Self-regulation doesn't solve all our problems

This month marks the 10th anniversary of my involvement with BEDA. Throughout that time, BEDA has taken the view that our industry should demonstrate its social responsibility credentials and then lobby for targeted regulation of the licensed trade that restricts enforcement to the small minority of problem premises.

When the licensing reform debate began in earnest in the mid-1990s, BEDA, often an isolated voice, consistently counselled against the wisdom of allowing an over-expansion of the licensed trade in parts of our town and city centres. We repeatedly warned both central and local government that, like any other market, increasing supply while demand remained broadly static would inevitably produce a fall in prices.

Accused of being protectionist, we were ignored and an increasing number of licences were given out, forcing operators down a path of deep discounting and heavy promotional activity.

Now we have the kickback, with the Licensing Act being praised for its powers of closure, sanction and review and the Home Office alcohol strategy veering away from partnership towards enforcement with its proposal for alcohol disorder zones probably the most divisive, complex and unnecessary initiative I have seen emerge from government in recent years.

BEDA has aimed to remain positive and constructive throughout, working with councils to make a success of the Licensing Act despite its complexity, and offering the Home Office any number of alternatives to ADZs.

The roll out of Best Bar None, development of Business Improvement Districts, widespread adoption of dispersal policies and creation of local licensing forums would all drive partnership, dialogue and communication and foster best practice. Above all, BEDA recognises that the unique nature of our market, with its mix of young people, late hours and alcohol, means that we often need state intervention to underpin our efforts. Hence our support for the SIA, council adoption of saturation policies (where appropriate) and the targeted use of licence conditions to protect and enhance standards.

All of which leads me to the perceived 'dispute between BEDA and the BBPA over their recently-published policy on promotions.

The reality is that both associations are trying to take the socially-responsible path but while the BBPA favours self-regulation, BEDA's experience of our high streets is that codes will only take you so far. The good operators are already doing what the code says, new entrants will find it to be a benefit, but rogue venues will either pay lip service to the code or simply ignore it.

To make BEDA's position clear, we view the code as a useful contribution but not the complete solution. I am confident that the majority of our members comply with the code. But we need to clarify that councils have the ability, under the 2003 Act, to introduce minimum price conditions where there is evidence of discount related problems and an MPC is necessary to underpin broader work to reduce disorder.

BEDA isn't 'snubbing the BBPA code so our members can offer irresponsible promotions. Nor, contrary to NALHM fears, are we forcing managers to run unsustainable promotions. Rather, BEDA has chosen not to put its full weight behind the code because we believe that it needs to go further. On this issue, as with drugs, doormen and licensing before it, BEDA is drawing on operational experience and calling for appropriate intervention embracing not shirking our responsibilities.