Licensing: Still on course for November
The Government insists that it is still on course for the new Licensing regime to come into force on 24 November 2005. Some licensing authorities and sections of the alcohol industry had urged a delay in view of the slow pace of applications to convert existing licences, which they argued made it impossible for the November start date to be feasible. Licensees had until 6 August to convert their old licence: after that date it became necessary for applicants to apply for a completely new licence under the new regime, with local residents having the opportunity to make objections.
According to the Government, around two thirds of licences had been converted by the beginning of August. It appears that the major pub companies and super market chains got their applications in by the August deadline, with the third of premises that failed to do so being disproportionately comprised of smaller, independent outlets such as ethnic minority restaurants. It is suggested that licensees whose first language is not English may have had particular difficulty in understanding the lengthy and complex forms that now have to be completed by applicants.
It seems that, as expected and as desired by the Government, applicants are taking advantage of the new regime to extend their hours of trading, with many being given licences to trade up to 2am or beyond. The major supermarket chains appear to have adopted a general policy of seeking 24 hour licences.
Controversy Rages On
The argument about the feasibility of the timetable for implementing the new legislation was minor compared with the continuing controversy over its likely impact on crime and disorder, health, and the quality of life of local residents and visitors to town centres.
The Government, the British Beer and Pub Association and allied commercial interests clung resolutely to the agreed line that everyone will be a winner from the new Licensing Act which, they insist, will improve life for everyone, bringing peace and calm to the streets with civilising drinking habits without, of course, encouraging people to drink any more than they do now. Virtually everyone else remains fearful that the quality of life of more or less everyone except binge drinkers and the businesses that sell the alcohol to them will deteriorate. During the summer, vocal opposition to the Government’s plans was heard from Parliament, the police, the judges, local residents, and an academic, Professor Dick Hobbs, who accused it of actively promoting a “binge economy”.
According to The Times newspaper, up to two thirds of all licensed premises and 90% of bars, around 130,000 premises in all are taking advantage of the new laws to extend their hours of trading to at least midnight during the week and up to 2.00am at weekends. In many cases, applications for late trading are being granted despite opposition from local residents.
Government ‘should sober up’
For the Conservatives, Theresa May, Shadow Culture Secretary, complained that the Government “was in complete disarray over the implications of the new opening hours”. She said, “They knew as well as everyone else the consequences of this law. With nine out of ten pubs opening longer, it is bound to mean more drinking…..The answer is for the Government to sober up and postpone the new laws.”
Don Foster, the Liberal Democrat spokesman, echoed the call for the new Act to be delayed. “We have got a problem, and what the Government has done is make it worse, rather than tackle it.” Mr Foster said, “Ask yourself why the Government is doing this, and it goes back to the 2001 election when they asked young people to vote Labour for extra time. Now they claim the Act is about reducing binge drinking, but research shows that increasing the availability of alcohol is not the way to do that.”
For the Government, Culture Secretary Tessa Jowell defended the new Act, saying that what it does “is allow people to drink alcohol in public at a different range of times, with the threat of instant sanction if they misbehave.”
Miss Jowell did, however, condemn as “stupid” the famous text message to which Don Foster referred. Miss Jowell said the message, “Don’t give a xxxx for last orders? Vote Labour”, sent out during the 2001 election campaign, “portrayed what is in fact a serious piece of legislation intended to improve quality of life and curb crime as some kind of advert for hedonism.” Miss Jowell said, “I thought that was a stupid slogan at the time, and I still do.”
Critics of the Government are likely to point out that Miss Jowell may have disapproved of the slogan but it has taken four years for her to disassociate herself from it. Moreover, some of the key stakeholders involved in making the new system work have made it clear that it is not just the slogan they consider stupid, but the new Act itself.
Population ‘drinking itself to death’
The Liberal Democrats also pointed to another reason for delay, the release of figures showing that alcohol-related deaths had increased on average by over 18 per cent in five years, the increases being far steeper in the worst areas. At the top of the list was Yorkshire and Humberside, where alcohol deaths increased by 46.5 per cent.
Commenting on the figures, Lynne Featherstone, Liberal Democrat Spokesperson on Police, Crime and Disorder said: "These figures are deeply worrying. The Government must address the underlying reasons why people are drinking themselves - literally - to death. I am worried that the proposed change to licensing laws will add to this startling increase in drink related deaths. The Government should pause for more thought before it brings in the changes to the licensing laws in November.”
