At the bar of the house
The Licensing Bill, the most significant
measure in alcohol policy for almost an hundred years, was announced in
the Queen's Speech. Launching the Bill a few days later, appropriately
in a London pub, Kim Howells, the Minister responsible for its safe
passage onto the statute books made the startling assertion that when it
came into force there would be an end to binge drinking and its
consequent problems. Dr Howells clearly implied that binge drinking and
disorder arising from drunkenness were phenomena which began with the
introduction of licensing at the beginning of the last century. This
will surprise anyone who knows anything about life in eighteenth century
London, for example, or the nature of the mediaeval banquet, to say
nothing of those models of moderate drinking, the Vikings, who
apparently raped and pillaged fortified by nothing more than a Campari
and soda sipped, in the Mediterranean fashion beloved of the Government,
over the period of an hour at a pavement café.
What does the Bill actually contain? The
intention is to streamline the licensing system for premises selling
alcohol and the Bill will abolish fixed opening hours. Alongside this
there will be a range of measures intended to reduce anti-social
behaviour. According to the Government, the Bill will "minimise public
disorder resulting from artificially fixed closing times and encourage a
more civilised culture in pubs, bars, and restaurants."
It will be an offence to sell alcohol
anywhere to people under 18 and the legal age for pub drinking will
remain 18. However, it is proposed to give children free access to
licensed premises except in special circumstances.
The Bill brings together six existing
acts, which, it is claimed by the Department of Culture, Media and
Sport, will "potentially deliver savings of £1.97 billion over the first
ten years of operation, sweeping away considerable red tape". A whole
range of administrative overheads will be removed from businesses as
will the need to hold licensing hearings in the "vast majority of
cases".
The power to grant alcohol licences will
be transferred from the magistracy, which has had responsibility in this
area for five hundred years, to local authorities. Local residents, it
is said, will be given "a powerful voice" in the licensing process, with
the right to make representations to the licensing authority about
applications for new licences and to call for a review of existing ones.
However, these rights are reserved for those who live in the vicinity
of the premises in question: everyone else is excluded. Their
representatives, whether councillors or Mps are also specifically
excluded for doing so on their behalf. Councillor Susie Kemp, the
Chairman of the Local Government Association Public Protection
Executive, said:
"deciding from whom, where and when
alcohol should be sold is best done by elected councillors who are
accountable to their local communities and already responsible for many
related functions." Which rather suggests that Councillor Kemp has not
full appreciated the limitations, imposed by the Bill and accompanying
Guidance, under which local authorities will labour.
In another measure, police, fire, and
other emergency and local services will have an input to the
applications. Police already have the power to close any licensed
premises without notice for up to twenty-four hours.
The Open All Hours? Campaign, sponsored
by the IAS and the Civic Trust, which includes local authorities of all
political persuasions, has already reported on its findings as to the
likely effects of the Bill (see La Lutte Continuera). Two of its
recommendations seem already to have been taken up by the Government.
The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has agreed to look at the
implications of the Bill in regard to "urban renaissance". In addition,
the Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs (DEFRA) has
commissioned a study of the problem of noise resulting from the changes
brought about by the changes in licensing law. It is interesting that
this study of noise is to be conducted by MCM Research Limited led by
Peter Marsh. MCM Research appears to work mainly for the alcohol
industry in the form of the Portman Group. Marsh appears as an "expert
witness" in licensing cases on behalf of the industry and was the
principal author of a study commissioned by the Portman Group at the
opening of the campaign for the liberalisation of the licensing laws.
This particular study was condemned by reviewers, as one which would
never have survived the process of peer review imposed on serious
academic work. The study is virtually the only piece of "evidence" cited
by the government to support its proposals.
Top of pageThe Licensing Bill dissected
Andrew McNeill examines the Bill
and its likely effects
The Government's Licensing Bill looks
set to achieve the remarkable feat of undermining not merely the
national strategy against alcohol misuse before it has even been
published but also its own policies for an urban renaissance.
No Government serious about reducing
either the abuse of alcohol or of improving the liveability of town and
city centres would countenance introducing a Bill which plays the same
role in relation to these two objectives as the Al Qaida network does in
the war against terrorism.
Give the Government credit. It has
apparently succeeded against the odds in persuading most
Parliamentarians that this Bill is basically non-controversial, opposed
only by a small minority of cranks and killjoys.
To the gullible it promises that not only
can 24 hour drinking be introduced without causing additional problems
but even that the simple expedient of abolishing fixed closing times
will somehow transform the drinking culture and put an end to binge
drinking, a pattern of consumption which has been evident in Britain
since before the Vikings and which is an increasing problem
internationally.
It is the nonsense about binge drinking
that has allowed the Government to convince the ignorant and the
credulous that they can be a trendy liberal and David Blunkett
simultaneously. On the basis of a highly selective and, to put it
mildly, optimistic reading of the evidence the Government has persuaded
them that the evils of fixed closing times are such that every lager
lout's dream of unlimited public drinking should be introduced as a
major contribution to combating yob culture.
The public know better. There is neither a
region nor an age-group in this country with a majority in favour of 24
hour drinking – women are particularly strongly opposed – and
residents' and amenity groups from town and city centres across the
country as well as a growing number of local authorities are now
starting to express their opposition to key sections of the Bill. They
know from direct experience that as the numbers of licensed premises in
city centres has grown and hours of trading have lengthened, the
problems of crime, disorder and nuisance have got worse and worse –
exactly the opposite of what the Government pretends is the case.
