By-passing the law-makers
Police in some areas, it is reported, are seeking to "encourage" licensees to sign up to a minimum pricing policy, sometimes with the support of their local councils.
It would appear that they have been encouraged by the views expressed in a study from Sheffield University, much quoted by the Home Office, that pricing can be directly connected to drunkenness and from there to disorder or criminality.
Whether or not they are aware of the Office of Fair Trading and Department of Trade's warning concerning minimum-price "cartels" is not clear. What is, however, apparent is that they may be using their acknowledged power within local communities, together with the threat of dire consequences, to engineer something that is not currently part of the legislation. In some cases, they couple this "advice" with a warning that anyone who is shown to have sold drink cheaply with resulting crime and disorder flowing from binge drinking could find themselves facing penalties and/or a review of their licence.
This is unfortunate. The whole notion of a "voluntary" scheme is overturned by the implied threat that if you do not toe the line your licence may be put in jeopardy. Paying lip service to the idea that low-cost drinks are not actually illegal, while following it with the "big stick" is a classic police tactic to encourage compliance. It is the stuff of TV comedy shows, yet it is all too true in practice.
When I was a student I was taught that there was a division between the law-makers and the law enforcers. It was essential, apparently, that the police enforced the law as it was and did not make it up as they went along. That distinction seems to have been eroded in recent years. Increasingly in these areas, several initiatives on combating what is seen as drink-related crime and disorder have come directly from the police to the communities against whom they are directed, effectively by-passing the legislation and the legislators.
The police will claim, naturally, that they are only working with the community for the good of all, that the intention is to cut down on antisocial behaviour and that part of their job is to encourage any measure that will achieve this end.
But there is a long distance between offering customers a better deal in your pub and binge drinking that actually results in crime. A high percentage of those who take advantage of good value in a pub will not go on to commit offences. Penalising them by artificially raising prices will not actually address the problem.
Also, to suggest that lowcost drink promotions are all, by their nature, "irresponsible" is completely unfair. This is why the Government has fought shy of imposing minimum pricing across the board, because it knows that it is not only anti-competitive, but has an effect on ordinary members of the public as well as the target group who might
over-indulge with more serious consequences.
But, more importantly, the police are not in a position to jump the legislative gun. They may well have formed the view that cut-price drinks encourage bingeing. But many in the trade know that pre-loading is also a problem. The supermarkets are not involved in this scheme. It is selective and, therefore, inherently unfair on one sector of the trade. It is not for the police to take an arbitrary line in this way, under threat of action for
non-compliance.
It is difficult enough for licensees to comply with one set of rules that is constantly being changed or made more complex. To have the police adding their extra weight by creating further compliance objectives to the mix is unreasonable. If they have a problem with certain outlets, then they have legislation to assist them. It is not their job to make the rules.