Police and Judges Let Rip
It also emerged during the summer that both the principal arms of the criminal justice system, the police and the judges, had made submissions strongly disputing the fundamental assumptions underlying the new Licensing Act in response to the Government’s proposal to establish ‘Alcohol Disorder Zones’ (ADZs) in town centres. These are to be designated areas of town centres in which police and local authorities agree that there is an unacceptable level of alcohol related crime and disorder. The basic idea is that in such zones, licensees will be required to make a special contribution to the cost of policing.
Judging by the results of the consultation exercise, the great majority of respondents from all sides of the licensing reform debate regard ADZs as an unworkable gimmick, designed primarily to persuade the gullible that the Government is being tough on alcohol related crime. This almost universal condemnation of the idea has not, of course, deterred the Government from pressing ahead with it. The Bill introducing ADZs was given its Second Reading in Parliament on 20 June.
Both the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) and the Circuit Judges attacked the proposal for ADZs. The comments of the Judges on the new Licensing Act can only be described as contemptuous.
Licensing act of lunacy
Observations of the Criminal Sub-Committee of HM Council of Circuit judges on ‘Drinking Responsibly’ – The Government’s Proposals
- So far as we are aware we were not consulted in relation to the proposal to develop the policies which are now contained in the Licensing Act 2003. Had we been so consulted, we should have emphasised, from our experience as full-time judges sitting in the Crown Court, the inevitable explosion in alcohol-fuelled violence which in our view would have been the necessary consequence of this relaxation of the licensing regime. We note with wry amusement that, while the title of this Consultation paper is ‘Drinking responsibly’, the Home Office Minister who solicits our views entitles her letter ‘Alcohol-Fuelled Violence’. The experience if those of us who sit, day in day out, in the Crown Court is that far too much of the crimes of violence with which perforce we must deal are directly attributable to the consequences of inebriation, and the aggression and lack of inhibition which are a concomitant of that state. We set out in an Appendix a comment from one of our members in an unedited form.
- We are however in a position to comment on a passage in paragraph 4.8 of the Consultation Paper. This states: ‘Traditionally, the law and the courts have tended to regard alcohol as a mitigating rather than an aggravating factor; offenders were somehow deemed to be less culpable because they had committed their crime under the influence of alcohol than if they had been sober’. Many of us, like the primary author of this response, have been practising the law for over 40 years. It is simply untrue to state that either the law or the courts have in that period tended to regard selfinduced intoxication as a mitigating factor. There is nothing in the Magistrates’ Association published guidelines to support this approach. It may suffice to refer to R v Sheehan & Moore [1975] 1 WLR 739. ‘A drunken intent is still an intent’.
- Those who routinely see the consequences of drinkfuelled violence in offences of rape, grievous bodily harm and worse on a daily basis, are in no doubt that an escalation of offences of this nature will inevitably be caused by a relaxation of liquor licensing whichGovernment has now authorised. We regard it as simply wishful thinking to suppose that the introduction of the Licensing Act will bring about the cultural change which the Government envisages, so that binge drinking will be a thing of the past; and those who frequent the bars of our city centres will spend their social evenings limiting their consumption of alcohol to no more than will quench their immediate thirst.
- We are simply un-persuaded that the kind of culture change which this Consultation Paper envisages will ever be produced by appealing to the good nature of those who use alcohol to excess on a routine basis; or by imposing fixed penalty fines; or tinkering with the problem by identifying alcohol disorder zones, or addressing under-age drinking. The only effective way in which the problem of alcohol-fuelled violence can effectively be addressed, now that the Government has decided on the loosening of restrictions in relation to the provision of alcohol, is to make alcohol at the point of sale significantly more expensive; so that it is simply beyond the capacity of individuals who currently abuse alcohol to resort to alcohol in similar quantities. Of course we do not expect Government to heed this advice, since it would be politically unacceptable; but we make the point, as firmly as we can, so that the social and economic costs of this measure can be placed clearly in context.
