Here we go again. Hidden away, as a footnote no less, on page nine of the Government’s latest alcohol action plan is a five-point proposal to toughen up the existing mandatory licensing conditions that’s likely to illicit more groans from the pub and club sector.
The Government is clearly looking to close perceived loopholes in the current regulations, which ban deals such as all-you-can-drink and those involving speed drinking and the notorious (but, as a report for Government admitted at the time, extremely rare) ‘dentist chair’.
To summarise, the Government says it will:
1) “Make all the existing listed promotions irresponsible in all circumstances, removing the need for judgment by business or those enforcing the condition. This reduces the risk that the condition is applied inconsistently.” In other words, reducing the scope to argue the case that a particular promotion is irresponsible.
2) “Remove the exemption for table meals that currently applies to the ban on offering unlimited or unspecified quantities of alcohol for free or for a fixed fee.”
3) “Require businesses to ensure that irresponsible promotions do not occur, rather than taking ‘all reasonable steps’.” Again, reducing the ‘wriggle-room’ for operators; for example, by claiming that a particular promotion was carried out while the licensee was away.
4) “Remove the specific reference in the condition to the ban on the provision of free or discounted alcohol in connection with a ‘sporting event’. This type of irresponsible promotion is already covered by the ban on the provision of unlimited or unspecified alcohol for free or for a fixed or discounted fee.”
5) “Incorporate the separate condition banning the dispensing of alcohol by one person in to the mouth of another into the irresponsible promotion condition. Before the ban, this frequently took place as part of a promotion.” It’s likely that the industry will take issue with how commonplace this actually is.
That’s not all. Pubs and restaurants will be required to list the price of small measures, which they must already offer, on menus and price lists alongside the price of other serving sizes. Customers must be made “explicitly aware” that smaller sizes are available. In addition, designated premises supervisors will be explicitly made responsible for implementing their age verification policy.
On their own, each new requirement would probably not prove too onerous for the majority of responsible operators. But taken together they amount to an upscaling in the burden for a sector that is already facing a tight regulatory environment and the prospect of more to come with early morning restriction orders and the late-night levy.
The willingness to act has clearly been influenced by the consultation, which found that 58% (or 514) respondents didn’t believe the mandatory conditions did enough to target irresponsible promotions in the on-trade.
But at the same time, the most frequently raised proposal regarding the conditions is that there should be more active enforcement of existing regulations. Surely this would have been a more logical first step than taking the statutory route that makes no distinction between well-run and rogue operators?
The Association of Licensed Multiple Retailers (ALMR) has pointed out that it could have been worse, however. Alternative proposals to ban the sale of shots, pitcher or volume purchases, happy hours were successfully resisted, it said.
Nevertheless, the on-trade could also justifiably be annoyed that while the Government appears happy to target the on-trade on the basis of opinions, cast-iron evidence is required to act against supermarkets. This is what it said about proposals to ban multi-pack deals: “On balance, the Government believes that the evidence for the effectiveness of a ban on multi-buy promotions in the off-trade in reducing hazardous and harmful consumption remains inconclusive, and will not therefore be taking this forward.”
Simple politics plays a part here too, and the Government is clearly eager not to be seen to raise the price of the weekly shop for British families. Most of the public opposed the multi-deal ban, the Government points out, and it says it’s wary of the “unintended consequences” of introducing minimum pricing, which remains on the backburner for the time being.
The Government is leaving its options open for the off-trade, describing the ban on sales below the combined level of duty plus VAT by next spring as an “important first step to prevent the irresponsible sale of very cheap alcohol and reduce the harms associated with it”. This policy is little more than a token gesture. Previous studies have shown that hardly any drinks promotions would be outlawed under this definition - the Government gives the example of a can of 4% ABV lager not being sold for less than 40p. It’s interesting that the Government is not calling this a ban on below-cost sales, and neither should it, because production costs are not included.
More positively, the report makes it clear that the Government is still committed to the Responsibility Deal on alcohol, recognising the advances made over areas such as health and unit labelling and committing the industry to go beyond its pledge of removing one billion units of alcohol from the market by the end of 2015.
The Government will also examine levels of interest in so-called local alcohol action areas, which would receive advice from Government agencies, the industry and others to develop strategies to combat alcohol-related problems. As long as these are progressed in the spirit of co-operation, and not used an excuse to aggressively target pubs and clubs, they should also be welcomed.
In addition, the proposals could be a boon for late-night fast food operators, with plans to let councils exempt licensing requirements for late-night refreshment in “low risk locations”. Plans to allow venues to have more temporary events notices (the maximum allowed per year is to rise from 12 to 15) and abolish the requirement to renew personal licences every 10 years does show that, in some areas at least, the Government is still keen to deregulate. And thankfully the Government has chosen not to persue plans to add a new public health licensing objective.
So it’s not all bad, but the ALMR is right when it says the proposals are a missed opportunity to tackle the supermarkets. For the most part it amounts to tinkering around the edges, with an eye on public opinion and the strength of the supermarket lobby. This debate is likely to dominate the national coverage of the plan, while pubs and clubs are left - again - to quietly face another regulatory headache.
