Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement

 
 
Sunday, 12th October 2008

Premium Article !

Your account has been frozen. For your available options click the below button.

Options

Premium Article !

To read this article in full you must have registered and have a Premium Content Subscription with the Edinburgh Evening News site.

Subscribe

Registered Article !

To read this article in full you must be registered with the site.

City licensing chief questions plan for extra charge on pubs



Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 18 June 2008
EDINBURGH'S licensing board convener today urged caution over the proposed levy on licensed premises to help meet the costs of drink-fuelled antisocial behaviour.
Liberal Democrat councillor Marjorie Thomas said she backed most of the initiatives outlined yesterday in the Scottish Government's strategy to tackle alcohol misuse.

But she signalled reservations about the proposed "social responsibility fee" wh
ich certain pubs, clubs and off-licences would be charged to help pay for late-night policing and other services linked to alcohol misuse.

Cllr Thomas said the licensed trade did not have unlimited cash and it was already facing increased costs on several fronts.

She said premises in Princes Street, Rose Street and George Street were already going to be paying extra under the new Business Improvement District scheme for better cleaning and security.

She said: "We will have to look and see how Edinburgh will deal with this because it's possible people will already be addressing it.

"We have to be careful people are not being unfairly treated. We recently increased the cost of a licence considerably. The new tables and chairs policy costs them money. The trade don't have a bottomless pit. We have to be a wee bit careful."

The Scottish Government consultation paper published yesterday proposed a ban on under-21s buying booze at off-licences, a minimum price per unit for alcohol, separate drinks queues in supermarkets and an end to three-for-two style promotions.

The Scottish Grocers Federation, which represents convenience stores, said some of the measures were "unfair" or "absurd". It claimed the "social responsibility fee" was a tax which could threaten the livelihoods of small shopkeepers and it said minimum pricing would unfairly penalise sensible drinkers.

The minimum pricing, expected to be 35p per unit could see the cost of Strongbow cider increase by 27 per cent and McEwan's Export Premium by 35 per cent, although Buckfast would not increase at all.

Ross Finnie, the Liberal Democrat health spokesman in the Scottish Parliament, branded the increase in the minimum age for off-sales "totally misguided". He said: "Introducing a presumption of guilt for an entire generation of 18 to 20-year-olds that they are irresponsible drinkers will do nothing to improve relations between government and young people."

But Cllr Thomas supported the proposal. She said: "The under-21s move is pretty radical but I think it's worth a go. When youngsters are in a pub, the publican has a responsibility to ensure they are not serving people who are drunk, so their drinking is being monitored in that way.

"But if they buy their drink at a supermarket or an off-licence, they can buy as much as they like and drink as much as they like.

"I've seen these statistics for health in Scotland and they are absolutely appalling, and someone needs to do something about that."

She also backed separate queues in supermarkets.

"It's the culture of drinking we have to address," she said. "People are going in and buying drink as they would a loaf of bread."





The full article contains 518 words and appears in Edinburgh Evening News newspaper.
Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 18 June 2008 10:28 AM
  • Source: Edinburgh Evening News
  • Location: Edinburgh
  • Related Topics: Alcohol & binge drinking
 
1

Alternative (High Octane) Fuel Head,

Edinburgh 18/06/2008 12:10:55
All pubs, off-licences and supermarkets should go on strike until the idiots ditch these lunatic ideas about drink.
2

Randan,

18/06/2008 12:14:13
You never see a poor publican.
3

Shave,

Edinburgh 18/06/2008 12:45:48
Cllr Thomas said "When youngsters are in a pub..."

These are ADULTS you are condescending to. Liberal? Bo11ocks.

First they came for the Buckfast...

(apologies to Martin Niemöller)
4

Xena - Warrior Princess,

18/06/2008 13:39:55
Probably rubbing their hands together, wondering how much money they can make, because that is all these proposals are.
5

Jenny MacArthur,

18/06/2008 13:42:13
Gosh, surprise surprise.... moronic FuelHead is a drunken sod as well as a dangerous lunatic. Talk about typecasting. Ever considered getting a life, Mr-Thicko-and-proud-of-it ?
6

The Genuine Mario Antoinette,

18/06/2008 13:50:20
Schemie Pals as well, apparently.

I think if youre going to sell booze and chuck people out at the end of the night onto the streets , then OF COURSE you have to take responsibility.
7

Shave,

Edinburgh 18/06/2008 14:05:36
#5 Jenny

What? Are those that oppose the "social responsibility fee" and the further limiting of rights for 18-21 year olds "drunken sods"?

