« Previous | Contents | Next »
Listen
THE LICENSING (SCOTLAND) BILL: AN ANALYSIS OF CONSULTATION RESPONSES
EIGHT: TRAINING
23. Do you agree that Board members should be obliged to undertake their mandatory training within 3 months of elections before sitting?
8.1 Amongst the eighty-two who commented, agreement by a broad and clear majority for this proposal in principle was tempered by a concern expressed in most comments about what would happen in the intervening period between the election of a new board and the new members receiving the requisite training. Setting a minimum standard for the interim period (for instance, the chairperson and a certain proportion of members should have been trained) or retaining some previous members were suggested solutions. One idea was that the election of board members could be staggered or only some would be elected councillors, with a minority of representatives from key groups providing a professional component to the board.
8.2 Those rejecting the proposal felt that three months was insufficient, six being the main suggested alternative. One suggestion was that board members could be permitted to sit on a maximum of two meetings before receiving training. The question of who would pay for training was also raised by one, as was the possibility that such training requirement might deter people from applying to join boards.
24. Do you agree that personal licence holders should be obliged to undertake refresher training every 5 years?
8.3 More than three quarters of the 81 who addressed this question in their submissions were in agreement and generally offered no further comment, deeming the period to be appropriate, although a few voiced concerns about how this training would be funded. Those who rejected the proposal did so from a variety of viewpoints: training should be undertaken every three years as at present; every five years was too often and would be too costly; and refresher courses should only be required if the conduct of the licensee deemed it necessary.
25. Do you agree that all permanent members of staff who are serving alcohol should receive appropriate mandatory training to an agreed national standard?
8.4 Yet again, around three quarters of all consultation respondents addressed the specific proposal, the vast majority being supportive. All of the six opposing the proposal were from the private sector, three being off-sales representatives. Those who agreed in part stressed the importance of the training being available at a local level or in-house. The AFS Servewise course was identified by four trade representatives and one individual as the potential basis for a national standard.
26. Do you agree that casual staff should be exempted from this requirement but should receive basic on site training by a personal licence holder subject to a statutory definition of 'casual'?
8.5 This proposal sparked ambiguous and hard to define responses, and although a majority expressed some level of agreement with the question at its most basic level it appears to be an issue demanding closer consideration as they argued for conditions which could be seen to qualify their assent. Most importantly, across all types of the 85 responses to this question, it was evident that there would need to be clear description of the 'casual worker'. It was pointed out that a casual staff member might work eight hour shifts, while a permanent member could be working half that a day. Several licensing boards felt that LLSOs could monitor casual staffing levels and performance and there should be checks that staff were receiving training to national standards.
8.6 The high level of casual employment in the on-sales trade was again pointed out by several consultees. Comments also referred to wider issues of staff supervision and the proportion of different categories of staff on a shift at one time.
8.7 Almost one third of consultees responding to this question explicitly disagreed with the proposal, on the following grounds: all staff serving alcohol should receive an appropriate level of training; and a two or three month definition would be unworkable because it would be open to abuse and many people work in the sector for years on the basis of casual contracts. One licensing board had already been informed by traders in their locale that they would resort to hiring staff on a casual basis to avoid training obligations if these applied to permanent staff only.
27a. How should 'casual' be defined?
8.8 There was no single dominant view on this. Some indicated that the question was irrelevant if there was to be no distinction between casual and permanent serving staff in matters such as training requirements and a number stated that periods of employment shorter than three months could be used as a measure, echoing the duration suggested in the consultation document (Question 27b). However, a definition founded on the numbers of hours worked (for instance, less than sixteen for casual staff) or a distinction between staff working regular hours and those called upon for shifts on an ad hoc basis might be more appropriate. Attention was also drawn to the mobility of staff on possibly casual contracts over potentially long periods of time and the way that casual labour could be spread throughout the year depending on the season.
27b. Would a period of 2 or 3 months be appropriate?
8.9 Just over half of all consultees provided a specific response to this, a small majority of whom disagreed, many referring back to answers given to Questions 27a and 26. Many of those who supported such a definition did, however, note that they expected that it would be difficult to monitor. Again, reference was made to the mobility of staff, the potential for employers to find a way round this definition, and that a definition based more on hours worked per week would be more helpful. If the definition were to be based on duration, two or three months was pointed out as being too short for many businesses over the summer period when the tourist season often lasts for four months.
8.10 There was no noticeable pattern in the way in which different categories of consultees responded to this question.
28. Should the designated personal licence holder be placed under a duty to ensure that training of permanent staff is carried out?
8.11 There was almost unanimous support for this proposal from 79 who responded to it and few comments added anything to the simple indications of assent. One who opposed the proposal believed that all personal licence holders, not just the designated personal licence holder, should be responsible for this.
29. How can this best be monitored?
8.12 More than half of all the comments received on this noted that the LLSOs would have a role in checking that the appropriate training had been carried out, although there were different suggestions about this could be achieved. For example, the most frequently cited idea was to allow LLSOs access to personnel data and training records or log books; others suggestions were that they could carry out spot checks or written tests of staff. It was suggested that each staff member should have a personal record of training which would be especially useful given the temporary and mobile patterns of employment in the sector.
« Previous | Contents | Next »