Do we really need a mandatory code?

Is there anybody out there in favour of the government's mandatory code of practice? Judging by the Home Office consultation events so far, there is very little appetite for the new legislation - from anyone.

Even the police appear against the code. At the recent Cambridge consultation event I attended, the very first comment from the floor came from a police officer.

"We have enough powers, just not enough resources," he said. "Imposing more legislation will just be counter-productive."

Justification

The Home Office events are designed to give those affected a chance to have their say on the code. But how is the government justifying this new legislation?

Dexter Vickery from the Home Office explained the code was just "one part of a comprehensive strategy" to tackle alcohol harm.

"It's up to individuals to take responsibility for their own actions, but retailers have a responsibility to their communities," he said.

Crispin Acton, programme manager on the Alcohol Policy Team at the Department of Health, said there was a "limited awareness" of the number of units in typical drinks servings, suggesting the "trend towards larger servings" was "shaping demand".

On spirit measures, he referred to figures showing that 85 per cent of venues sell a 25ml measure as a single, while 15 per cent use the 35ml measure. He asked: "How far are the public aware that when you ask for a single measure you can get a different amount?"

Once the presentations had finished, Lee Le Clerq of the British Beer & Pub Association voiced his opposition to the code, saying there were already "plenty of powers" in the Licensing Act.

'Irresponsible' promotions

Delegates then broke off for a series of workshops on different aspects of the code. First up were the national mandatory conditions, which include a ban on 'irresponsible' promotions, as well as forcing pubs to offer smaller measures and free tap water.

On my particular table, there was a feeling that the definition of an 'irresponsible' promotion was too "airy-fairy". The general feeling was that a clampdown on promotions was a good thing. However, a vote found that nearly 60 per cent of attendees believed the code would not raise standards in pubs and bars or tackle the problems.

The one area that did receive a fairly universal thumbs-up was the idea of having alcohol unit information for drinks at point-of-sale visible to customers. Although one delegate argued that posters in pubs telling people what to do were so prevalent now they were "like wallpaper".

Later, the local discretionary conditions that would be available to councils attracted plenty of criticism. Two areas that were challenged were the idea of forcing pubs and bars to run a Challenge 21 scheme and installing a direct line to a local taxi firm. One licensee said Challenge 21 was down to "individual perceptions" and "common sense", but should not be made a condition.

He also questioned whether a direct line for taxis was needed, saying "90 per cent of people have a mobile these days".

In a vote, 82 per cent of delegates agreed that the local conditions would not have the desired effect.

So overall, as at previous events, the appetite for the code - and understanding of it - appeared very slim.

Whether this will have any impact on the make-up of the code when it eventually appears, we'll just have to wait and see. But judging by this government's track record on its treatment of pubs, the trade will not be holding its breath.