Tories andthe trade

In the MA's in-depth look at pub trade policies in the run-up to the generalelection, JOHN HARRINGTON speaks to Malcolm Moss, the Conservatives' Shadow Minister for the Arts and Tourism

With the furore surrounding the Daily Mail's deceitful but powerful campaign against "24-hour pubs", it has sometimes been easy to forget who the official opposition is. When the Conservative Party has stuck its head above the parapet, the typical response from the trade has been to shrug in disapproval; remember January's Early Day Motion (EDM) to halt the Licensing Act "until binge-drinking is under control"?

The Morning Advertiser put to Tory licensing spokesman Malcolm Moss that Conservative attacks on "24-hour drinking" represent a party that has simply jumped on the binge-drinking bandwagon, following criticisms of late licensing by senior policemen (and the Daily Mail, of course).

The MP for North East Cambridgeshire explains that there were moves to push for deregulation under the last Conservative Government, with the understanding that the current regime is draconian and inflexible.

But Moss accuses the Government of playing down police concerns about later opening in a report that was published during the passage of the Licensing Bill. It was the need to bring these concerns into the open, he says, that explains the EDM.

No chance of licensing change

"There's no chance of any change in the Licensing Act at the moment," Moss explains. "Putting down an EDM is a political gesture as much as anything else. The Government isn't going to respond to that but it flags up that there's an issue here that needs addressing."

Moss says that the party's view was that licensing should remain with the magistrates.

"We believed there would be greater bureaucracy and higher costs [with the switch to local authorities], whereas the Government claimed it would be easier, less bureaucratic and people would save money ­ all of which have proved to be false claims."

So, can we expect a Conservative Government to halt the implementation of the Act and put JPs back in the driving seat? Well, no. Moss proposes a more pragmatic "wait and see" solution.

"It's early days yet. Even the Government says it will revisit the Act when it needs to. Given the fluidity of the situation relating to disorder and binge-drinking, then the Government would be absolutely right to do so."

But there are "key areas" that a Conservative Government would want to address "sooner or later", "one of which is the binge-drinking/disorder issue in town and city areas, related possibly to saturation/proliferation of outlets".

"We would give it time to bed in and see if local authorities were implementing the Act sensibly. If not, that needs to be looked at again."

One-size-fits-all approach

But what other changes could Joe Publican expect under a Michael Howard premiership?

The fees structure ­ with its "one-size-fits-all" approach ­ is one of the areas it would address.

Saturation is another. Pointing to examples of Westminster and Camden, the MP speaks favourably about the powers being available to restrict licences for the benefit of residents. But he stresses that local authorities must take a sensible approach or risk being "completely clogged up" with appeals to magistrates.

Moss appears to have taken on board the comments of trade bodies, such as the British Beer & Pub Association, when he expresses doubts about pubs being forced to pay for extra police.

"If you look at the burden on the industry it's enormous in terms of the tax-take the Government has, and all the regulatory burdens, not least the licensing fee structure. So the trade can rightly say, we are taxed enough; why should we have to pay for policing for problems that are out in the community, not necessarily in our premises?'"

And Moss points out that most alcohol-related disorder takes place on the streets, not in pubs and clubs. "That's more of a policing matter for the community rather than the responsibility of the publicans," he says.

Ultimately, Moss explains, getting more police out at night should be the priority. Taking a swipe at the Government's plans for alcohol disorder zones, he says: "I would prefer to see [more police] as a starting point rather than start defining complicated situations that look good on paper but may be impractical in terms of application."

But he adds an important condition. "If the trade cannot self-regulate by not having these two-for-ones and happy hours, which tend to encourage early drinking and prolong the time of access to alcohol, then­ I think society will complain and Government will have to respond."

On the issue of drinks promotions, Moss says selling alcohol has "implications on a social and moral level that are outside the normal perimeters of retail trade".

Applauding partnership schemes that have been adopted by the trade, such as Business Improvement Districts and Best Bar None award schemes, Moss says self-regulation is "the way forward".

We don't want more bureaucracy

"We don't want to have to pass more laws with more bureaucracy if we can solve the problem by the industry addressing the issues for which it can be responsible."

He adds: "[Passing more laws] won't solve everything because there's the question of education, the responsibility of the people who indulge in this sort of thing in terms of anti-social behaviour.

"These problems are not the fault of the trade but of society as a whole. Those are areas that Government, through a variety of means, should attempt to address."

Moss adds that the Government "has a role in communicating health risks and anti-social problems and the cost to society as a whole." However, a call to Conservative HQ revealed that the party has no plans to bring alcohol education into the national curriculum ­ this decision would be left to individual head teachers.

The MP concludes: "If we can achieve an acceptance by younger people that drink driving is anti-social and irresponsible then I'm sure there's every possibility of getting across the message that excess drinking is anti-social and irresponsible."

Pub-Friendly Rating (PFR): 3/10

At best it's confused; at worst, it's a disaster. The contrast between Moss's laissez-faire attitude and Michael Howard's tough stance is extraordinary and of great concern. Many of Moss's views would no doubt strike the right chord with the trade; a sensible approach to saturation, doubts about paid-for policing and an emphasis on voluntary schemes rather than heavy Government intervention. And while it is tempting to see Howard's hard-line rhetoric as merely that ­ handy sound bites to gain easy votes ­ what he proposes is a fundemental shift in licensing that could leave the future of the trade almost entirely at the whim of elected officials.