Crown, Beeston, is Pub of the Year see p. 18 - Nottingham CAMRA

State monopoly? Been there, done that, but might it be due a return?Nick Tegerdine explores one of the optionsfor reducing alcohol-related harmStrange times often produce even stranger measures, and theresistance to unit pricing paves the way for other ideas to rise upthe agenda.Few people who remember the state controlled brewery and pubs in theCarlisle / Dumfries area will look back and say ‘they were great pubs’.I can just remember seeing the outside of some of them, and less thanprepossessing is a kind description. Lack of investment in the statecontrolledtied estate was mirrored by a similar absence of investment inthe brewery, although I am assured that it produced a wide range of fineproducts until eventually being sold off in the early 1970’s.I’m not therefore making a case for nationalising breweries and pubs,although Scandinavian countries have a marked tendency to go that way.We must be mindful that anything is possible in terms of alcohol policy,and that a higher degree of state intervention at the point of sale isconsidered by some to be inevitable.Why would anyone want to go so far as to nationalise any part of thedrinks industry? Well, if alcohol-related harms are rising, and they are,and the current raft of measures, tools and powers is not impacting onthat, someone has to do something. Whether there has been rigorousanalysis of why the current tools and powers are not used effectivelyand consistently, and whether they are appropriate or not, is for anotherday. Right now we must recognise that the rate of hospital admission per100,000 of population in the East Midlands is 1560 (2009 figures). In2005 it was 1159. That rate of increase is a problem.Minimum pricing was an issue largely avoided in the recent ‘election thatnobody wanted to win’. The ScHARR report (School of Health and Relatedresearch, Sheffield University) remains hugely influential. They argue thata minimum 50p unit price would impact on high-risk drinkers by £163 pa,whereas someone drinking at low risk levels would spend about an extra£12 pa. This is, they argue, because high risk drinkers purchase moreof the cheap products that would be affected by a unit pricing policy.The outgoing PM Gordon Brown opposed unit pricing, arguing that the‘sensible majority’ of drinkers should not be punished for the excessesof a minority. I can’t see either David Cameron or Nick Clegg taking adifferent approach.The worst thing you cando about an alcoholproblem is nothingDrinking too much, too often, and for too long andfinding it hard to change?So, the likelihood of such a policy coming into force appears remote. Thatleaves the door open for other measures.A big factor in local government thinking is the impact of the minority ofdrinkers who behave inappropriately on the public’s perception of a townor street as being ‘safe’.When the Norwegians voted for a state monopoly in a referendum, amajor driver was the impact of drinking on children and the family andalso on the ‘safe feeling’ of the neighbourhood. Other Nordic stateshave either followed suit or are planning to do so. Iceland has howeverliberalised in recent years, and any comments linking that fact to thecrisis in their banking industry are unfair. However, since they liberalisedthey have had a major tourism boost but also a rise in alcohol issues.I do not wish to appear alarmist but the idea of ‘big government’ runningthe industry does not appeal to me. Imagine the prospect of every barand off licence selling the state brands of ‘a bit like Carling’ or ‘a bit likeStella’. Traditionalists may force a bit of room for ale ‘a bit like bitter’ butthat would be (no pun intended) about your limit.The recent Mandatory Code on the selling of alcoholic drinks, which cameinto force in April, targets irresponsible promotions like the ‘dentist’schair’ and ‘all you can drink for a tenner’. The Code also ensures that freetap water is available for customers, which can’t be a bad thing althoughwhat difference it will make to admission rates is highly debatable.Further conditions will come into force in October of this year, includingage checks and the ‘small measures’ clause, to resist against theprevailing trend to ‘go large’.However, the Code also promotes confusion and uncertainty over whatis banned and what is permissible. Licensing authorities have discretionover what is deemed to be ‘irresponsible’. I refer to this simply to pointout that the plan having been so diluted is unlikely to impact on thevarious indicators of alcohol-related harm. So that again leaves the dooropen for tougher measures.My personal view remains that it does not matter how many pubs thereare it is how well they are run that matters. If there are too many, somewill close as they are not profitable. If pubs are not well managed, theywill not be profitable. If they are causing a nuisance to the community,the existing tools and powers are there to deal with that, if the will isthere.With regard to off-licences, I am not so relaxed. We know thatthe products that are causing the most harm are sold from smallconvenience stores, often to people already intoxicated and without anyage verification processes being apparent. The big supermarkets arechallenged about their discounting policies, where lager is cheaper thanbottled water, but in the treatment field we know who the problems are interms of hospital admissions, the ‘frequent flyers’ we call them, and whatthey drink and where they get it. I’d like to hear someone in Governmentsaying ‘let’s start with these then’. If we did we’d be looking at controlson off sales.I’ve recently been looking at the Finnish state monopoly (known as ‘Alko’)pricing guide. They have a large range. For cider drinkers, 33cls of OldRosie in a bottle will cost you €3.03. The same sized bottle of (heavenforbid) English produced Budweiser would cost you €2.24. They don’tappear to sell the Czech Budvar, but 50cls of Pilsner Urquell will set youback €2.68. A similar quantity of Fullers ESB costs €3.69 while 50cls ofBath Ales’ Wild Hare sells at €3.88. the prices are not cheap, but thereal restriction comes in terms of security, not selling without age proof,and not selling to the customer who has already ‘researched the marketheavily’.What are the prices in the bars? That’s another story, so watch out forthe next edition.In sum, if the present strategies don’t make a difference, there is anargument that state control of off sales might. No doubt you’ll tell meyour views.Alcohol Problems Advisory ServiceAVAILABLE • ACCESSIBLE • CONFIDENTIAL0115 941 4747 or e-mail info@apas.org.ukwww.apas.org.ukPraise where praise is dueThis month we at APAS have to record that The StratfordHaven in West Bridgford has consistently demonstrated veryhigh standards of customer care.This very busy pub has highly trained and motivated staff.We congratulate them for the approach to their task andthe professionalism that is always apparent when servingcustomers, however difficult the customer may be.We hope that others will take note, but also that the ‘Strat’ willdo something about its toilets, which appeared on more thanone occasion to need some care and attention.www.nottinghamcamra.org June / July 2010