John Samuels QC
Chairman, Criminal Sub-Committee, Council of HM Circuit Judges
13 June 2005
Appendix
“I only try a modest amount of crime, which I do in three pretty different places. Warwick, an old county town, which takes a lot of work from SE Birmingham; Northampton, a largely ruined old county town which gets custom from itself and places like Kettering; and Oxford, which needs no description. At all three the lists contain a substantial quantity of violence, from S18 to affray, with offences often allocated with little apparent relationship to their seriousness.
It is a very rare for any of these offences of violence to be committed by someone who has not been drinking. Sometimes the quantity of alcohol is simply beyond belief. A gallon is common, 12 pints by no means rare. Often these quantities of beer are diluted by various additions of spirits. It is becoming common, too, for cocaine to be taken as well. It is not just the illiterate and inarticulate underclass which does this, quite bright people in well paid jobs do it too (with a surprising number of women). Their sole idea of fun is to get as drunk as possible in bars where this can be done as easily as possible. This is the object of their evenings of pleasure, which last as long as they have money and can find places to spend it.
Often they fight in the pubs, generally over some vestigial or imagined provocation. If not, they roam the streets in malign, shortfused and generalised hostility, until some victim presents himself. Perhaps he once went out with a girl the intoxicated thug knew, perhaps he has a telephone he wants, perhaps he is simply in the way on the pavement. There follows a brief and ill expressed altercation, and then an eruption of blind savagery. Someone falls down, and he is not then left, vanquished, as an animal would leave a rival. He will be repeatedly kicked. It is quite astonishing how many survive this with only modest injury.
For a while these people are simply savages, angry, blind and brutal. They are in this condition because of what they have been drinking. They are so ill educated or made crude by inadequately civilising influences in their homes that they seem unable to drink in an acceptable ‘continental’ fashion. The more there is to drink, and the more time to drink it, they will keep drinking. If it was not for the widespread availability of alcohol I believe that crimes of violence would be at very modest levels indeed. But there is no attempt made by the government to lessen public drinking. No ‘Don’t drink and drive’ type campaigns are waged against those who drink and prowl, (and often walk into contact with cars, for which the drivers are then blamed).
The situation is already grave, if not grotesque, and to facilitate this by making drinking facilities more widely available is close to lunacy. It simply means that our town and city centres are abandoned every night to tribes of pugnacious, drunk, noising, vomiting louts. The cost to the health service must be vast, the cost to those who try to live civilised lives in urban surroundings is huge. The take by the government in alcohol tax is no doubt excellent.
In my view we should express a very high level of concern indeed, and suggest that what is needed, as a start (the subject is a large one) is a lot less provision of drinking facilities, not a lot more.”
Chief Police Officers – Government’s approach ‘simplistic and wrong’
ACPO has maintained a consistent view since the original consultation on changes to the current licensing laws. While we support many of the proposals in the New Act as a positive step forward, some aspects do cause us concern. The premise of the New Act, that the current system is rigid, enforces fixed closing times which then lead to disorder, is not consistent with what has been seen across the country. The reality is that at the current time licensed premises actually stop selling alcohol at a variety of times between 11pm and 3am, although they are able to continue to provide public entertainment beyond this, with some able to remain open until 6am and later. In our view the New Act will just shift these closing times back later into the night and condense them into a smaller time frame as closing time will be dictated by commercial pressure rather than the law.
Experience over the last decade has shown that there is a strong link between the increase in disorder and the explosion of late night premises. The assertion that 11pm closing leads to binge drinking is simply not supported by the evidence. Drinkers who want to drink later simply go to premises with a later licence or move on at 11pm to other premises that are open. It is the cumulative effect of drinking over a long period that leads people to be intoxicated on drink (although not necessarily ‘Drunk’ by criminal standards) and less inhibited and therefore more prone to anti-social behaviour and violence, and also more likely to become a victim of crime. Crime figures in effected areas show a steady increase from early evening until after the last premises closes, with no significant drop off after 11pm.
Excessive consumption of alcohol alone is not the only factor that needs to be considered. It is well established that the infrastructure around the night time economy plays a part in increasing or reducing the impact of late night drinking. Proper planning of town and city centres is vital to reduce flashpoints for disorder. Recognition of ‘Stress areas’, planning for a variety of activities and age groups, integrating fast food and an effective transport infrastructure are all vital to reduce these flashpoints. More needs to be done to ensure that Planning Authorities are truly held accountable for creating environments that reduce violence, disorder and anti-social behaviour.