The key consideration is the cumulative
impact of concentrations of late licensed premises, resulting in late
night activity outstripping the capacity of local services, particularly
police and transport, to cope.
Local residents and local authorities
know that far from improving the situation, the Bill as drafted
expressly forbids local authorities to take this aspect into account,
thus weakening their ability to deal with the resulting problems.
Even a cursory look at the Bill and,
still more, the Guidance accompanying it, reveals the duplicitous nature
of Government propaganda.
To local residents the Government says,
"We're extending trading hours up to 24 hours a day, seven days a week,
but don't worry, we're giving you a real say in what happens. Look at
the White Paper - the whole point of transferring responsibility to
local authorities is to encourage local accountability."
But to the late night alcohol and
entertainment industry the Government says something very different:
"We're transferring responsibility for alcohol licensing to local
authorities, but you don't need to worry because they are being denied
the discretion allowed by the present system in regard to the granting
of licences and conditions placed on them. We're making sure that local
authorities have to follow the Secretary of State's Guidance, and that
ensures that local licensing policies are devoid of any real content."
Clearly, one of these assurances has to
be humbug, and there is no question as to which. If you disempower the
licensing authority, then by definition you also disempower the local
communities it serves. The Guidance makes it clear that even in
residential areas local authorities will not be allowed to set general
closing times, whatever the views of the local population. Democratic
accountability? No wonder the leader of one of the major London Boroughs
recently described the Guidance to the Bill as the most pro-industry
and anti-resident document he had seen in his time in local government.
We are clearly headed for the fate
already reported for Scotland where "liberalisation has gone too far,
meeting the interests of the licensed trade and a minority of drinkers
at the expense of the wider community." If there is still any doubt,
remember the Government's message to potential voters before the
election. They were not encouraged to vote for a Government because it
would end the drunken mayhem making their town centres a no-go area
every Saturday night but rather "If you don't give a XXXX for closing
times vote Labour."
One does not need to be a professor of
sub-texts to get the message – if you like partying through the night
and don't give a XXXX for the consequences for others, vote for us
because we've got the Bill for you. What is so alarming local residents
and others who have the wellbeing of town and city centres at heart, is
that they have.
Andrew McNeill is Co-Director of the Institute of Alcohol Studies.
This article also appears in the December 2002 issue of Parliamentary Monitor.
Top of pageLa Lutte Continuera
The Open All Hours? Campaign comprises
residents' and other groups from all over England who seek improvements
to the Alcohol and Entertainment Bill. Whilst the campaign believes that
reform is needed to bring alcohol and entertainment licensing into line
with modern needs, it argues that the Bill is very unbalanced.
It is important, says Open All Hours?, to distinguish between
the 'evening economy' and the 'late night economy'. The evening economy
has brought vibrancy to town and city centres by later opening of shops,
sports and cultural venues, as well as restaurants and bars, and has
been a valuable regeneration tool. Our concern is with the emerging
post-midnight 'late night economy', where the costs and benefits to
society are more finely balanced.
The night economy is already causing
problems of crime and disorder, anti-social behaviour, noise and
nuisance for local communities. At night, many town and city centres
have become threatening and unpleasant environments, intimidating to
those seeking a quieter night out, and intolerable for long-suffering
residents.
Open All Hours? believes that an holistic
approach is needed to ensure that town centres are managed in the
interests of all. The Bill, far from providing the means for tackling
these problems, as the Government claims, is likely to make them worse.
Open All Hours? has recently published
its final report which is summarised in three sections: the questionable
assumptions which underlie the Bill; how Open All Hours? wants the Bill
amended; and how the Government can ensure that the changes work well.
QUESTIONABLE ASSUMPTIONS
The Government claims that there is wide
support for licensing deregulation and extended drinking hours; but
opinion polls show no region of the country, nor any age-group, with a
majority in favour of 24-hour opening. Women are more strongly opposed
than men.
It also gives the impression that the
existing licensing regime in England and Wales is uniquely restrictive,
and that the Bill will only bring us into line with other European
countries, but, in fact, most are not nearly as deregulated as the
Government claims.
A feature of the British alcohol scene is
that it is particularly characterised by 'mass volume vertical
drinking' in which people stand, rather than sit at tables, with
consuming quantities of alcohol as an end in itself. This is not,
however, a result of restricted hours; deregulation is therefore likely
to exacerbate it. A recent research study by the Central Cities
Institute into other northern European Capitals found that it is not the
length of opening hours which makes a more ordered environment but the
drinking culture, combined with a strong regulatory regime and controls
over numbers of premises.
HOW DO WE WANT THE BILL AMENDED?
Cumulative Impact
A main problem is 'saturation' - an
over-concentration of premises in a locality. On weekend nights
especially, the centres of large and small towns attract thousands more
than the public service infrastructure can manage. These 'hot spots'
cannot be controlled merely by granting every license application, with
conditions. It is the number of premises concentrated together which
cause unacceptable problems of noise and nuisance, by the sheer numbers
of people arriving at, leaving and moving between, such venues.
Local licensing committees will only be
able to assess an application in terms of whether it will create crime,
disorder or nuisance within the premises or its immediate curtilage, not
whether it will add adversely to the cumulative impact of premises
already in the area.
We therefore recommend adding a fifth licensing objective to those already in the Bill:
'The prevention of licensed premises in a
defined area becoming so numerous that the granting of further premises
licences will undermine the other licensing objectives.'
