Memorandum from the British Institute
of Innkeeping (BII) (DDD 14)
BII is the professional body for licensed retail
with 13,000 members, most of whom are individuals running licensed
premises. The following responses to the questions around drink
driving, posed by the Transport Committee, have been gathered
from a representative sample of our membership. We have not commented
on the issues around drug driving.
Statistics relating to the industry have already
been outlined by the British Beer and Pub Association in their
independent response.
Should the permitted blood alcohol limit be reduced
as proposed?
BII members feel that any reduction in the BAC
limit will make no impact on those who habitually drink and drive.
Whilst they have sympathy with the aims of the proposal, members
do not support a reduction. The current limit is bedded-in and
respected. Lowering it could cause that respect to be diminished
and cause confusion.
Another issue is the additional risk to the
economic viability of some pubs, particularly those in rural areas.
The question is not that these pubs rely on "drinking and
driving" customers, but the reality that most people have
one drink with a meal and pose little risk. Drivers have, in the
main, changed their drinking habits over the five years following
the introduction of drink-drive legislation any changes could
confuse customers and make them unwilling to make a journey.
On a positive note, BII members do run a variety
of schemes to support their customers such as soft drinks promotions
and taxi services.
If so, is the mandatory one year driving ban appropriate
for less severe offenders, at the new (lower) level?
The majority of BII members agree that the one
year ban is appropriate. Some, however, feel that a six month
ban might be better to differentiate between what is currently
felt to be safe and the new lower limit and perhaps the current
tariff needs revision overall if the limit is reduced.
What wider costs and benefits are likely to result
from changes to drink and driving law?
Costs:
BII members feel that wet-led pubs particularly,
that do not rely on local trade, will see a significant impact
in reduced sales (see above). The consequences of this will mean
more closures and higher job losses. Currently, individual puts
contribute around £17,000 to the local economy so such closures
will impact on communities and society generally. The BBPA's response
outlines the economic impact that these changes could have with
around 18,000 pubs potentially being affected.
The changes will increase the cost of policing.
Benefits:
BII members feel that the changes may result
in fewer alcohol-related accidents.
An opportunity could be made to maximise sales
attracting a higher GP, such as coffee and soft drinks.
What would be the implications of such changes
for enforcement?
BII members felt that the changes would put
an extra burden on the police and judicial system generally. It
was also felt that the introduction of a lower limit might divert
the police focus from other tasks if spending cuts were significant.
What other measures (other than stricter limits)
do you consider could be effective in addressing drink-driving?
BII members were overwhelmingly in favour of
more education to promote personal responsibility; TV advertising
campaigns; the promotion of the "I'll be Des campaign"
and the adoption of local driver schemes as well as better public
transport systems within larger conurbations.
August 2010
| 