Sadly our culture has become one where it is seen as acceptable to drink to excess. In fact, many young people only feel that they have had a good night out if they have drunk far too much, and peer pressure plays its part in making this view now socially acceptable, if not the norm, within certain agegroups. This leads to the violence, disorder and anti-social behaviour that currently blights our city, town and village centres. ACPO has seen no evidence that supports the contention that by allowing operators to open for longer, we will see a change in this culture and therefore a reduction in violence and anti-social behaviour. One only has to look to popular holiday destinations to see the effect of allowing British youth unrestricted access to alcohol. It needs to be accepted that it is only a chang in our culture that will really resolve this issue. ACPO is concerned that enforcement is being seen as the only tool that will deliver this cultural change, a view that is in our eyes both simplistic and wrong. Far more can, and needs to be done in areas such as education and product price to achieve the real cultural change that is necessary.
Much is made of the current fee for an alcohol licence being set at £10 a year regardless of the size of the premises. While this is true, more relevant is the fact that under existing legislation the larger premises, open later by virtue of public entertainment licence, have to pay a significant fee to local authorities. This is a refection of the fact that they place a greater burden on the environment than smaller pubs that shut earlier and generally cause fewer problems. The new fee structure, while providing for a small multiplier for some premises, increases the fee burden on smaller pubs significantly while reducing it on the larger operations. There is still no account of the cost of policing the pollution caused by High Volume Vertical Drinking establishments (HVVDs) and other large, drink led operations. This is an area we would like to see rectified, not through schemes such as Alcohol Disorder Zones but through a proper fee or levy system that reflects the inevitable demand that is created by these premises. ACPO remains of the view that the polluter, in this case the trade, should pay and as a result, the fee structure under the Licensing Act should be set at appropriate levels to allow it to truly pay for the costs of all administration and all enforcement activity required of all CDRP members.
Alcohol Disorder Zones
There is a general view that the introduction of Alcohol Disorder Zones (ADZ), whilst possibly complementing the existing powers to designate dispersal areas and non-drinking areas, will prove difficult to set up and maintain. ACPO is concerned that proposed zones will be routinely challenged through the courts at considerable cost to the public sector, in terms of time and money. Defending our position in the courts diverts our resources away from where they should be and does little in the meantime to reduce crime, disorder and anti-social behaviour.
There is some significant concern about how we would show that a ‘licensed premises is contributing to alcohol-related disorder’. Where that link is obvious, existing powers can be used to apply for a revocation of the licence or in the future, new powers will be available to call for a review of the licence. Attempting to geographically define an area may be similarly difficult as invariably noncontributory premises may fall within the zone and conversely contributory premises that feed the problem may fall outside the zone. History has shown us that where a direct and obvious link to a specific premises cannot be shown, the trade will seek to robustly defend their position through the courts.
Local residents try (unsuccessfully) to protect themselves
The use of the new Licensing Act significantly to extend trading hours, including in residential areas, is causing considerable concern to many individual local residents and to residents’ associations and amenity groups.
The Government has of course insisted repeatedly that one of the main virtues of the new legislation is that it gives to local residents rights and opportunities to influence licensing decisions that they have never before enjoyed, - a claim which many concerned residents regard as almost wholly mendacious. A major reason for this refusal to believe Government assurances is the wording of the Guidance to the new Licensing Act which restricts the right to object to licence applications to those living or working ‘in the vicinity’ of the premises concerned. Clearly, the more narrowly the term `vicinity’ is interpreted, the fewer local residents will be allowed to object to an application, with the result that many local residents who will be directly affected by an application will be barred from making representations. Cynics have of course argued throughout that notwithstanding Government claims the new Licensing Act is systematically biased in favour of the big pub companies and applicants and against the interests of local residents. Confirmation that the cynical view is the correct one is now being provided in cases across the country in which the licensing authority is forced by the Licensing Act to disadvantage local residents. What is described as potentially a landmark case in Birmingham hinged on the definition of the term ‘vicinity’.
Bar on pub protesters Aug 17 2005
Councillors have banned residents of apartments who live 150 yards from one of the busiest pubs in Birmingham from objecting to 3am opening hours because they live “too far away”. In a landmark ruling yesterday, the city council claimed the terms of the Licensing Act 2003 prevented people living in Berkley Court from having their say about an application by the Figure of Eight on Broad Street.
