Health Committee - The Government's Alcohol StrategyWritten evidence from Business In Sport and Leisure (GAS 39)
Business In Sport and Leisure represents over seventy private sector companies and organisations in the important sport, leisure and hospitality industry. Its membership is comprised of a mixture of leisure operators, a majority of whom provide a licensed bar or other licensable activity even where it is not their primary business.
BISL is disappointed that the Alcohol Strategy is still seeking to use blunt instruments to deal with those few premises that do not abide by current legislation instead of ensuring that the legislation is properly applied.
The Strategy is riddled with inaccurate and, or out of date evidence—and continues to place almost total responsibility on the retailer. Whilst the strategy claims, and does, give greater power to the community; it does very little indeed to reinforce the concept of any “individual responsibility.”
Despite recognition that supervised drinking is safer than in particular young people left to their own devises and the success of voluntary industry led initiatives such as Best Bar None, Purple Flag and Business Improvement Districts the strategy recommends powers for local government to place a late night levy on premises operating beyond 24.00 hours that threatens to undermine existing voluntary initiatives.
Introduction
1. Business In Sport and Leisure represents over seventy private sector companies and organisations in the important sport, leisure and hospitality industry. Its membership is comprised of a mixture of leisure operators, a majority of whom provide a licensed bar or other licensable activity even where it is not their primary business. Membership also includes a large number of professionals from law and finance that support the sector. BISL was an active member of the DCMS Advisory Group on licensing during the passage of the Licensing Act 2003 and subsequently has continued that dialogue more recently at the Home Office where specific discussions around EMROs and the Late Night Levy were appreciated.
Overview
2. BISL Members were somewhat disappointed at the tone, content and lack of balance in both the Alcohol Strategy itself and the statement by the Home Secretary to the House of Commons at its launch.
3. Whilst the ambitions of the strategy as outlined in paragraph 1.6 are ones that everyone can applaud the document is riddled with inaccurate and, or out of date evidence—and continues to place almost total responsibility on the retailer. Whilst the strategy claims, and does, give greater power to the community; it does very little indeed to reinforce the concept of any “individual responsibility”. Surely circumstances in which under 18s when caught breaking the law should be dealt with in a manner that is a genuine deterrent rather than get off scot-free.
4. Whilst the Alcohol Strategy does contain an acknowledgement that “alcohol consumption can have a positive impact on adults well being... Well run community pubs and other businesses form a key part of the fabrics of neighbourhood, providing employment and social venues and a profitable alcohol industry enhances the UK economy” the tone and policy content of the document is set in the first two words of the Prime Minister’s foreword “Binge drinking”. BISL accepts the need to deal with excessive drinking pattern but the use of the term “BINGE DRINKING” is undefined and emotive.
5. In essence the strategy is still seeking to use blunt instruments to deal with those few premises that do not abide by current legislation instead of ensuring that the legislation is properly applied. It is turning away from all the key principles that underpin the Licensing Act 2003, legislation that was enacted after extensive research and consultation in particular around zoning and artificially early closing times.
6. BISL like many others is nervous of any Government intervention on pricing in the marketplace and members agreed that there is the potential of unintended consequences ie of such a low minimum unit price actually. fuelling supermarket sales as limited disposable income drives customers away from the pub to private parties.
Detailed Comments: Alcohol Consumption
7. In the introduction (para 1.1) the report highlights an increase in alcohol consumption over the past 50 years and yet it fails to acknowledge the ONS report in March 2012 that between 2005 and 2010 average weekly alcohol consumption in the UK decreased from 14.3 units to 11.5 units per adult. Among men average alcohol consumption decreased from 19.9 units to 15.9 units a week and for women from 9.4 units to 7.6 units a week.
8. Since 2005 the GHS/GLF has shown a decline in the proportion of men drinking more than 21 units of alcohol a week and in the proportion of women drinking more than 14 units of alcohol a week. The proportion of men drinking more than 21 units a week fell from 31% in 2005 to 26% in 2010 and the proportion of women drinking more than 14 units a week fell from 21% to 17% over the same period. These changes were driven by falls in the younger age groups. Among men, the percentage drinking more than 21 units of alcohol a week decreased in the 16 to 24 age group (from 32% to 21%) and in the 25 to 44 age group (from 34% to 27%). Falls were also present among women; the percentage drinking more than 14 units of alcohol a week fell in the 25 to 44 age group from 25% to 19%. When using the average weekly consumption measure, heavy drinking is defined as consuming more than 50 units a week for men and consuming more than 35 units a week for women. There have been falls in the proportions of both men and women who drink heavily since 2005. The estimates for men fell from 9% to 6% and for women fell from 5% to 3% from 2005 to 2010.
Sale of Alcohol to Young People
9. Amongst young people the proportion who have never drunk alcohol rose from 39% in 2003 to 55% in 2010. Less than half (45%) of pupils aged between 11 and 15 said that they had drunk alcohol at least once in their lifetimes. This increased with age from 10% of 11 year olds to 77% of 15 year olds.
10. BISL recognises the importance of protecting young people and even a rate of increase to 55% between 11 and 15 is insufficient to allow complacency. BISL accepts that severe penalties are still required to prevent underage sales.
11. However in April 2007, a premises licence holder could face up to three months licence suspension and/or a fine of up to £10,000 if any premises is subject to three failed under aged alcohol test purchases within a three month period. As an alternative, at the option of the enforcing authority, they could accept voluntary closure of up to 48 hours (again at a timing chosen by the authority). Most took this option rather than chancing their hand before the Magistrates. There is no defence available to the operator.
12. The previous Government reduced the threshold to just two failed test purchases in January 2010. Under the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act which came in to force on 25 April 2012, the maximum penalty was increased from £10,000 to £20,000 and the period for voluntary closure will extend from up to two days to a minimum of two days up to a maximum of 14 days. In these circumstances it would seem unlikely that a premises licence holder will accept voluntary closure and will more likely remain open and await an appearance before a magistrate.
13. Many operators have now adopted as standard practice non statutory proof of age schemes such as Challenge 21/Challenge 25 and some now undertake their own test purchasing to ensure compliance.
Late Night Levy
14. The Strategy makes reference (para 3.10) to the powers for local licensing authorities to impose a late night levy on premises operating beyond 24.00 hours. It is within precisely such premises that supervised drinking takes place rather than outdoors or at an increasing number of private parties.
15. Many of these premises are already engaged in voluntary accreditation programmes such as Best Bar none or part of area initiatives such as Business Improvement Districts and Purple Flag Programme all of which encourage a safer supervised environment.
16. Despite a widespread recognition of the success of the voluntary initiative, funded on a consensual basis by the operators the strategy seeks to impose through the levy a further charge on premises licence holders. There is already evidence that the present reduction in sales and escalating costs of duty, energy etc are making some operators review such voluntary contributions. The introduction of a Late Night Levy is likely to exacerbate the problem in areas such as Lancashire where five schemes have been lost and West Yorkshire where 6 schemes have disappeared.
17. At best regulations for the introduction of both the Late night Levy and the Early Morning Restriction Order should advise exemption for those premises already engaged in appropriate, voluntary accreditation schemes.
May 2012