Robust Local Licensing Policies
It is essential that Local Authorities be
allowed to formulate licensing policies which can respond to local
conditions. The Bill replaces local discretion by Ministerial Guidance.
Yet there can be wide variations within a single local authority area.
Whilst there may be a need to control late night activity in one area,
it may be unobjectionable in another. A local authority must be able to
set out policies on an 'area by area' basis.
We recommend that local licensing
authorities be given sufficient discretion to formulate local licensing
policies which respond to local conditions. Non-compliance with an
agreed policy should be a ground for the refusal of the grant of a
premises licence or the imposition of a condition restricting the hours.
Locally-set fees to meet locally-generated costs
One of the Bill's aims is to reduce the
burden of costs on the industry. Regardless of economic benefits, the
'late night economy' also imposes social costs on local communities and
the public purse. The Bill is likely to increase the costs to society,
but will not provide the resources for their effective management.
The industry will save costs and pay
lower license fees - to be set by central Government. Government will
save by abolishing Local Justices Licensing Committees and will gain
from extra excise duty. Local Authorities, on the other hand, will have
increased costs, which they will have to recoup either from council tax
payers or reduced services. The low licensing fees will make no
contribution to the extra cleansing, public convenience provision, noise
team call-outs, CCTV and policing costs, which can all be expected to
increase.
We recommend that fees be set by
licensing authorities to meet their legitimate costs. The 'polluter
pays' principle should be used to meet the costs to society arising from
late-night activity, as in other industries.
HOW CAN THE REST OF GOVERNMENT ENSURE THAT THE CHANGES WORK WELL?Office of the Deputy Prime Minister:5
Effective Planning for the 'night-time economy'
The Government's Urban Renaissance agenda
has the potential to deliver far more important benefits to society
than deregulation of drinking hours and should take priority. Local
authorities will need to gear up for the environmental disruption that
the Bill will create.
LPAs should also consider the local
impact of changes of use from A3 to D2, ensure that resources are in
place to meet the anticipated impact before granting consents for long
hours, and use Conditions and Section 106 Agreements to minimise adverse
impact.
Before the Bill receives Royal Assent, we
recommend that Government issues a new Planning Policy Guidance Note
requiring Local Planning Authorities (LPAs) to adopt specific policies,
in their local plans, in relation to the 'night-time economy' and the
need to consider conditions as regards hours and numbers.
Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs:
Controlling Public Nuisance
Public nuisance takes many forms. The
behaviour that can accompany the 'late night economy' can impair quality
of life of both local residents and other visitors.
We recommend that DEFRA issue advice for controlling and minimising noise from late night entertainment.
We recommend powers to deal with noise
nuisance within premises and on the street, and to reduce ambient noise
levels in central areas where they exceed recommended levels.
The Bill should put licensing authorities
under a duty to place conditions on licenses to control noise both from
the premises and from patrons outside them. Section 106 Agreements
should be used to ensure provision of public conveniences, litter bins
and extra street cleansing, or a contribution towards them.
Home Office:
Tackling Crime and Disorder
These terms are imprecisely defined in
all legislation seeking to control 'disorder', 'nuisance' and
'anti-social behaviour', so that no-one knows what is and what is not
'acceptable' behaviour. The Home Office must clarify this.
Lord Chancellor's Department:
Protecting Residents' Rights
The Bill puts an unfair burden on the
local community by placing the burden of proof on individuals who will
be affected by, rather than on those who will profit from, the activity.
Local residents will have to take on the might of the entertainment
industry and prove, in advance of a premises opening, that the new
licence will cause intolerable problems justifying refusal or
conditions. We are also concerned that residents will only have the
right to object if they live in the vicinity of the proposed venue. We
are aware that residents can be affected even if they do not live in the
immediate vicinity. A hearing will further increase this inequity; lay
people will have to sustain their objections against expert lawyers,
specialist consultants and technical experts presenting the applicants'
case.
It is unrealistic and unfair to expect
residents to make a convincing case before the premises have even
opened. This should be the role of local licensing policies and
Government guidance must allow the general application of conditions to
protect residents from nuisance, crime or disorder.
The licensing authority must be able to
consider fully an application and the burden should be on the applicant
to show that, on balance, a venture trading late into the night will be
unlikely to breach licensing objectives. This would encourage applicants
to build in mitigation measures.
Top of pagePlanning and the Licensing Bill
There seems to be collusion between the
Government and the drink industry over many aspects of the new Licensing
Bill. One is the vain search of local authorities to find where their
alleged control over licensing in their areas will lie once the Bill
passes into law. On the crucial subject of density of outlets, we are
told by the Government that that this is a planning not a licensing
matter, and controllable through that planning system. On other
occasions, the opposite is stated.
Simon Milton is the Leader of Westminster
City Council and argues that planning legislation is ineffective in
dealing with the cumulative effects of licensed premises.
Introduction
Local authorities with experience of
managing a late night economy recognise that a concentration of late
night licensed premises in a particular area causes a number of problems
including noise on the streets, disorder, crime and nuisance such as
litter and street urination. These impacts make city centres
unattractive to visit after dark for anyone who is not part of the late
night drinking scene. The Government recognises these problems in its
regulatory impact statement accompanying the Licensing Bill but its
guidance makes clear that local authorities will not be able to take the
cumulative impact of granting additional licenses into account in
determining license applications. Instead, the Government states that
these issues should be dealt with through the planning system.