Licensing sub-committee chairman Penny Holbrook accepted a submission by pub owners J D Wetherspoon that Berkley Court was not in the “immediate vicinity” of the pub and it would be unlawful to hear the views of residents.
Wetherspoon’s application to serve alcohol from 9am to 3am seven days a week at the Figure of Eight was approved by the committee. The pub has to close at 11pm at the moment.
Resident Alan Woodfield said: “I am absolutely astonished. There appears to be no rights for citizens whatsoever. “I half expected the application to be approved, but I didn’t even get the chance to say a word. “Only the other day in the early hours I was awoken by booming music from a parked car. A couple got out and proceeded almost to have sex in a doorway before driving off again.” Mr Woodfield is set to appeal to magistrates in an effort to overturn the council decision.
Coun Holbrook (Lab, Stockland Green) said: “We have carefully considered whether the interested party lives within the vicinity of the premises. It is the decision of this sub-committee that in view of the commercial premises surrounding the Figure of Eight and the guidance issued under the Licensing Act that the interested party is not within the vicinity of the Figure of Eight.”
Rachel Lynne, a solicitor representing J D Wetherspoon, said the sub-committee could only consider allegations of disorder occurring immediately outside the pub. “The guidance is quite specific and it is my submission that Berkley Court is some way from the immediate vicinity of the premises,” she added.
The Open All Hours? group has produced a leaflet advising local people of their rights to make representations under the new Act, such as they are. This is available as a printed leaflet from IAS and it can also be downloaded from the IAS/Open All Hours? web site, which now includes a new section ‘LicensingAid’.
The Licensing & Anti-Social Behaviour (LASB) working group of the London Borough of Richmond has produced a leaflet which reflects the concerns and anxieties of local residents across the country.
New licensing laws The risk of disorder and nuisance from current relicensing
The new Licensing Act 2003 requires pubs, bars, night cafes, restaurants, off-licence outlets and entertainment venues, etc, to apply for a new form of licence, which allows them to stay open longer and vary their style of operation.
Unless an objection is made - by the police or residents, for example - then the new licence will be granted automatically.
There is now a huge risk that later closing times and other variations will add to the already serious problems of anti-social behaviour and noise disturbance experienced by the town. The licensing issues are set out below in this special edition of the FoRG Newsletter.
Over the next six weeks, all 100 licences in the town must be converted to a new licence. On a separate sheet, we describe how to object if you are concerned about a particular venue seeking to vary the hours or other terms of its existing licence.
Richmond town centre experiences a high and increasing level of alcoholrelated anti-social behaviour (ASB) in the evenings. This is evidenced by recent research on the town in the Erskine Report, commissioned by Richmond Council. The research demonstrates the negative effect of ASB on the quality of life of residents, the viability of some local businesses and the enjoyment of many visitors.
Richmond now has some of the best research of any town in the country, which was crucial to the Council when, backed by the police, it unanimously decided on 14 June to introduce a saturation policy (see below) for Richmond and Twickenham town centres.
Friends of Richmond Green and The Richmond Society were instrumental in pressing for and contributing to this policy and research.
The research shows thatalmost 75% of residents and businesses in Richmond who responded to the Erskine survey regularly experience crime, disorder, nuisance and/or ASB linked to the licensed economy. 54% of respondents are deterred from using the facilities in the town at night for these reasons. 60% say they experience sleeping difficulties on a regular basis, linked to the licensed economy.
The problems are countrywide, but in Richmond the concentration of pubs and bars per resident is as high as in Soho. Almost uniquely, however, we have open spaces. These spaces and the diverse evening economy create a social magnet and the problem has been exacerbated by the huge growth in licensed capacity in the town (a 50% increase over 10 years) and by longer opening hours. There are now 27 pubs and bars in the centre and nearly 70 restaurants and similar venues.
