To consider an application for a review of a premise licence in respect of Taste of India, 52 West Street, Leominster. HR6 8UE called by Police Sergeant 3456 Reynolds of West Mercia Police.

Members of the licensing sub-committee of the council’s planning and regulatory committee considered the above application, full details of which appeared before the Members in their agenda, the background papers and the supplement issued on 9 August 2018.       

Prior to making their decision the members heard from Fred Spriggs, Licensing Officer, Leah Wilson, Trading Standards Officer and Sergeant Duncan Reynolds.   The committee also heard from the premises licence holder’s agent.   It was noted that the Mr Ali, the premises licence holder was not present. 

West Mercia Police outlined their representation in connection with the review which included:

West Mercia Police were part of a multi agency target enforcement strategy (MATE) and were part of a 3 day operation between Gangmaster Labour Abuse Authority.   The purpose of the operation was to visit high risk premises in Leominster, such as restaurants, fast food outlets, car washes, etc.   This was not an intelligence led operation but was fact finding.

The Taste of India, 52 West Street, Leominster was a low profile business and not come to attention of the police before this.  

·         A MATE operation had taken place at the premises on 14 June 2018 which had been open for business.  

·         Two males were detained who had admitted to working illegally.   Both males had no right to work in the UK.  

·         A civil penalty notice had been served on the manager of the business. 

·         Employment of illegal immigrants is a criminal offence and is viewed as a serious matter as set out in the S182 statutory guidance and states that revocation even at first occurrence should be considered.

·         The police had had contact from the agent.  

·         The police’s approach was to education and ensure compliance and this was Mr Ali’s first occasion of employing illegal workers, conditions had been agreed with the premises licence holder’s agent. 

The trading standards officer outlined the conditions which trading standards would like to appear on the licence.   These included a minimum level of training for all staff to ensure that all children are kept from harm; a refusal register and Challenge 25.  These conditions had not been agreed.

Mr Semper stated that he was sorry that his client was not present and would have like to apologise unreservedly to the committee.   Mr Ali had instructed him straightaway after the MATE visits.   

The majority of the concerns had been met through the minor variation to the licence.   His understanding was that the police now wished to withdraw their review.     

The issue of training condition had not been agreed because in Mr Semper’s opinion, it was not proportionate nor appropriate and would be at an unnecessary high cost to his client.   Mr Semper offer this training and was in the process of arranging a session.    It was pointed out that the employment of Indian restaurant staff was transient and it was not proportionate nor appropriate to give training to a transient workforce.   The condition proposed by Mr Semper had been accepted at other local authorities and should be accepted by Herefordshire.     

Mr Semper also stated that his immigration condition should be agreed as the employment of a specialist immigrant expert to carry out employment checks was not proportionate nor appropriate due to the cost.   Mr Ali would be using the immigration checklist which was a mandatory requirement to check whether people had the right to work or live in the UK. 

Following questions, it was confirmed: 

·         The two males had been in the UK for a number of years, primarily in the Birmingham area and were in their 50s.   Both had been debriefed by the Gangmasters Authority and had decline to go into this programme despite the figure they were not being paid the minimum wage and living in the sub-standard accommodation.     

·         There were 4 members of staff present at the time of the visit.

·         There was no both of how long the two males had been employed

·         The police’s objective is not go in with enforcement but to differentiate between trafficked and other issues.    They will offer training for owners and they are given very clear advice and guidance.   

·         That the wording in the trading standards condition in respect of training did include the words “or equivalent” but that trading standards had not seen the training being offered by Mr Semper so could not agree to the condition as they did not know if it met the “or equivalent” criteria. 

·         The immigration condition had not been agreed because it was a duplicate of a mandatory requirement and such conditions should be not duplicated in a premises licence.  

The committee have carefully considered all the representations, reports and evidence before them today. They have had regard to their duties under S4 of the Licensing Act and considered guidance issued under s182 of the Licensing Act 2003 and Herefordshire’s statement of licensing policy. 

DECISION

The sub committee’s  decision following a review of premises licence is as follows:

That the decision be adjourned to 5 September 2018 at 10.00 am.

REASONS

The committee had taken into account the all the statements from the parties present.   However, as Mr Ali, the premises licence holder, was not present and the committee had questions, the decision in connection with this review was being adjourned in the public interest.