Using the force

The Government wants extra night police to reduce alcohol-related crime. Jackie Annett asks if this is the answer and, if so, who should pay for it

When the Government first suggested that licensees at late-night venues should pay for extra officers to patrol Britain's streets at night the trade was outraged.

Most licensees were furious they should be asked to fork out extra money when they are already hit with heavy taxes and business rates.

But following news that a Manchester scheme has been successful in cutting crime, some licensees have said they are warming to the notion.

So are these schemes a good idea?

It all began in December when the Government came up with an initiative to encourage voluntary paid-for-policing in its police reform white paper.

The result - it was hoped - would be a dramatic reduction in drink-related crime and disturbances in towns and city centres across the country.

While licensees agreed with the principle of slashing alcohol-related crime, they were unhappy with being used as a scapegoat and many said they could not afford to fork out the cash.

Some in the trade said the idea "amounted to extortion".

There was also a deeper concern that what would start life as a "voluntary" measure would become a necessary condition of gaining a late-licence in the future.

But in a handful of regions, most notably Peter Street in Manchester city centre, licensees were happy to pay for an extra officer to police the area on a Friday and Saturday night.

Greater Manchester Police even came up with a "buy-one-get-one-free" offer and the initiative has seen a great deal of success. Combined with a greater police focus on discouraging binge drinking and improved late-night transport, incidents in the city have been reduced from 15 to an average of just three over a Friday and Saturday night period.

But with costs at around £40 an hour for an extra officer, not everybody can afford it. The scheme's success has seen the idea gain favour in other parts of the country and Colchester, in Essex, now looks set to follow suit.

Roy Gray who runs the Route nightclub in the town told thePublican.com he thought licensees should pay for extra policing. He believes that in future, nightclub and pub operators will be forced to pay for extra police officers.

"Anyone can see that our industry is taxing on the police. People have a drink and become more boisterous, not like when they go to the pictures," Mr Gray said.

"We should take a bit of the responsibility."

He suggested a sliding scale, so smaller pubs pay less than the larger premises.

But the idea is still unpopular with many. Last week Middlesbrough council came under heavy fire for its plans to charge licensees a nuisance tax covering not just extra police but also the cost of cleaning streets and collecting litter.

The proposal could cost anything up to £10,000 a year and would affect those applying for a new licence as well as those licensees who are looking to change opening times or extend their premises.

A spokesman for the council's planning department said the proposals had been suggested because local residents were fed up with litter, noise and disturbance.

He said the cash would be used to pay for more police but also town centre wardens and street cleaning.

"It's a fair system," he said. "Those who pollute the most will pay the most."

Licensees in the town are outraged about the plans. They say the trade already pays enough tax and cannot afford to contribute anymore.

Sue Sweetman who runs Scruffy Murphy's in the town said: "It's absolutely outrageous. In fact it's scandalous. We have enough taxes to pay - it's unbelievable. Licensees are definitely getting the short end of the stick."

But a spokeswoman for the Home Office defended the move.

She said: "At the moment it is very difficult to police town centres and cities on Saturday nights when thousands of people are spilling out of pubs and clubs. It's taking police away from other areas.

"We are not forcing anybody to take part. Licensees who do not pay for an extra officer will continue to get the services that they have got already."

The Association of Chief Police Officers is also backing the move. It says in most cases licensees are happy to pay for an extra officer to patrol the surrounding areas.

A spokesman added that although he agreed policing should be a free service, it wasn't always "realistic in this day and age".

"It benefits both parties," he added. "In certain areas it will be necessary to pay for extra policing. If the resources aren't there, somebody has to pay for them and the trade can only benefit."

But not everyone agrees. Of those of you who have so far voted in our latest poll (see below), over half say you would not be prepared to pay more for extra policing or street cleaning.

Tony Payne of the Federation of Licensed Victuallers Associations said: "Licensees should not have to pay this. They already have to pay high business rates. Licensees shouldn't be held responsible for the council's budgeting shortfalls and the police's problems."

The British Beer & Pub Association's Mark Hastings said although the Government described the proposals as "voluntary" he was suspicious it could become a condition of obtaining a licence.

He said it was also important that the police were seen as independent.

"It will cause problems if there is a disturbance that is unrelated to the pub. Will the officer leave the pub to attend to it or will he have to stick around the pub because he is being paid for by the licensee?"

He urged the Government to update licensing laws that "are so out-of-date they have become almost useless". And he cited the last two New Year's Eves as a shining example of how staggered opening times could help to reduce crime and disorder.

By allowing people to leave when they want - rather than throwing them all onto the streets at the same time - overcrowding and friction are avoided.

In fact, when the Isle of Man extended opening hours police found that crime immediately dropped.

What's more, a report by The Portman Group suggests that in some cases the trade is being unfairly blamed for crime figures.

The Counting the Cost study discovered that statistics used to track alcohol-related crime are inconsistent and have even been described by the police themselves as "crap".

The problem lies in the fact that hospitals and the police use different methods to collect the data. In some cases alcohol-related may mean that alcohol was directly responsible for the offence, while in others it will mean alcohol played an unknown role in the offence.

If nothing else, this uncertainty implies that a lot more research is needed before any sort of effective solution can be introduced - and jumping in with a variety of locally thought-up proposals may not be the answer we are all looking for.

Vote!​

Related stories:​

Licensees' fury at proposed tax bills (14 March 2002)

Portman Group: Alcohol-related crime figures 'meaningless' (7 March 2002)

Police reform is 'scandalous' (6 December 2001)

Licensees pay for extra beat officer to cut late-night crime (7 Novem