Based on a report by the Cabinet Office in September 2003, we calculate the cost of alcohol-related ASB and crime in Richmond town centre is over £6 million per annum. The Licensing Act 2003 now adds an immediate and irreversible risk. It regulates most forms of entertainment, including the supply of alcohol, live music, dancing and late night refreshment. Regulated entertainment has to be licensed and applications for the conversion of existing licences have to be made to the Council by 6th August 2005 (as many as 100 in Richmond Town alone). All converted licenses come into effect on 24th November 2005. So far, the Council has received six applications varying existing licences in Richmond town centre and around 20 elsewhere. Besides the Victoria Inn and Richmond Arms, four are owned by Mitchells & Butlers plc - The Lot, All Bar One, Edward’s and O’Neill’s, The remaining applications are likely to pour in over the next six weeks.
A brief analysis of applications to date shows some worrying developments:
1. Generally, standard opening hours are being extended on Thursdays by 1.5 hours and on Fridays and Saturdays by two hours and on other days by one hour. In addition, applications are being made to add one or two hours on many specified dates - up to 17 dates in some cases. Mitchells and Butlers has also applied to open its venues for the TV transmission of ‘recognised international sporting events’ which could result in 24- hour opening for separate events in different global time zones. Licensees can also give notice of up to 12 temporary events in a year, lasting 96 hours each, with no opportunity for residents to object. Opening hours are tending to be earlier, at 10 am or even 6 am, including Sundays.
2. We estimate, based on applications to date (i.e. around 35% of capacity), that the evening economy hours from 8 pm to closing time could increase by at least 30%. This could deliver £4 million per annum of increased sales in the town - mostly alcohol consumption, which is equivalent to introducing two ‘megabars’ the size of Edward’s in the early hours of the morning, with customers moving from one bar to the next and finally trying to leave the town on non-existent public transport.
3. Some applications seem to be seeking greater outdoor activity, including live music, furthering the trend of alfresco use of the town.
4. There is a general trend to apply to remove all conditions currently attached to existing licenses - often ones we have fought hard for in the past.
5. Edward’s seeks to extend existing closing times by two hours, so that on Thursdays, Fridays and Saturdays it will close at 3:30 am and on other days at 1:30 am. On 17 specified dates, there will be either one or two additional hours and an application is being made to open during the transmission of international sporting events. Also, the venue will open earlier at 10:00 am on all days. It seeks to remove over 12 conditions, such as keeping doors closed. Licence variations now underway in the town could lead to there being several thousand revellers in the town at 2am or later.
Solutions to alcohol-related anti-social behaviour are not in sight. The Erskine Report made clear that concerns of residents and others are primarily with low level ASB, often in open spaces - shouting, urinating, vomiting, etc. A single incident may not be serious compared to assault, say, but cumulatively over time and when pervading an area, low level ASB is serious. It erodes the quality of life in the town and leads to an increase in serious crime.
The police have confirmed that generally they do not collect data on low level ASB. Crime statistics focus on more serious crimes, so it is essential that, in future, the Erskine type research is used to monitor the situation and inform decisions.
It is hardly practical or economical to police low level ASB on a response or re-active basis because it is often momentary, occurs at any time and pervades the town. There might be 500 incidents of low level ASB to every assault. In any event, the police are not readily available 75% of the time, overall, in the evenings to deal with low level ASB.
We are therefore seeking solutions further back in the chain of alcohol sale, consumption and consequential ASB - to deal with existing and future problems resulting from the new Licensing Act. But it is difficult to see these materialising soon.
This is of concern because we believe the extension of hours will lead to people binge drinking, with the noise and disturbance arising in the early hours of the morning when residents need their sleep. Furthermore, transport out of the town will have largely ceased by the time most licensed venues close under the extensions being applied for.
Applicants are required to state what additional steps they intend to take to promote the Licensing Act’s objectives but so far there is little to give us confidence that the licensed trade will deal with the existing problems, let alone those created by their licence variations.
Where a concentration of licensed premises exists and there is significant alcoholrelated crime and disorder, the Council can add a saturation policy (known as Cumulative Impact Policy or C.I.P) The C.I.P. approved recently applies to defined zones in Richmond and Twickenham town centres and to pubs and bars (we had argued it should apply to all licensable activities). The presumption is against awarding licenses for new pubs and bars or variations to increase capacity of existing premises. Importantly, the burden of proof of no adverse impact falls on the applicant and it covers open spaces such as The Green.
We are very concerned with there being any extension of hours, given the existing problems and the risks of later opening. We will try to assist residents who wish to object to licence variations and more generally continue to seek practical solutions to the problems.
