rule on vitamin and mineral supplements that would reduce consumer choice and drive health food shops out of business.

Westminster Council launches a Civic Contract

Cllr Colin Barrow, the Leader of Westminster City Council,asks what residents, businesses and the council can do for each other

This morning, Westminster City Council will launch its future vision for the city and council; one that moves decisively away from the state knows best model and one that moves away from the state simply delivering a range of services unconditionally. Instead, it sets out an opportunity for residents, communities and businesses to take an active role in the running of their city and in determining its future in return for helping themselves.

At its heart, lies the idea of a Civic Contract between the state and those residents, communities and businesses in the city. The contract sets out what the council will do in return for an agreed set of behaviours and activities. In short, if you help yourself or your community then we will help you. And, for example, if you are business that employs local young people then we will support you. However, it makes clear that those that transgress or break these rules will forfeit their traditional rights to these services. The days of something for nothing are over. It also believes that everyone, whoever they are, has a role to play in making the city a success. From actively seeking a job to learning English for those recently arrived, to local businesses providing opportunities to residents and cleaning up after themselves.

We see this approach being guided by a new sense of civic responsibility, fairness and opportunity. Our principle of responsibility is about recognising the value of public contributions. Our focus on fairness will continue to be on caring for and supporting the neediest in our society because we believe that to be the mark of a civilised society. We will do this by offering our citizens a ladder of opportunity to help them better themselves.

Councils should have more power on gambling licensing

Cllr Benjamin Dennehy is a member of Ealing Council’s Licensing Committee 

What is the Big Society? Who does it involve? How will it work? Are we all in this thing together?

They are interesting questions and they are being asked by many commentators. Thus far no real satisfactory answer has been given and perhaps that is the perfect solution to these questions. By defining an articulate answer then surely we, by default, regulate the big society as a set idea. Rather it should be an unorganised, non-definable thing, something we can’t express but something we know when we see it, experience it or participate in it.

Logically, for citizens, businesses and charity to have more of an active role in dealing with society’s needs and ills a push or an incentive is required. The greatest of those pushes being a withdrawal by the state. Many things we allow the state do to for us today were in fact done by the citizen and charities in the past, long before universal benefits. I believe as the state withdrawals, people will have to step up to the challenge. This is a generational shift and won’t happen over the life of this parliament or the next. We as a society are too used to paying our excessive taxes, but in return we expect the state to pick up all the pieces.

Ineffective authoritarianism: Councils to have more power to ban cheap alcohol

Following the report in August that a group of councils in Greater Manchester are seeking a by-law to impose a minimum price of alcohol, an indication from the Daily Mail that they will be allowed to proceed and that other parts of the country may follow. The group Core Cities are producing a report into it.

To allow the by-law, the first one giving councils price fixing powers, would require legislation "ripping up Competition law." In Manchester they propose a rule that alcohol should be sold at a minimum of 50p per unit.

I suppose localism means allowing councils to have by-laws that others might not wish to have. I think the illiberal proposal from Manchester would be expensive to enforce with armies of jobsworths scouring the shops. It would not the rich (who would typically be spending more than £5 for a bottle of wine anyway). But it would hit the poor - the vast majority of whom drink responsibly. Why should  granny in Bolton, living in a council flat on a state pension, be made to pay price twice as much for her bottle of stout, her once a week treat as she settles down to watch Strictly Come Dancing?

The proper way to tackle the drunken yobs is to arrest them. Not make everyone else pay more for their drinks. Price controls would be an unjust way to address the problem. Also I suspect ineffective - with the gap for an illicit market created.

Manchester plans minimum alcohol price by-law

Councils in the Greater Manchester area are planning a by-law that would set a minimum price of alcohol of 50p. The proposal is not final, drawing it up is complex and it would need the approval of  central Government. It would be the first by-law giving Councils the power to set prices.  The area covered by the Association of Greater Manchester Authorities covers nearly four million people and includes Manchester, Bolton, Rochdale and Oldham. 

Enforcing the price controls would mean a considerable extra administrative function for the Councils given all the pubs, supermarkets and off-licences concerned. I haven't seen any figures as to the cost of all the extra Council snoopers that would be required if the new regime was to be enforced.

The minimum price would go well beyond thee government's's proposal that alcohol should not be sold below cost. It would mean drinkers paying at least £4.50 for a standard-sized bottle of wine, £6 for a six-pack of lager and £14 for a 700ml bottle of whisky. Would there be the equivalent of the "booze cruises" to Lancashire and Cheshire?

Should Councils be able to regulate pedlars?

So far as I can gather they don't have much hope of getting anywhere, but there are various Private Bills before before Parliament being promoted by various Councils to regulate peddlars. This one from Canterbury is an example. It would give Councils sweeping powers to sweep pedlars off the streets.

