Can pubs avoid picking up the drinks bill?

Tony Blair became an unlikely defender of pub-goers’ rights this week, emerging as one of the few voices of reason in what is an increasingly heated and nasty row over 24-hour pub opening. The Prime Minister spoke up in support of his Government’s new Licensing Act, arguing that it was not unreasonable for responsible people to have a drink when they wanted. "We shouldn't have to have restrictions that no other city in Europe has, just in order to do something for that tiny minority who abuse alcohol, who go out and fight and cause disturbances," he maintained. But he swiftly added: "We should come down really hard on those who abuse that freedom and don't show the responsibility." And there’s the sting. The Government, the pub and club trade and the drinks industry all find themselves facing the same wall of opposition to licensing change, all based on a supposed threat that the opportunity of 24-hour opening will only fuel the "urban plague" that is binge drinking. The current furore was sparked when a number of chief constables warned that their already stretched forces would not be able to cope with the demands of policing later opening. Notts police chief Steve Green predicted that if drinking establishments were allowed to open until three or four in the morning he would have to take officers off day shifts in order to do their job effectively at night. As it was the police that not so long ago fervently supported staggered closing times as a way of reducing pressure on their resources, this latest intervention does smack to some as a clever piece of political opportunism to gain more funding. Nonetheless, it was not long before every political opportunist was jumping on the "antis" bandwagon – the Lib Dems, the Tories, disgruntled backbenchers, such as former health secretary Frank Dobson, and, of course, the Daily Mail. This weekend the heat was turned up even more, with press stories that the last Home Secretary David Blunkett was really against the 24-hour element of the new Act and that Department of Culture civil servant Andrew Cunningham, one of the main architects of the new Act, had been "wined and dined" by the drinks industry. That made the lead in the Mail on Sunday. Tony Blair’s intervention suggests that the Act will not be derailed, but the widespread concerns over binge drinking and its aftermath will have to be addressed. The Government’s not-so-secret weapon is some sort of levy on all or part of the drinks industry, including pubs, to pay for extra police and other enforcement costs. So far it’s only a veiled threat. So what’s the pub and club market to do? First it has to argue it’s ground. So far Wetherspoon’s chief Tim Martin has been about the only industry leader to face the TV cameras, but has done well, especially to point out the vast sums of cash his company and the industry as a whole already pumps into the Treasury. BBPA figures put it at around £21bn a year. The industry also all knows that very few licensed premises will actually want to open for 24 hours, the vast majority would make do with just an extra hour to midnight a couple of nights a week. But the industry has to accept, too, that there is an alcohol-fuelled problem in our town centres most weekends. There are fights on the streets, young people are being allowed to drink themselves stupid in licensed premises. It may be magnified by the press, there may be other causes, but in this case perception is more important than reality. This is the problem the Government wants addressing. The new powers to punish operators that break the law over under-age drinking or serving to the already intoxicated have to be supported, and seen to be supported, by the licensed retail community. But will backing the Government and the Act, emphasising the initiatives now being taken on cut-price drinks and happy hours, and highlighting the contribution pubs and clubs already make to Government funds be enough? Will the drinks industry simply standing its ground stop further Government measures, such as the threatened industry levy? In the current climate, probably not. The Government looks like it needs to demonstrate it is doing something more; is the industry going to respond? Voluntary action may be unpalatable, but it may be necessary to show that the industry is really responsible and to avoid something worse. The danger with an industry-wide levy, for example, is that it could hit those both inside and outside current trouble spots, restaurants and theatres as well as bars and clubs. Wetherspoon’s has already said it won’t be applying for any 24-hour opening. Perhaps all the leading operators should go further and pledge none will apply for any new extensions to existing hours for at least a year, or no new extensions of more than an extra hour? They might also want to consider funding some real research into town-centre trouble that would monitor and measure the reality of the situation, in the expectation that it can be reduced. They may also have to face paying for at least some police initiatives on a local basis. Unthinkable for some in the sector, but this is now serious.