Peter Willan
The Licensing & Anti-Social Behaviour (LASB) working group - sponsored by
Friends of Richmond Green and The Richmond Society.
Binge drinkers: Folk devils of the binge economy
An extraordinary amount of media attention focuses on alcohol consumption and its impact on public order and health. But as Professor Dick Hobbs shows in Economic and Social Research Councils’s new report ‘Seven Deadly Sins’, while ‘binge drinking’ youths dominate the headlines, it is older drinkers that are most likely to succumb to alcoholrelated death.
What’s more, Professor Hobbs argues, it is the logic of the market and not the logic derived from careful data analysis that informs government policy on alcohol. As a society, we embrace the ‘night-time economy’ - and the jobs, urban regeneration and taxation that the industry generates – while seeking to punish the routine transgressions of its primary consumers.
Hobbs notes that the term ‘binge drinking’ is rarely used to describe the drinking habits of anyone other than young denizens of the night-time economy. Binge drinking is seldom linked with alcoholrelated diseases, with accidents in the home or with domestic violence. Indeed, since publication of the government’s alcohol strategy, where a binge drinker is described as someone who drinks to get drunk, the term has become a remarkably pliant device to implicate individuals perhaps more accurately described as “young people drunk and disorderly in public places”.
As such, binge drinkers are indispensable folk devils. They are noisy, urinate in public and violent. This brings them into conflict with an undermanned police force, which can be depicted on most nights of the week wrestling heroically with foul-mouthed, vomit-stained youths in an attempt to restore the city centre to daytime levels of comportment.
Despite alcohol being our drug of choice, the source is not typically regarded as a problem. Alcohol is a legal drug and so there are no attempts to bring down the ‘Mr Bigs’ of the alcohol industry. Indeed, the main dealers are ensconced with the police and politicians in crime reduction committees and urban regeneration partnerships.
Until the 2001 general election campaign, there was a general reluctance on behalf of government agencies to acknowledge problems related to the night-time economy. But Labour’s campaign that year coincided with new figures on alcohol-related assaults uncovered by the British Crime Survey, which indicated that teenage males who frequently visit pubs and clubs and drink heavily are most at risk from violent assault.
Yet government statements about the night-time economy remain guarded in relation to links with violence. This reluctance needs to be understood in the context of investment in the night-time economy running at £1 billion a year and growing at an annual rate of 10%, with the turnover of the pub and club industry constituting 3% of GDP, numbers of licensed premises having increased by over 30% during the past 25 years and the sector employing around one million people, creating ‘one in five of all new jobs’.
The night-time economy has had a transformative influence on UK cities, and is part of our society’s shift from industrial to post-industrial economic development. Successive governments have embraced this new economy as an alternative to the nation’s increasingly decrepit manufacturing base, and proud city centre shrines to our industrial past have been revitalised by shiny outlets for alcohol consumption.
The numbers of young people flocking into these new centres of alcohol consumption are unprecedented. For example, in 1997, the licence capacity of Nottingham’s tiny city centre was 61,000: by 2004, that had risen to 108,000, while Manchester city centre has a stunning capacity of 250,000.
The Labour Party signalled its intention to embrace the nighttime economy during the 1997 general election, when they solicited the student vote with text messages that read: “Cldnt gve a XXXX 4 lst ordrs? Thn vte Labr on thrsday 4 extra time”.
As the new decade progressed, the real story behind the ‘24-hour society’ began to emerge, and the concentration of huge numbers of young alcohol consumers has created environments where aggressive hedonism and disorder is the norm.
But rather than reject a major facet of their own economic policies, and recognise the night-time economy as a criminogenic zone that was having a negative impact on their own crime and social order targets, official discussion has focused on the problematic consumer in the ‘tired and emotional’ shape of the binge drinker.
Meanwhile, the Labour Party’s infamous text message has been operationalised in the form of revolutionary changes in the nation’s licensing laws. But the entire research community was opposed to the Act, citing evidence that to have an impact on alcohol-related harm, it is vital to reduce consumption by imposing more extensive controls rather than fewer. Yet despite its insistence on 'evidence-based’ policy-making, the government’s agenda of liberalisation of the retailing of alcohol continues unabated.