There are three reasons why this approach cannot work:
1) Use Classes Order
Planning legislation defines categories
of activity into use classes. Within these use classes, planning
permission is not required. Bars and pubs currently sit in the same use
class (A3) as restaurants and coffee bars. Nightclubs fall within D2
class along with cinemas, theatres, bingo halls etc. This means that
there is nothing in planning law to prevent a restaurant becoming a bar
and a cinema becoming a nightclub. Yet the impacts of these different
uses are very different. Moreover, planning permission is not required
for an existing A3 or D2 use to increase capacity or open for longer
hours. So planning. cannot contain growth. Planning permissions last for
ever, unlike licences, and so cannot be reviewed when local
circumstances change. And even in those cases where planning permission
is required, a prospective increase in crime and disorder is not
normally regarded by the Planning Inspectorate as a proper reason for
refusing planning permission,
Case Study: a bar operator has
recently acquired two small restaurants in Soho adjacent to each other.
One of them shares a party wall with a block of flats. This part of
Westminster is designated as a stress area where the police and council
believe that saturation of late night drinking establishments has been
reached.
The restaurants were typical Soho
establishments serving people in the West End for the theatre or cinema
and closing around 12.30am. The bar operator has knocked the two units
into one and opened a bar accommodating 700 people and has applied for a
3.00am license. The police, council and local residents have opposed
this application in the licensing magistrates yet in planning law this
operation does not even require permission despite the very different
local impact that the operation will have. The only way of safeguarding
this significant additional impact is through the licensing system but
under the new legislation, the licensing authority would not be able to
take into account the impact of this new bar on the area.
2) Unitary Development Plans (UDPs)
Local councils can only make planning
decisions in line with their UDP policies or else see their decisions
overturned on appeal. To use the planning law to prevent undesirable
concentrations of late night activity, local authorities must establish
new policies in their UDP, which must then go to public inquiry. A
dynamic late night economy requires a more flexible and dynamic response
than is available through the planning policy process. Many A3 uses
have been granted in the past on the basis that their hours could be
controlled through licensing. Unless these existing premises are
required to seek a new planning permission (which is inconceivable), the
authority will have no ability to prevent a significant increase in
late night drinking from these premises in areas that already face
significant crime and disorder issues.
Case Study: Westminster City
Council is currently updating its UDP, which is being considered by a
planning inquiry. In line with Government suggestions it is designating
stress areas where it believes there is already too great a
concentration of late night licenses. One of the principal objectors to
this policy is the licensed trade, which is arguing in its submission
that these are matters for licensing rather than planning policy!
3) Planning Enforcement
The powers to enforce against planning
breaches are far weaker than in breaches of license conditions. If a
premises changes use without planning permission, for example by
changing from a shop into a bar, the local authority can serve a notice
on the owner. But the premises may trade quite lawfully nevertheless.
The notice can be appealed, or the premises can seek retrospective
planning permission and then appeal a refusal to issue consent. By
playing the system it is perfectly possible for premises to stay in
business for eighteen months before the process reaches its conclusion,
trading lawfully all the while. Under the new Licensing Bill, such a
premises would also be entitled to a 24-hour license regardless of the
planning position.
Case study: a Class A1 retail
premises in Soho began operating in breach of planning control as a
Class A3 cafe/restaurant in 1998. Following warnings from the planning
enforcement team the business closed down. The A3 use then later
reopened under new owners but again closed promptly following threats of
enforcement action. When it reopened a third time under yet more new
owners in January 2000, these owners said they proposed to bring the
operation within a sandwich bar use which would fall within the lawful
Class A1 use. They submitted an application for a Certificate of
Lawfulness for a Proposed Use in order to establish beyond doubt that
what they proposed would constitute an Al use. After some negotiation a
Certificate was issued. However they did not operate in accordance with
the certificate but continued to operate as a Class A3 cafe/restaurant.
When threatened with the issue of an enforcement notice they submitted
applications to keep the cafe/restaurant use and for tables and chairs
outside the premises. The applications were refused and authority to
issue enforcement notices against both matters was obtained at the same
time. The owners appealed however and a decision is expected in December
this year. Despite enforcement action, for the greater part of the
period 1998 to date the unauthorised use has traded in breach of
planning control.
Conclusion
It will be seen that planning legislation
alone currently provides little protection for authorities seeking to
manage the late night economy. Until there is a change in Use Classes
Orders to categorise bars and nightclubs as a use in their own right
separate from restaurants and other entertainment uses, and without far
more effective enforcement powers, local authorities must be able to
rely on a cumulative impact policy as part of its local licensing
statement to ensure safe and attractive town centres. Even then,
planning will only provide controls over new premises in new locations
rather than the thousands of existing premises to which new licensing
hours will apply.
Top of pageLet's all consult again
Andrew Varley looks at the Consultation Document for the National Alcohol Reduction Strategy
So the National Alcohol Strategy for
England and Wales has found its way to the Strategy Unit of the Cabinet
Office having been unceremoniously prised out of the dilatory hands of
the Department of Health. Perhaps it is only a matter of time before it
finds its way, like licensing legislation, into the Department for
Culture, Media and Sport – known to at least one senior civil servant
there as the Department of Fun
The new consultation is now under way and the Strategy Unit is eager to hear your views.
The Foreword to the consultation document
begins with the mantra, now familiar from all government statements on
the subject and which appears to have been copied from the drink
industry's Portman Group: "Most adults in England drink and the majority
drink sensibly. For them, drinking is part of a pleasurable social
experience which causes no harm either to themselves or to others.
