Pub industry must balance concern with commitment over Responsibility Deal

25-Jul-2012 - Last updated on 11-Mar-2017 at 19:31 GMT

Related tags Responsibility deal Government

Harrington: 'Health Committee has given the Government an extra incentive to pursue regulation around the Responsibility Deal commitments"

Let’s start with the positive. Last week’s Health Committee report is a further clear indication that the tide of opinion about who is responsible for problems associated with alcohol has well and truly changed.

The 50-page document contains just four references to pubs, three of which are direct quotes from evidence provided by the British Beer & Pub Association.

Granted, the report is a response to the Government’s strategy that itself focuses primarily on the off-trade and alcohol producers. But nevertheless, the Committee had ample chance to raise concerns about pubs and bars had it wished. The fact that it did not is to be welcomed.

The fact that the Committee expressed serious concerns about minimum pricing should also be met with relief. The Government has not revealed the details of its pricing plan; a consultation, initially due this summer, has yet to surface.

Some timely common-sense advice from MPs to keep it evidence based, and consider a sunset clause, could hopefully steer ministers down a sensible path and lead to policies that won’t rebound on the pub industry.

But there’s a nasty sting in the tail concerning the Responsibility Deal. “The Committee does not believe that participation by the alcohol industry in the Responsibility Deal should be regarded by anyone as optional — we regard it as intrinsic to responsible corporate citizenship,” the report says, before adding ominously: “The Responsibility Deal is not a substitute for Government policy.”

Put simply, the Committee has given the Government an extra incentive to pursue regulation around the Responsibility Deal commitments.

The coalition has so far stuck by the voluntary approach that fits with its stated policy of not placing fresh burdens on businesses. But opinions change.

As the Department of Health continues with its controversial reforms of the NHS, ministers may feel the need to gain some ‘quick wins’ to divert attention: what better than some hard-line action on binge drinking?

Administrations also change, so intervention is a cause for concern up to and after the next general election. Worryingly, Labour’s shadow health minister Diane Abbott reportedly said she favours raising tax on high-sugar drinks, indicating a willingness to act on public health.

Many in the industry will feel a foreboding sense of déjà vu here. The previous Labour Government also took a series of voluntary agreements and best-practice advice, on areas such as drinks promotions, and then made them mandatory. Could salt reduction and calorie labelling be next?

A number of operators have already highlighted difficulties complying with some of these commitments. New pledges have also come in for criticism; Marston’s chief executive Ralph Findlay wrote to the Department of Health last month about a commitment to persuade younger employees to exercise, saying the company was “not their parents; we are a business”.

The industry must strike a careful balance here between raising legitimate concerns over details of the Responsibility Deal and showing commitment to its broader aims, or risk a new legislative burden. The tide of opinion may have turned, but the pub trade must not get caught in the undertow.