Examination of Witness (Questions 60-70)
14 MARCH 2005
DR MARTIN
RAWLINGS
Q60 Chairman: So you have no solution
to how we can turn a nation of beer-swilling Brits into wine-sipping
Italians?
Dr Rawlings: I am sorry. I did
not say that. I was asked if we had done any research, and I have
to say we have not, though the Portman Group may have done some
that I am not aware of. If you look where we are with the Licensing
Act, what we are trying to do is to say to people here is a way
to run a system, here are some penalties, some sanctions that
will actually get the businesses running proper businesses, and
we have to tackle the people that abuse it, because the other
half to this equation is the individuals who drink. They are not
absolved of their responsibility here, it seems to me. You need
to be tough on that. I would like to take the opportunity to mention
the alcohol enforcement campaign that was referred to earlier.
In the summer the police visited something like 24,000 premises.
They found a non-compliance rate of 4%, which is not particularly
high, I would argue, but it is high enough. They repeated the
exercise in December and the non-compliance rate was 1%. It seems
to me certainly enforcement does work. The other thing that Simon
Milton referred to was under-age drinking. I would just like to
correct that for the record, because those test purchasers he
was talking about were 371 out of 25,000, and they were targeted
by the police as being places where they were looking for under-age
drinking. That figure came out at 50% non-compliance and we are
not comfortable with that figure, but it is 50% of those who were
targeted. Again, at Christmas that went down to 35%, so I would
say that proper enforcement can really work here.
Q61 Mr Page: Can I just make my last
point. You are effectively saying that if the police were prepared
to enforce the law, the problems would be fewer. If you have gone
from 4% non-compliance to 1% non-compliance, are you saying that
the police are either not enforcing the law correctly or they
have insufficient funds to enable them to enforce the law correctly?
Dr Rawlings: That is a double-edged
question. I will answer the first one. I would quote the Minister
the other day, who spoke to our council, who said basically the
police had not been, by their own admission, enforcing the current
laws effectively enough. We certainly as an industry have made
that point a number of times. We do believe that more enforcement
would have not let the problem get to the state that it has.
Q62 Andrew Bennett: Do you think it is
easy for the police to do the enforcement?
Dr Rawlings: I would not pretend
any policing is easy, and I know there are issues about funding,
but funding is for central government, it seems to me. They need
the resources to do what they do, obviously.
Q63 Chairman: Can I ask you what sanctions
you apply through your organisation for those operators who get
planning consent and licenses to run family restaurants/bars but
at six o'clock they clear all the tables and chairs away and they
become drinking establishments?
Dr Rawlings: I have done a little
research into that, trying to find out how many of our members
actually do that, and I cannot find any premises that actually
do it in those rather dramatic terms that you describe, because
you either run an operation that is again aimed at that high-energy
market or you do not, and most places actually would not physically
have the space to put tables and chairs away anyway. But there
are venues, I would accept, that change their nature as the evening
goes on.
Q64 Mr O'Brien: Dr Rawlings, the Alcohol
Harm Reduction Strategy for England are suggesting that the drinks
industry should make a financial contribution to cover the cost
of providing an infrastructure for a safe and trouble-free night
economy. Do you support that?
Dr Rawlings: In simple terms,
no. We are supportive of the BIDs process because we think that
can be targeted. That is money that can be raised in the proper
manner. Without going into it, and I am sure the Chairman will
stop me if we go too far into central government funding, I do
not think there is a problem. The way the rating system works
for our business particularly is that the more successful you
are, the more rates you pay, because it is based on turnover of
a business, but what happens is that those increased rates do
not go to the local council. What the gentleman from Cheltenham
was saying, that we do not get our hands on that money is correct,
but I do not know that we as an industry can solve that one.
Q65 Mr O'Brien: We were told earlier
that a lot of the people who use the city centres are tanked up
before they get into the city centre, so the tax paid for that
is not through the people in the city centre. If you consider
that they should not pay towards the trouble-free centre, are
you saying all taxpayers should pay that?
Dr Rawlings: It is for central
government, is it not? The alcohol industry as a whole pays in
£22 billion a year in taxes to fund whatever the government
decides it wants to fund. That seems to me a fairly hefty amount
of tax, and an average pub will pay 40% of its turnover in tax.
If you are going to raise additional taxation, there are ways
you can do that, but I think it has to be fair across the piece.
Q66 Mr O'Brien: Car drivers pay a lot
of tax too.
Dr Rawlings: I am not complaining
about paying taxes.
Q67 Mr O'Brien: Are you saying there
should be no contribution?
Dr Rawlings: I am saying we make
a contribution already, and it depends whether you think that
contribution should be more. Very simply, the alcohol taxation
would go right across the piece, would it not? It would take the
supermarkets, the pubs and everybody else who sells alcohol, and
that already happens.
Q68 Mr O'Brien: Do you think Business
Improvement Districts are the answer to the problem?
Dr Rawlings: I think they really
have some merits in them. A lot of our members are working on
them now. You can sit down in partnership with the local council
and say "What is the problem here? What is the funding we
need to do?" What you then do is get people to buy into a
project that actually means something and has an effect, rather
than putting money into a fund you have no control over and does
not necessarily solve the problem.
Q69 Chairman: Following up Mr O'Brien's
questions, can I just ask you, Dr Rawlings, is it fair and right
that other operators in the leisure/recreational sector like football
clubs should pay for additional policing? Why should licensed
premises not do so?
Dr Rawlings: Football clubs pay
for policing inside the grounds, not outside. Were we to have
police inside the pubs, it would be quite right for us to pay
for it. In fact, we do have that; we call them door supervisors,
and we spend something like £60 million a year on that.
Q70 Sir Paul Beresford: You said a little
earlier that pubs pay 40% of turnover in taxes. Did you mean 40%
of profit?
Dr Rawlings: No, 40% of turnover.
Chairman: With that, Dr Rawlings, can
I apologise that you were not able to do your double act with
Alcohol Concern, but can I thank you very much.
| 