Government has no need to intervene in this enjoyable aspect of life."
The authors of the document appear to believe that no-one has a problem
with alcohol unless they are in the last stages of cirrhosis, a
condition which only a small minority even of chronic alcoholics
achieves.
In its anxiety to offend no-one,
especially the drink industry, and in its determination to avoid any
accusation of perpetuating the nanny state, the government undermines
the whole process by minimising the problem. It would have been a far
more effective exercise had it used some of the facts set out by Alcohol
Concern in its State of the Nation report (see page...)
We do not, however, have too long to wait
before the bad news because "there is another, less pleasant side. For
some people the misuse of alcohol brings serious consequences for the
drinkers themselves, for their families and friends, and for the
community as a whole. And this is a legitimate area of concern for a
responsible Government." The tone will be familiar to all those who are
of an age to remember the sort of condescending school books written for
ten year olds thirty or forty years ago. The consultation document
continues:
"Misuse of alcohol generates complex
problems which need a co-ordinated response. The Government is committed
to producing a national strategy for England to tackle the harmful
effects of alcohol. The strategy will offer a clear and coherent way
forward:
The Government has shown its commitment
by taking nearly five years to get to this stage. It has dithered as to
who is responsible for the production of the strategy, it has made it
plain that the drink industry will play a major rôle, and it has now
gone back to the beginning and is asking elementary questions, the
answers to which have been available for years.
Health Minister Hazel Blears says in her
Foreword to the consultation document: "The Prime Minister has asked me
to act as the sponsor Minister for a Strategy Unit project on tackling
the problems associated with alcohol misuse. In line with the Unit's
normal approach the project will bring a cross-cutting perspective and a
rigorous analytical approach to the difficult issues raised by alcohol
misuse. Over the coming months the Strategy Unit will be working closely
with the Department of Health and other Government Departments to
develop a national alcohol harm reduction strategy.
"This consultation is a critical first stage in the development of the national alcohol harm reduction strategy."
Cheered as we all must be at the prospect
of "a cross-cutting perspective", we might reflect that this "critical
first stage" has been gone through before. There already has been an
exhaustive consultation process which got us nowhere other than this
rerun sponsored by the Strategy Unit. There are mountains of evidence
already gathered. According to a spokesman for the Strategy Unit all
this will merely be part of the data taken into consideration. The work
done over the years by the Department of Health, it appears, will just
be one piece of evidence having no more status than the representations
of the drink industry. The representatives of the industry were
prominent at the launch of the strategy and the session given over to a
discussion of its rôle as a "key stakeholder" was chaired by Andrew
Cunningham, the senior civil servant at the Department of Fun (his
expression) who is the prime mover behind the new Licensing Bill. That
Bill, of course, is seen by many as operating primarily in the interests
of the industry.
Hazel Blears, like a schoolmistress
explaining their task to a recalcitrant group of adolescents, patiently
explains that "this document poses a number of questions about alcohol
misuse. We would like you to consider and answer these questions, and
over the next three months to give us:-
And with these words we return to the
drawing board. There is a ritual repetition of the mantra – "92 per cent
of men and 86 per cent of women in Britain drink alcohol, and drinking
plays a mostly enjoyable part in our culture" – and we proceed to the
Introduction of the consultation.
"The Government believes that there is a
rôle it can play to reduce the harm associated with alcohol misuse, for
example by providing information, education and advice about the risks
of drinking." It is interesting that this is the first thing which
occurs to the authors and it reflects the influence of the industry
itself and of its mouthpiece, the Portman Group. The industry is an
eager proponent of alcohol education for the simple reason that it is
one of the least effective means of dealing with alcohol problems. The
most effective – control of density of outlet, statutory regulation,
taxation, lower drink drive limits – have already been eschewed,
presumably because they are anathema to the industry.
"The Government has therefore made a
commitment to implement a National Alcohol Harm Reduction Strategy by
2004." Seven years – the drug strategy took a fraction of that time.
"This strategy will need to acknowledge the complex nature of the
problems caused by alcohol misuse, and recognise that effective action
to tackle these problems will need to involve not only Government, but
also key organisations such as the police, local authorities, the NHS,
Drug and Alcohol Action Teams, voluntary organisations, employers," and,
of course, "the drinks industry".
The Prime Minister has asked the Strategy
Unit to play a key role in developing the National Alcohol Harm
Reduction Strategy. The Strategy Unit's approach is to conduct a
rigorous analysis of the evidence base, and apply creative and
innovative thinking to new ways of tackling problems. It is able to
bring a cross-cutting perspective to areas which span several parts of
Government. The danger of leaving it with the Department of Health was
that the finished article might, heaven forbid, have been too biased
towards public health rather than the interests of the industry.
"The objective of the Strategy Unit's
project will be to develop a vision, principles and framework for a
strategy on harm reduction for England, working closely with the key
Government departments and a range of key stakeholders inside and
outside Government. The strategy will then be implemented by the
Department of Health, in conjunction with other Government Departments.
The project will be completed by the summer of 2003."
Finally, the document asks the question, "What do we want to know?"
Our first task is to determine whether
the correct issues have been identified. This consultation is a key part
of that process. The responses will be used to clarify the areas of
work to be covered, and to help to shape the direction and outputs of
that future work.