8

A Friend of Fernando Poo,

18/06/2008 14:11:56
For Eris's sake. Let's look at the problem logically.

Basically we have gangs of teenagers drunk out of what passes for their minds stringing wire across The meadows to mug cyclists and generally beating up passersby. This is repeated on parks and paths across Edinburgh.

Where are they etting the drink? Local shops.

What we need to ask is whether there's really a need to retail alcohol in every grocer and newsagent, or whether that in itself is a symptom of what's awry. It's pretty damn obvious that the more alcohol outlets which are licensed, the more likely one of them is to go rogue and start flogging spirits to eleven-year-olds.

So one simple measure to actually fix the problem would be to forthwith limit alcohol sales to pubs, off-licenses, and perhaps the larger supermarkets. That way the Licensng Committee can concentrate its limited resources on actually ensuring these people are not selling to under-agers.

However, another problem has been that when people are caught selling alcohol to under-agers, and let's face it, this means dealing drugs to children, they're given a slap on the wrist when the Committee merely suspends a licence rather than permanently withdraws it. Surely once a business proves it's unfit to trade in alcohol, that should be the end of its trade in alcohol. End of story. Anything less simply isn't taking the issue seriously, and if it isn't a serious issue, then why discuss forcing anyone to pay for it?

Changing those two factors would alone alleviate much of the problem. For the rest of it, let's deal with the soyurce rather than punish everyone for the sins of a few. If someone under-18 is caught drinking, then they should start a month of spending evenings and weekends cleaning up blood, urine, vomit and glass. Their parents, having failed to do their jobs, should be there helping. Punishment is more effective for being immediate and certain, so it should start the next day and there should be no exceptions unless
9

blackley,

Edinburgh 18/06/2008 15:16:15
This council licensing person must be soft in the head. Hit them in the pocket! We are fed up with the drunks on the streets.
It's the same with the dozy Planning Department. they're letting developers away with murder.
10

,

18/06/2008 15:33:50
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
11

Alternative (High Octane) Fuel Head,

Edinburgh 18/06/2008 17:10:21
Jenny,

One of the symptoms of chronic alcoholism can be that you turn nasty at the drop of a hat for no reason and fire off at people without thinking---and get very offensive in the process.

Maybe the proposed legislation is directed at people like you? In any case, I still do not support it because it would affect responsible, level-headed people like me.
12

A Friend of Fernando Poo,

18/06/2008 18:00:13
Had a look at the SNP's proposal. Like a lot of people who don't understand cost-benefit analyses, they forgot to do the "benefit" part and simply counted the costs.

If we start counting the benefits, then we can probably assume that the benefit (what the economists call the utility, but we can simply call the value of "jollies" enjoyed) of drinking a pint is equal or higher than the value of a pint. This is clear because if it were less, people wouldn't drink the pint on the basis that the cost outweighed the benefit.

Thus, the "benefit" part of the equation is at its lowest, equal to the value of the entire national spend on alcohol.

The spend for the UK is somewhere north of 30 billion. Scotland probably spends more than the UK average, but let's take a pro-rata share for now and call it somewhere over 3 billion. Remember that the jiollies gained exceed these costs, possibly by some margin.

The Scottish government lists costs at 2.25 billion.

Conclusion: a real costs-benefits analysis would indicate that we're getting more out of alcohol than its costing us. It's thus an overall plus to the economy.

Of course this is an aggregate figure. It's still true that the costs aren't always borne by the person who reaps the benefits, for example the guy with the smashed car mirror or the poor sid who gets beaten up on his way home.

Thus there are some issues to be tackled, but the SNP's claim that alcohol "costs the economy 2.25 billion" is simply mathematical illiteracy.
13

ddmc,

18/06/2008 18:23:36
#12 Mr Poo, if i remember correctly, i think the SE of Engurland has the highest consumption of bevvy

Perhaps if we built 'drunk tank' facilities then the polis could dump them in the tank & charge them £40 quid or so for the pleasure of a nights stay. Repeat guests could also apply for better lodgings at St. Leonards but would have to settle the bill on Monday morning with the sheriff.

14

celtic4,

USA 19/06/2008 03:34:23
#8..don't you understand that an eleven year old doesn't HAVE to go buy booze??? All they need do is get a friend who is of age to buy it for them.
Shops and bars provide a service and are a business. If they are held responsible for drunks(which they are NOT) they could go out of business and go on the unemployment line! How ridiculous is that? Charge the drunks! Make them pay for becoming a useless bit of humanity. Alcohol destroys brain cells. Thus the term "stupid drunk". Don't hate the messenger, hate the message.

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 


Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.