Paid-for police needs wait and see' tactic

There has been much talk in the press recently about putting bobbies back on the beat, in good-old Dixon of Dock Green style. The problem is that we now live in a very different society with, some might say, very different values.

In particular, the question of policing late at night has been in the news, and two items in last week's Morning Advertiser caught my eye. One was the paid-for policing initiative in Cleveland, and the other was a warning on inadequate police numbers from Worcester.

It seems to me that however laudable the idea of licensees co-operating to put extra numbers on the night shift is, a very dangerous precedent can be set, particularly in the run-up to a change in licensing responsibilities. The concept of paid-for policing is not new ­ after all, football clubs have been paying out for years. But if this turned from a voluntary scheme into, say, an imposed condition on all premises licences that had operating hours after midnight, then we are into a different scenario.

Local authorities are clearly seeing the relaxation of permitted hours in a different light from the Government, which is hardly surprising. Instead of the idea of a more relaxed environment, without the known flashpoints after first the pubs then the clubs shut for the night, people such as Worcester's head of licensing seem to assume that the mayhem will go on all night. He is quoted as saying "how on earth are the police going to be able to cover (24-hour drinking) if they can't cover it now?".

He should visit the Isle of Man and talk to the police chief there. He would hear how, even after the first six months of the abolition of permitted hours, the police were actually able to cut the number of officers required for late-night duties. And he might also find that the incidence of 24-hour drinking is non-existent, even in Douglas.

The truth, which his own police force clearly demonstrated at a seminar that I attended a few years ago, is that it is policing the flashpoints that causes the manpower problem. You have to have large numbers of officers available for a period of perhaps three hours out of eight, and the rest of the night shift is comparatively quiet. There has to be a full night shift because you cannot send the police home to bed. But the idea that so-called 24-hour drinking causes 24 hours of police attendance is at odds with the known facts and very much at odds even with Home Office research.

Clearly, Cleveland's volunteer pubs and clubs in Stockton and Yarm see it from a different perspective ­ that turning down such an initiative at this stage in the game will not endear them to the local council that is going to grant them their licence next year. So there's more than a hint of gentle persuasion here. And of course, the result of more police on the streets may well be a quelling of some of the trouble at chucking out time.

But policing society is the job of the police, and paying for it is the job of the Home Office and the local authorities. Some might take the view that this is the thin end of the wedge and that other activities might be next in line for a little financial assistance to have adequate cover.

I think we should wait and see the effects of a liberalisation of hours coupled with tighter controls over excessive drinking and more responsible retailing. That is the more positive way forward.