In addition to developing the principles that should underpin the strategy, we have identified the following areas of enquiry:
i) the cultural and behavioural issues around alcohol use and misuse
ii) health: prevention, treatment and the impact on the NHS, crime, disorder and anti-social behaviour: the effects on our
surroundings and community
iv) the implications for vulnerable groups, including children
v) education and communication
vi) the shape of the market and market-based solutions
vii) the economic costs and benefits of alcohol
For all these we want to bring together information on:
Joined up Government? Is the Cabinet
Office unaware that there is a strategy already in operation for
combating alcohol-related crime? Perhaps they should ask the Home
Office. Has the Department of Health kept the effects of alcohol on the
NHS a closely guarded secret?
The Strategy Unit has set out to reinvent
the wheel. A brief look at some of the questions which form the
consultation emphasises this:
"Why should the Government get involved
in managing the harmful effects of alcohol misuse? At what point does
Government intervention become justified?"
If we are still at the stage of asking
basic philosophical questions as to the extent of Government
intervention, then the strategy will never appear in the lifetime of
this parliament.
"How far is alcohol misuse a matter of
individual responsibility and when does Government have a responsibility
to intervene, whether through services, legislation or persuasion?"
Questions of this nature provide an
excellent platform for the drink industry and allied libertarians to
distance themselves from any responsibility.
"Reinventing the wheel" may exaggerate
the level of development the Strategy Unit has reached when questions
such as the following are considered:
"How do you define alcohol misuse? What factors do you take into account?"
Were we not assured otherwise, it would
be easy to believe that the sole aim was to delay the appearance of a
strategy beyond the Crack of Doom.
"What drinking patterns should an alcohol
harm reduction strategy seek to affect? How susceptible are such
patterns to change? Where should Government concentrate its efforts in
prevention?"
Look, no-one expects the bright boys and
girls of the Strategy Unit to be experts on every one of the knotty
problems thrown their way after proving too intractable for ordinary
mortals, but they might have discovered that there were answers to the
most elementary questions.
Here's another one for the drink industry to get its teeth into:
"How do you define harmful drinking? What
factors do you take into account in deciding whether heavy drinking has
become problematic drinking?"
And, of course, it is important to mention "health benefits."
"How clear is the evidence both for the
health costs and the health benefits of alcohol? Are there key pieces of
research of which we should be aware? Where are the gaps in the
evidence?"
The evidence on both sides has been in
the public domain for years. Is the Government, the Department of
Health, and the Strategy Unit unaware of this? It is very disturbing
that this "back to basics" approach is taking place. What has been
happening for the last five years? Is there such a profound ignorance of
the subject within the Government? Or do we come back to the conclusion
that the industry was simply not being given enough of a say?
When the questions turn to crime and
disorder, the likely effects of the new Licensing Bill come to mind.
"The most visible effect many of us see from alcohol misuse" , says the
preamble to this section of the consultation, "is in our town and city
centres: pavements littered with broken bottles and streets too
intimidating to pass through. Links between alcohol and disorder are as
much a matter for concern as are links between alcohol and crime." This
is another curious manifestation of joined up government. The measures
which are being enthusiastically promoted by the Department of Fun and
the drink industry in the Licensing Bill are precisely those which will
lead to an increase in all the unpleasant phenomena listed above. There
is a fundamental contradiction between licensing deregulation and the
aims of a coherent alcohol strategy.
"What evidence is there about the links
between alcohol and crime and the links between alcohol and anti-social
behaviour? Are there key studies or pieces of evidence you think we
should be aware of?"
The implication, of course is that the
Strategy Unit is unaware of any such studies or evidence. Both abound
and have been available to the Government for many years.
"To what extent can alcohol convincingly
be demonstrated to be a factor in criminal and disorderly behaviour? How
much is perception and how much is reality? What fuels the perceptions
and are they accurate?"
The industry, abetted by the Portman
Group, the body which appears to have the most influence with
Government, has long attempted to question the evidence which links
alcohol to crime and to disorderly behaviour. This sort of question
invites them to renew their attack on the abundant evidence.
"Should we be encouraging different
drinking patterns – in terms of time spent drinking, location of
drinking etc – in order to tackle alcohol-related crime and disorder?"
Presumably this is a reference of the
"Mediterranean style" drinking patterns beloved of the Government and
promoted as an aim of licensing deregulation. Ministers may
understandably want to recreate the atmosphere of Tuscany in Newcastle
or Leicester, but they fail to understand that these patterns are the
result of hundreds of years of cultural development, climate, social
organisation, and a whole host of intricately related factors far beyond
the powers of licensing laws to influence.
"One person's good evening out can be
another person's sleepless night. Are there principles to guide the
balance of individual rights and responsibilities?"
Yes and they are being ignored in the Licensing Bill.
"Drink-drive policies are generally acknowledged to have been successful. What can we learn from them?"
We can learn that the Government's refusal to lower the limit to 50mgs, contrary to their promise, costs lives.
"Some people may be more vulnerable to
the harmful consequences of using alcohol," the document continues.
"Certain groups of young people in particular are at higher risk of
developing a range of difficulties that include alcohol-related problems
(for example children in social care, those excluded from school and
youth offenders). Families and carers can play an important role in
protecting young people from problems but it is important to recognise
that living with a parent or carer with an alcohol problem can itself
become a source of vulnerability."
As the authors laboriously enunciate
hitherto unrevealed truths. They demonstrate just how new the subject
is to them. As one eminent clinician put it, "They are asking questions
about which libraries full of books have been written."
