With the first draft of the National Alcohol Strategy due th

When councillors in Eastbourne polled residents on the idea of a street-drinking ban earlier this year, they received an unequivocal 94% vote in favour.

Locals said a clampdown would improve the south coast resort's image, reduce fear of crime and help stamp out under-age drinking.

That's not surprising in an East Sussex retirement haven where tolerance levels are predictably low. But similar "dry zones" are now being imposed up and down Britain, including parts of hard-drinking cities like Glasgow and Manchester.

Emboldened by the new powers provided by the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001, police and local authorities seem determined to get tough on a problem which Leicester City Council, when it launched its own ban in early August, described as "disorderly conduct, nuisance, criminal damage and the fear of alcohol-related violence".

Street drinking is just one ­ some say the biggest ­ element of alcohol-linked crime and disorder in which both the on and off-trades find themselves under attack. Rowdiness, sometimes veering into violence, is becoming a constant problem in town and city centres, especially at weekends.

The problem has been highlighted by this summer's heatwave. As temperatures have risen since July, city squares and beachside promenades have filled with young people in party mood. As their spirits have followed the thermometer upwards, other sections of the public, especially older people, have been left feeling intimidated and angry.

And it doesn't seem to matter whether the disorder is drug or alcohol-fuelled, whether the trouble-makers have emerged from licensed premises or straight from home: the blame, more often that not, is pinned on pubs and clubs.

Later this year, the Govern-ment is due to publish the first draft of a new National Alcohol Strategy, the result of a year-long research project by the Cabinet Office Strategy Unit.

It aims to tackle the consequences of alcohol misuse in terms of both health and social impact, including "disorder and anti-social behaviour in our town and city centres".

The pub industry, retailers, police, health experts, consumer groups and others have been involved in the consultation process. The outcome is sure to focus attention on just who is responsible, and to what degree, for alcohol-related crime and disorder. Habitually, fingers are pointed at licensees.

The question some are asking now is whether the off-trade ­ responsible, largely through the supermarkets, for more than a third of all alcohol sales in Britain ­ should not be shouldering more of the burden.

According to Mark Hastings, head of communications at the British Beer & Pub Association, some major supermarket groups have been "less positive" than the others in joining this aspect of the social responsibility debate.

"If you are responsible for 40% of the market, you have to have some responsibility for how you market your product," he says.

"And it's a responsibility that is magnified during hot weather, when there are loads of people outside drinking who certainly have not bought [the alcohol] in pubs or bars."

He adds: "The biggest concern, especially in the summer, is street drinking. And that's not just about tramps ­ these are young people, on the beach, in the city square. Why else do supermarkets and off-licenses have chilled product on sale? They are directly involved in that instant consumption' market."

The BBPA is on the fight-back trail after widespread criticism of one of the trade's most controversial promotional tactics ­ the happy hour. A gambit designed to help prop up business during traditionally quiet spells has, with help from the uniquely British approach to alcohol, transformed into a high-volume drinkfest and a sitting target for campaigners.

But the tide is turning rapidly against happy hours and similar volume-shifting mechanics. The BBPA has launched its own widely-praised promotional guidelines for licensees, aimed at stamping out binge-drinking incentives, and expects these to be used as a benchmark by local authorities as they take over licensing responsibilities from magistrates under the new Licensing Act.

As the pub trade begins to get its own house in order, attention is turning to supermarket discounting tactics, which BBPA's Hastings claims are similarly irresponsible. "One of the big issues we're trying to tackle is [retailers] selling alcohol as a loss leader," he says. "We get challenged with that argument all the time, and we're responding to it."

Not surprisingly, the major retailers don't see it that way. At the British Retail Consortium, spokesman David Southwell is spitting nails over the comparison between heavy discounting of beer in supermarkets and the pub trade's happy hour.

"You just cannot make that link. Retail promotions are not there to encourage binge drinking. It's comparing apples and pears. The only thing they have in common is price promotion."

Licensees have argued it is inappropriate and irresponsible to use alcohol as a loss leader to attract supermarket customers. But Southwell says the whole idea is a "misapprehension".

"Yes, you have some products that are on offer. You are trying to be competitive. But the idea that this is the equivalent of a 9p tin of baked beans is completely erroneous. It just doesn't happen that way."

There is also, Southwell says, a huge difference between selling alcohol for instant consumption and selling it in a superstore. It is impossible to know how and when alcohol bought in the supermarket will be consumed, and Southwell dismisses calls for a limit on how much alcohol can be purchased at one time or to monitor usage. "Those are unreasonable expectations of what you can do. It's unfeasible to interrogate every customer about whether they are buying 24 cans for consumption then or later."

At industry-sponsored watchdog, the Portman Group, David Poley, director of policy and good practice, accepts that the weight of social responsibility falls most heavily on licensees "for the simple reason that people are drinking on their premises.

"So generally, whatever offer you run or whatever pricing policy you adopt, it has to be consumed there and then.

"You can walk into a supermarket and buy below cost, but you can go home and drink that over the next six months," he points out.

The Portman Group is not against happy hour promotions, provided they are run responsibly, says Poley. "They're a legitimate tactic to get people in at a quiet time, but you need to bear in mind that the greater the discount and the shorter the window of opportunity', the greater is going to be the incentive to drink as much as you can."

Poley is keen to see the BBPA's promotional guidelines used within local authority licensing policies. The Licensing Act 2003 won't allow local authorities to impose blanket conditions on all licensed premises, but Poley expects them to be able to insist that all promotions are run in a responsible way.

The British Institute of Innkeeping goes further by suggesting there is no place for heavy price-cutting in well-managed licensed premises.

"It gives good operators a bad name," says spokeswoman Caroline Nodder. "The atmosphere it creates encourages a certain kind of customer, and it's not the kind our members want."

The BII is supportive of Portman's various campaigns to discourage binge drinking, such as the current "If you do do drink, don't do drunk", aimed at 18 to 24-year-olds.

"They've done fairly well in bringing that issue to the attention of the public," says Nodder. "Most campaigns have tended to be trade-focused."

Portman says of its latest campaign: "The ultimate aim is to make problem drunkenness as unacceptable as drink-driving. Media and the Government are increasingly sensitive to problems associated with public drunkenness, particularly among the young, and there is a growing awareness of the damage that this can cause to everyone involved in the drinks business."

If it chooses, the trade can argue until the cows come ho