Debating the issue in Parliament, the Conservative MP Chris Chope, came to the defence of the pedlars. He said:

 I think that there is a reasonable concern on the part of the pedlar community that it has not obtained a reasonable deal from Nottingham and Canterbury; and that is why I shall certainly oppose these Bills. Piecemeal legislation, which we are engaged in producing, is undesirable in principle. If we are going to restrict or change the rights, responsibilities and definition of pedlars and introduce different arrangements for issuing licences in order to test whether the requirements of good character have been satisfied and so on, it is sensible and prudent that we do so in a national context. They are all issues that have been raised in the Government's current consultation paper.

I should like the number of pedlars operating in this country to increase significantly, and that may be a by-product of our series of debates. I should like Jobcentre Plus advisers to suggest to people that, while looking for work, they might obtain a pedlar's certificate for £12.25 and trust their luck in the real world of trying to become a retailer. That activity is not necessarily suited to everybody, but in my submission it is suited to many more people than the 4,000 who are engaged in it.

We in this House should not send out an ambivalent message. Some say that pedlars are equivalent to rogue traders-admittedly, an extreme view, but one that some of the promoters of these Bills have articulated; and others of us say that pedlars are wonderful entrepreneurs who engage in the enterprise society. If we send out mixed messages, it will be that much more difficult to encourage people to go into pedlary as a profession. I say "profession" advisedly, because, as was mentioned at the very beginning of these debates, Marks and Spencer would not exist had it not been for the fact that it was founded by somebody who learned his trade as a pedlar.

We have to look at this in the national context, because an aspect that has become highly relevant since we first started debating these Bills is the significant rise in unemployment. Like me, the Minister will have regularly received people at his surgeries saying, "I've got all these qualifications and I'm eager to work", then, as an aside, "A lot of people aren't interested in getting a job, but I'm not one of those-I want to get a job." Other countries, such as Germany, have systems for encouraging people to engage in self-employment."

This is good stuff from Chope. Conservatives should wish to promote enterprise culture and defeat dependency culture. We should favour individual liberty and consumer choice. But what about the democratic argument? What about localism? If Canterbury and Nottingham wish to engage in these misguided restrictions should that not be a matter for them?

Tories back powers for local authorities to stop lap dancing clubs

In the Commons earlier today Gordon Brown said that he wanted to give local authorities the power to stop lap dancing clubs:

"We believe that any such applications should take into account the wishes of local residents and should be sensitive to the needs of people in the area. We intend to legislate on that basis in the near future."

Two weeks ago Theresa May and Jeremy Hunt had proposed that lap dancing clubs be classified as ‘sex encounter establishments’ and local authorities would have the power to decide that a new application was inappropriate for their localities.

Theresa May commented at the time:

“Councils have made clear to us how frustrated they are that they haven’t been given appropriate powers over the licensing of lap dancing clubs. Local councils should decide whether it is appropriate for lap dancing clubs to operate in their area, taking into consideration the feelings of their community. It is clear that they need greater powers and we will change the law to ensure that they get them.”

CCHQ compiled examples of local authorities that had been unable to prevent clubs opening:

"Brighton
Brighton Council refused a license to a lap dancing club, a decision that was overturned by the Magistrates Court. Brighton and Hove has four fully-nude lap dancing clubs

Greenwich
Since 2003, Greenwich Council has approved two applications for lap dancing clubs. One such application was opposed by in a petition signed by around 800 local residents. The licensing authority stated that there were no legal grounds to oppose granting a license, which was therefore granted. The Council issued a stop notice on the venue which was overturned by the Courts.

Durham
An application for a lap dancing club was approved by Durham City Council in 2007 despite local objections. The venue site is close to the city’s cathedral. Local residents appealed the decision in the Magistrates Court and won, with magistrates saying that the application contravened all four licensing objectives. However, the owners of the site are seeking a judicial review in the High Court.

Newcastle
Objections to a new lap dancing club were dismissed by Newcastle City Council, who said that the objections did not fit the criteria of the Licensing Act.

Manchester
In 2007, Manchester City Council said that it was unable to block an application from a lap dancing club, and was therefore obliged to grant it a license.

Westminster
Westminster has the highest concentration of lap dancing clubs in London, and the Licensing Authority has stated that it will not consider any further applications except in exceptional circumstances. However, under current provision it is not clear that they would be able to do this."

Tim Montgomerie

Labour-run Norwich persecute mulled wine serving hairdressers

The Sunday Telegraph report that Norwich City Council, which has a minority Labour administration, has written to hairdressers telling them that if they offer customers a seasonal glass of mulled wine then they will face six months in prison and a £20,000 fine. They will send in undercover officers in an enforcement drive.

It is true that the hairdressers were breaching licensing laws but such a custome was widespread at Christmas and traditional a blind eye has been turned. Of course Councils have a role to enforce the law. But have Norwich got their priorities right? It seems rather like those Council who spend their time persecuting greengrocers caught using imperial measures.