In the section called "The shape of the
market and market-based solutions", the authors say: "The drinks
industry is a major part of the national economy. It provides large
numbers of jobs both in supply and distribution; it influences trends
and fashion through its advertising; and it provides a substantial
portion of tax revenues. Understanding how that market works, what
drives it and how it responds to demand is essential to producing an
effective strategy."
Is it simply a question of studying how
the industry operates? Is there not a question about relating its
activities, especially in the promotion of its products to vulnerable
groups?
"Do you have any thoughts on the likely evolution of the alcohol industry over the next decade?"
An entire session at the launch of the consultation on the National Alcohol Strategy was given over to this question.
"How far do you foresee research and development creating innovative market-led solutions to the problems of alcohol misuse?"
I should think it as likely as turkeys voting for Christmas.
"How best can Government work with the
alcohol industry to reach consumers? What approaches have been shown to
be effective in England, the devolved administrations and further
afield?"
It is a source of wonder on the continent
– where, you will remember, ministers perceive idyllic drinking
patterns – that our Government is so hand-in-glove with the industry.
But this is the voice of the Portman Group, whose influence was recently
deprecated by a major House of Lords committee.
The document does draw attention to the
costs of alcohol, pointing out that these are significant "for the
economy. It costs the NHS and the police. It costs business money
because of lost productivity and in some cases the need to repair
alcohol-related damage. And it can be expensive for individuals who
drink heavily and may find themselves unable to hold down a job. But it
also has benefits. It brings in tax revenue and contributes to GDP. And
it contributes to personal and social well-being for many. Part of the
work on the project will be to form a clear picture of these costs and
benefits."
So that's all right then.
One final question asked in the
consultation document raises so many questions about the suitability of
the Strategy Unit to be carrying out this work:
"Alcohol misuse can increase absenteeism
and decrease productivity, whilst moderate consumption of alcohol may be
beneficial in terms of reducing stress and tension and facilitating
networking in the workplace. What in your view are the links between
alcohol use and educational and occupational attainment?"
We actually have an authoritative
document, heralded as the "first" step towards a national alcohol policy
and so presumably the basis for finding the solution to the many
problems associated with alcohol, which advocates and endorses workplace
drinking. But perhaps they only had Whitehall in mind.
How to respond to the consultation:
You can send comments to:
SU/DoH Consultation
Room 4.6, Admiralty Arch, The Mall, London SW1A 2WH
E-mail: su-dohconsultation@cabinet-office.x.gsi.gov.uk
It would be helpful to receive comments by e-mail where possible.
The deadline for responses is 15 January 2003.
Copies of the consultation document can be ordered from:
Department of Health Publications
PO Box 787, London SE1 6XH
Telephone: 08701 555 455. Fax: 01623 724 524
E-mail: doh@prolog.uk.com
The document is also available in electronic format at:
http://www.strategy.gov.uk/2002/alcohol/consultationdoc.shtml
http://www.doh.gov.uk/alcohol/alcoholstrategy.htm
If you have any comments about the consultation process please contact Paul Greening.
paul.greening@cabinet-office.x.gsi.gov.uk
Paul Greening
Cabinet Office, Head of Consultation Policy Team, Strategy
Unit, Room 1.30, Admiralty Arch, The Mall, London SW1A 2WH
Top of pageWomen behaving badly
Ten per cent of women have drunk themselves
unconscious, according to a survey conducted by Company magazine. This
provides further confirmation of the increasing problem of the "ladette"
or "girls behaving badly" syndrome.
The survey also shows that a third of
what is known as the Bridget Jones generation admits to having
unprotected sex while inebriated. Among women aged between16 and 34, 40
per cent said they had become so drunk they had no memory of what had
gone on the night before. The figure rose to 57 per cent among those
younger than 24.
One thousand women were surveyed and one
in seven had had a fight while drinking and twenty per cent had lost
keys or valuables during a drinking binge. Half of the women had walked
home alone while drunk. The findings strengthen further the perception
that binge drinking is common among young women who are more likely to
be single, have available cash, and have more spare time than their
older counterparts.
Many young women in this category become
so drunk, often at least once a week, that they are unable to make
responsible decisions about matters such as sex, nor are they able to
ensure that they are not vulnerable to attack. David Blunkett, the Home
Secretary, has recently proposed changes to the laws which are aimed at
convicting date rapists. The drinking habits of the young women
described in the survey put them in particular danger of such offences.
Under the reforms, a defendant will have
to show that he took reasonable steps to establish consent.
Circumstances under which it will be presumed that consent was absent
will include a woman being unconscious through drink or sleep.
It is a medical fact that women cannot
drink like men although it appears that many try to do so. These are
putting themselves at considerable risk.
Sam Baker, the editor of Company, said
women should go out having made a few simple preparations such as
establishing cab numbers.
"Young women should be able to go out and
enjoy themselves and a drink whenever they like and fortunately it is
easy to prevent contributing to these alarming statistics," he said.
"With a few simple preparations; cab
numbers for example or a plan to alternate water and wine anyone can
have a fantastic night out knowing that they'll be safe and healthy at
the end of it!"
Mr Barker's suggestions in his magazine
are sensible in part, although it does not seem wise to encourage young
women to drink to any excess they choose as long as they have arranged
for a taxi or drink the occasional glass of water. Besides all the risks
which remain and which are made plain in the survey, women are more
susceptible than men to medical problems arising from alcohol.
Researchers recently showed that heavy drinking among women was
associated with the development of breast cancer.
