Head On February

Head On February

HEAD ON

BLANKET BAN VS TARGETED ENFORCEMENT

Head on, February 2007, COMMENTS

Bottle bans are an emotive issue but in the battle to keep customers safe, are there more effective steps to take? After overturning a six-year ban, Mark Pascoe of Cornwall’s The Zone nightclub thinks so - while Conservative MP Mark Lancaster argues that blanket bans are best.

Mark Lancaster:

The issue of using glass in licensed venues was bought to my attention by a number of worried constituents from Milton Keynes North East. On Boxing Day 2004 Blake Golding, a doorman who was trying to protect a female colleague got bottled in the face. The damage can be seen at pop-campaign.com, and is quite horrific. The fact is that the damage would not have been so awful had the attacker not had access to a glass bottle. The Golding family have begun a petition to ban the use of glass in licenced premises after 11pm, that is being upheld by 18,000 people, including licensees, members of the security industry and the public.

I’d like to see legislation introduced to reduce the number of people who are seriously injured during alcohol-related violence. The Bill I propose would enable local authorities to designate, if required, drinking districts in town and city centres where it would be mandatory for alcohol served after 11 pm to be served in plastic or toughened glass. I wish to make it clear from the start that the proposed Bill would have a relatively narrow impact on selected licensed premises. Namely, late-night venues in busy town and city centres. It is certainly not intended that it should have an impact on the many traditional stand-alone pubs and private members’ clubs in towns and rural communities that keep more traditional hours.

The majority of city centre venues have what we identify as premises with high-density vertical drinking at the bar: that is, lots of people standing and drinking in a confined space. It is at such premises that the majority of violent crime involving glassware has been identified.

Nobody disputes the link between alcohol and aggressive behaviour. But also, home office crime statistics suggest a fifth of violent crime incidents in premises involve the use of a glass or drinking bottle. We want to remove these potential weapons from problem venues, and whilst the Licensing Act 2003 provides for a glass ban in specific cases, this can only be implemented at very limited times, such as during licence review. This is why we have introduced the early day amendment to grant extended powers to introduce bans on key city centre areas.

This will also help the uneven nature of current restrictions. In Milton Keynes, under the existing system, neighbouring clubs one licensee maybe using glass while another has to use plastic, causing competitive imbalance and an uneven night time policy. We’d like to see a total ban affecting specific drinking districts that are blighted by alcohol related disorder.

I understand trade concerns – that there is limited availability of materials for plastic ware, that customer satisfaction may suffer, and that there is additional cost involved – but I think that these concerns are outweighed by the need to protect customers. The technology required for this kind of scheme is now better and cheaper than ever, providing affordable alternatives to glass in the form of hard-wearing multi-layered plastic for bottles, or polycarbonate for glasses. These materials have a significantly reduced capacity to be used as a weapon. The cost of these technologies is getting cheaper, and the products more glass-like, so that the quality of the drinks won’t be too badly affected.
Nor do I think this is a knee-jerk reaction to a specific incident. Effectively, glass in pubs are a weapon that is never more than arms reach away from an attacker, and our crime statistics indicate that violent or threatening behaviour using glass in endemic. Yes, other forms of violence will take place in clubs, but the logic of removing potential weapons from clubs I think is irrefutable. While I don’t for a second think that our EDM will eradicate violent crime, it is one more practical – and easily achievable - step that will ensure the reduction in the number of victims of violent crime in this country.

At the end of the day, what we’re proposing is quite a narrow piece of legislation that will effect only a few trading hours of the premises in a handful of areas. But the payoff will be a reduction in victims of horrific crimes are fuelled by the provision of potentially lethal objects in small crowded areas of people under the influence of alcohol.

Mark Pascoe:

We (Mark Pascoe and associates) opened The Zone in 1988 and have been trading it ever since. It’s a 900 capacity venue on the edge of Redruth that’s connected to a 3* hotel, which itself has an AA Rosetted restaurant and cocktail bar. The venues fall under the juristiction of Kerrier and Penwith council, who brought in a bottle ban that applied to all venues with Section 77 licenses in the mid 90s
At the time, we didn’t immediately realise the impact that it would have on the business, but it soon became very clear. In the restaurant we found ourselves in the ridiculous situation of being forced to serve after dinner drinks in toughened heavy glass. There was a grey area over whether or not we could leave bottles of wine on people’s tables if they were having a meal. It didn’t make sense; the lack of logic was the hardest thing to understand.

The ban put us at a financial disadvantage, because we had to replace all of our glassware with polycarbonate. With no bottles behind the bar, we couldn’t partake in the numerous bottle promotions or make the most of sales discounts. Compounding that was the fact that plastic bottles were also dearer than their glass equivalents. Bottled drinks became very popular across the country but at the time, our town and venue was left behind.

The customers definitely noticed the change. The feedback was massive. They resented the plastic and voted with feet, with greater numbers choosing to travel ten miles to the next town, to go to venues that weren’t affected by a ban; where people were trusted to act like adults.

The motivation behind glass bans reflects a legitimate concern, but bans themselves are an overly simplistic solution that tackle the symptom and not the cause of the problem, and don’t differentiate between good and bad operators.

Safety should be paramount but the decision to implement a bottle ban should be venue specific. If there are issues with violence at a venue it may be appropriate to use a bottle ban as one of a range of measures to bring the situation under control. In this way, bad or struggling operators can be brought into line. But by implementing a blanket ban, you penalise the good ones with the bad.

One glassing is one too many. In glassing incidents, the glass should be classed as an offensive weapon and the offender should be sentenced accordingly. That would send out a clear message that it is unacceptable and would act as a deterrent to stop people doing it again.

When the full implications of the ban became apparent we wrote to the council to try and have it lifted, but got nowhere. After years of unsuccessful action, we eventually hired an experienced licensing
solicitor and with his help demonstrated that the ban was unfair on the venue. With 160 people on the payroll, we are a major employer locally and we take our responsibilities very seriously. We were the small club in a normal town in the middle of Cornwall that was being put at an unfair disadvantage because of a well meant but badly executed policy.

I have no argument with toughned or polycarbinate containers in themselves - six years after the ban was lifted we still use polycarbonate where we feel it’s appropriate in the club. We now serve bottles, but in the club pints are poured into these special polycarbonate glasses because we recognise that glass can break, and occasionally cause minor cuts and injuries to staff and customers. In the hotel we’ve gone back to fine crystal and glass.

The licensee is in the best position to judge what’s appropriate for their customers, and a responsible licensee will always put customer safety first.”

From: February 2007 Issue

Subscribe to NIGHT magazine