Mark Daniels: Mandatory Code - spoiling it for the majority

The Government are at it again, interfering with our daily lives as if they haven't got anything better to do. This time it's all about selling alcohol responsibly and basically means that to stop you, the sensible drinker, from enjoying yourself on a Saturday night they're trying to make the default size of a pint of beer half a pint instead.

In order to find out what all the fuss is about, last week I attended the "Cambridge" leg of the Home Office's Big Alcohol Tour.

Struggling in to my suit, cursing as I realised that I'd put a few more pounds on than I'd thought since I last wore it, I swore again when I looked up the post code of the event's location and discovered that, although it said Cambridge on my invite, it was actually taking place in Wisbech, some forty odd miles further north of the city. That's a bit like trying to catch a flight to Rome on RyanAir.

It also added an extra half an hour to my journey and meant that I would have to use the B1104 Prickwillow Road, a road so blighted with subsidence and pot holes it makes going for a ride on The Nemesis at Alton Towers positively Sunday Afternoonish. But I managed to make it on time.

The proposed new code does make some sensible suggestions when you look at its overview, and ask any sensible, law-abiding member of the public what they think and they'll probably say that it should be brought in forthwith, and flog anybody who begs to differ. But it's not as simple as that.

During the presentations I heard one of the speakers say that "the Government thinks that people are drinking too much and that this shouldn't be allowed to happen." There is a gossamer-thin line between the democracy we apparently live in and the communist state that's being created and it's being trod on very firmly.

The proposed code aims to ban irresponsible promotions, enforce signage that tells you alcohol isn't part of your five-a-day, and bring in smaller measures. It's been widely publicised that all on-trade outlets will be forced to serve wine in a 125ml measure, but what has been less heavily publicised is that it also calls for half a pint to be made the standard measure for beer.

I appreciate that one of the goals of this new code is that it aims to reduce alcohol-related violence, but if my local builder walks in at the end of a busy day and says "IPA please, Mark", as he often does, and I only pour him a half because he didn't say 'pint', as the proposals appear to suggest, he will punch me on the nose.

Do we really need a whole raft of new legislation in our already overly-bureaucratic industry when Common Sense should prevail? I've already received an e-mail stating this new code could potentially cost the industry £58million in its first year. A hefty figure for a trade already so beleaguered.

What stood out most, however, was how heavily biased this new code is to the on-trade, whilst the off-trade are able to sit quietly to the side, whistling to themselves and hoping that nobody will point out that some of their offers clearly fall under the loosely termed "irresponsible promotion".

Simon How, Senior Public Health Programme Manager of the East of England Public Health & Social Care Directorate (I couldn't help but wonder how large his business card must be), presented a series of results from a survey of 7000 members of the public that showed pie charts all displaying that the vast majority of people in the East of England drink, and that some of them even class themselves as Heavy Drinkers.

But, when I asked him what percentage of that demographic purchased their alcohol from supermarkets rather than pubs, he admitted they hadn't asked that question during the survey. So, in a consultation process based upon curbing the excess sale and abuse of alcohol, it didn't seem logical to ask where the alcohol was being purchased from in the first place?

Clearly not.

Mr How did, however, admit that their survey showed that the vast majority of younger drinkers pre-load - in other words, they purchase alcohol from the off-trade and drink it before heading out in the evening because it is a cheaper way of getting in the mood than sitting in a pub all evening before hitting the clubs.

Even a student in the audience put her hand up, got the microphone, and stated to the panel that, at university, her and her friends 'pre-load' before going out for a night. My own barmaid tells me that's exactly what she and her friends do at the weekends when she is at university.

Yet, when asked, the Home Office panel said that the code did not fully incorporate the off-trade because there was little evidence to support the fact that supermarkets were part of the problem!

Indeed, all their code really asks them to do is put a sign up somewhere in the building stating the health risks of drinking alcohol and they can carry on selling twenty-four cans of Stella for ten pence.

Meanwhile, the on-trade have to put signs up, bottles have to be printed with health notices, measures have to be restricted to half pints, smaller glasses of wine and - potentially - 25ml spirit measures only. And, to top it off, we're not allowed to run promotions to try and attract new business like the supermarkets can.

The code seeks to address the problems caused by a small minority of people, whilst the majority of us will have to pay for it. Sadly, despite the best efforts of the bureaucrats, those rogue licensees that wish to flout the law will continue to do so, and the consumers who wish to drink themselves stupid in the first place will also continue to do so. And they'll just keep on getting their booze cheaply from the off-trade.

Indeed, I didn't feel attending the event was a waste of time because, as the day drew to a close, I was able to get the microphone and tell the panel what I thought: and that is that this whole exercise is an expensive waste of time.