Whatever happens in the transition period, one thing that will not go away is the trade's problem with under-age drinking, which is seen in many quarters as the scourge of society.
The tough line by Govern-ment spokespersons reflects many of those concerns, not only in the context of sales but also with regard to street consumption by minors, and consequent rowdy or criminal behaviour. But the onus is once again put fairly and squarely on the licensed trade not to fuel this by illegal sales to those under 18.
The act of "agency", which is where a lad over 18 buys on behalf of those who are under-age, is already on the statute book and enforceable. Whether it will act as a deterrent remains to be seen certainly I have not heard of a sudden crackdown on this, and I am sure that the police might find gathering the evidence rather difficult.
What may be more important for all those in management positions throughout the licensed trade is to ensure that their own staff really are prepared for the prospect of direct enforcement against them personally, for selling drinks to under-18s.
It is clear that the licensee has to ensure that even if there is a prosecution for under-age sales, he personally escapes blame.
The problem is known in law as "delegated responsibility". In a number of instances, the licensee could be prosecuted for an offence against the licensing laws even if he was not personally present at the time. The legal maxim was that you were responsible for the acts of your "servants or agents" because you delegated to them your own responsibilities for running the premises.
In terms of under-age sales, this was modified some years ago by an additional clause, allowing the licence-holder to escape conviction if he could show that he used "due diligence" to avoid the offence. This has been retained in recent amendments to the law, so it is still open to landlords to use it if they are charged.
The licensee will, however, face conviction if the evidence shows that there were a number of examples of under-age sales, either made directly by him or by members of his staff, and he did little or nothing to comply with the law.
What may be problematical for the licensee is what disciplinary procedures he can take if staff are prosecuted and convicted. It will very much depend on the evidence if they make a genuine mistake, it is hardly gross industrial misconduct. If, however, they regularly flout clear instructions, this will be quite enough to warrant dismissal.