Top of pageMud, sweat and beers - A cultural history of sport and alcohol
Tony Collins & Wray Vamplew:Berg, 2002 Reviewed by Andrew McNeill
"Football is a fascination of the
devil and a twin sister of the drink system", an Anglican vicar declared
in 1893. The authors of this useful monograph concede that he was half
right: football, and sport more generally, has always enjoyed a mutually
supportive relationship with drinking. There was never a time when the
two activities existed entirely separately. Most sporting trophies are,
after all, cups, the original idea of which was to facilitate the
alcoholic celebrations of the victor.
In Britain, pubs and publicans were
central to the early development of sport just as today sport is central
to the marketing strategies of many of the major drinks companies. By
the C16th the ale house was already well established as the main arena
for staging skittles, quoits, bowls, wrestling, tennis, cricket and a
large number of events involving animals, such as cock-fighting. To
attract the crowds, the publican became the main promoter of sports,
arranging matches, providing the prize money and being the bookmaker.
No sports had closer associations with
the pub than prizefighting and cricket. Publicans were the principal
promoters, stagers and administrators of prizefighting, and many
fighters were publicans in waiting, taking up a tenancy of a pub when
they retired. As the authors point out, if the violence of the sport did
not do for them, alcoholism often did.
The origins of cricket, too, were
inseparable from drinking places. The first known publication of the
laws of the game was the 1755 `New Articles of the Game of Cricket',
sub-titled 'Particularly that of the Star and Garter in Pall Mall'. The
support of the old brewing families for cricket and horse racing in the
C19th was a precursor of modern alcohol sports sponsorship.
In view of their special importance to
the marketing strategies of contemporary alcohol companies, - as the
authors conclude, sport, football in particular, offers a unique avenue
for the drinks industry to reach its most lucrative target audience of
young males - it is perhaps an oddity that unlike many other sports,
soccer and rugby were not children of the drinking house, originating in
the public schools.
Thus, rather than football being an adjunct of the pub, the pub
almost became an adjunct of football. In the earliest days of the
modern, professional game, licensees and breweries provided frequent
updates of matches in progress to ensure that football would attract
customers rather than by providing an alternative pursuit, taking them
away – an approach even more evident now than it was then.
Sport's importance to the marketing of
alcohol, beer in particular, was shown most strikingly by the role
played by the brewers in financing the 'football boom' of the 1890s and
early 1900s. The huge growth in crowds spurred by the formation of the
Football League in 1888 meant that many clubs needed substantial capital
investment to improve their grounds. The financial support of the
breweries was crucial. Aston Villa, Barnsley, Watford, Liverpool,
Manchester United, West Bromwich Albion, Oldham Athletic, Wolverhampton
Wanderers are all examples of clubs which depended on backing from the
local brewer to finance their expansion during this period, and later,
during the depression of the 1930s, to stay afloat. Hard economic
calculation no doubt played its part, but brewers could also act from
sentiment, being supporters in the sense of fans as well as bankers.
Of course, temperance campaigners opposed
the many connections between alcohol and sport. They tried to develop
non-alcoholic sporting alternatives, and objected to drinking by
athletes and also to alcohol advertising which fostered the idea that
alcohol improved sporting performance. Ironically, in view of the deep,
mutually supportive relationship that developed between alcohol and
football, both William MacGregor, the founder of the Football League,
and C.E. Sutcliffe, its first Secretary, were committed teetotallers.
Other teetotallers included Charles Clegg, Sheffield Wednesday's
chairman and Arnold Hills, who created a works team that later became
West Ham United. Hills once offered to clear the club's debts if it
picked only teetotallers in the team. Under Clegg the Sheffield
Wednesday board took a dim view of any player whose drinking or visits
to pubs were deemed inappropriate, and there was a pretty restricted
view of what was appropriate.. But generally, temperance and
non-temperance people achieved a kind of peaceful co-existence for the
good of the game.
The book also examines the influence of
alcohol on the fans and on sportsmen. The chapter on alcohol and sports
practitioners includes some history of their attitudes towards alcohol
and the drinking practices of sportsmen, some information on modern
scientific findings on the impact of alcohol on sporting performance and
a discussion of drinking problems in sportsmen, particularly
footballers.
As far as drinking by fans is concerned,
the authors are keen to debunk the notion that alcohol is a cause of
football violence and hooliganism. Leaning mainly on a research report
produced for the alcohol industry, they conclude that alcohol was never
more than a scapegoat. They are particularly offended by the double
standard whereby drinking, they say, is less likely to be subject to
draconian restrictions at sports events popular with the middle rather
than the working classes. They complain that the Sporting Events
(Control of Alcohol etc) Act of 1985 was misnamed as it was directed
entirely at working class soccer and made no reference to any other
sport. The authors' argument here is not altogether consistent. They may
be right in saying that professional darts proves that the consumption
of even vast quantities of alcohol does not necessarily result in crowd
violence, but these crowds, whose drinking is on their own account
unrestricted, are hardly drawn from the middle classes.
But then consistency is not the authors'
strong point. They assert that the real cause of English football
hooliganism was political rather than alcoholic. They invent an entity
called 'the English Empire' and suggest that its decline from the
mid-1950s caused an upsurge of chauvinism and racism which took
expression on the football terrace. Alcohol was no more than a useful
pretext for the Thatcher government which, despite sharing the
nationalistic and xenophobic world-view of the football hooligans, was
determined to repress them because they were working class.
It is a shame that this convoluted and
politically inspired rubbish, unworthy of a serious academic study,
discredits a book which would otherwise have been a perfectly good
introduction to the subject.
Top of page