November 2006

Beda May

BEDA COMMENT

Smoking areas

Operational, BEda comment, November 2006, COMMENTS

Ane of the fantastic things about this job is that you get to meet a truly diverse cast of people, with your working life spent meeting everyone from bar staff to government ministers, newspapers editors to MI5 operatives. In all these meetings, BEDA advocates the key principle for our existence: to protect and promote the optimum trading conditions for our members. This means we encourage best practice, help to shape policy and generally try to push for a legislative lightness of touch for well-run premises.

As far as those stakeholders with which we have meetings are concerned, we know they too have their cases to argue (and their masters to serve) even if we fundamentally disagree. Those concerned individuals who advocate blanket glass bans, for instance, often do so with the best intentions, i.e. safety. We too have safety of customers as a paramount objective, but BEDA always argues for a proportional response: for glass bans for poorly run premises, yet not for those hard-working licensees who operate well-run establishments. We know that these well-run premises also benefit from the commercial advantage of not having to pour high quality drinks into plastic containers.

On the same point, one of the key reasons why BEDA promotes Best Bar None is that if encourages good practice in venues. It aims to raise standards of service - and that too has a strong commercial value. One other thing that Best Bar None also does is to allow operators to change and improve on their own terms. For those premises which embrace the BBN principles, there is considerable interaction with the local police. These encounters, however, are meant to engender a relationship of equals - to establish understanding rather than conflict.

Best Bar None is founded firmly on sound social norms principles. The social norms argument goes that you can influence people’s behaviour positively by increasing levels of care and professionalism and thereby help bring down alcohol related crime and disorder. Social norms theories also claim that if you have a wider demographic of customers in town and city centres then this has a positive influence on good behaviour. The obverse side of this is that if the late 20s, 30s and 40 somethings feel unsafe socialising in their towns or city centres, not only do operators drastically lose the benefits of a wide customer base, they also potentially have the increased risk of trouble.

At BEDA, we spend a lot of time, energy and funds (such as the current BEDA Nottingham project which I’ll elaborate on next month) working with a wide variety of agencies to promote those initiatives which curb disturbance, whilst at the same time encouraging healthy profits for our members’ venues. To do this we believe there needs to be an improving principle at the heart of the initiative.

I mentioned earlier about understanding the points of views of others, even when we disagree. The case of Alcohol Disorder Zones (in the Violent Crime Reduction Bill) is one where it is impossible to discern an improving principle. Because of this, not only does BEDA fundamentally disagree with ADZs, we don’t know why the proposal exists at all. We fail to see how creating disorder ghettos helps either in terms of promoting civic pride - or in crime reduction. It also goes against the positive precepts which Best Best None and Business Improvement Districts have already established beyond doubt. It seems pretty clear that creating an Alcohol Disorder Zone is more likely to perpetuate disorder, not curb it.

The Government has been at pains to tell the trade that this initiative is a last resort. Yet why have a last resort that serves to do all businesses so much potential damage? All decent operators are going to try to improve conditions, yet what about the operators who couldn’t care less? Surely this works on the same unfair principle as the teacher who keeps the whole class back after school because a couple of kids have been messing about. As we approach the anniversary of the Licensing Act, isn’t it sensible to start using existing powers to give detention to the bad kids and start giving more gold stars to the good ones?

Words: Paul Smith (Executive Director of BEDA)

From: November 2006 Issue

Subscribe to NIGHT magazine