Time to stand up and reveal our trade's good side

The time has come for a strong defence of the good that the pub and drinks industry does, argues Jonathan Neame, chief executive at Shepherd Neame

Like many in the industry I am dismayed at the furore over binge drinking and so-called "24-hour opening"; disappointed at the low-grade "journalism" that has surrounded it; and appalled at the shallow and cynical way in which politicians and opinion formers have jumped on the bandwagon of a new Puritanism, spawning a thoroughly ill-informed debate.

What is going on? How have we got to this position where alcohol, to some people, is the "new tobacco" and where pubs and brewers are seen in such a bad light that the momentum is towards greater control, restriction and accountability rather than liberalisation?

In business there are certain things we can control and many ­ often political ­ we cannot.

Of the things we can control, I believe the industry has achieved a great deal in the last 15 years and has much to be proud of, such as innovative pub design, improved food and wine, non-smoking areas, disabled facilities and structured training.

The service we give customers now is often outstanding and appeals to both sexes and all ages. The role pubs play in their communities is as crucial and relevant as it always was.

But external forces have taken us down a route that is damaging the reputation of the industry.

First, the ill-conceived Beer Orders removed, almost overnight, a generation of licensees who knew all about responsible retailing, police and local liaison, who were the good customers and who were the bad.

The trade was hit by the devastating effects of booze cruising which, in our part of the world, made it difficult to recruit new licensees, while supermarkets responded by progressively reducing the price of alcohol to close the price gap with France.

Planning laws were changed to give licensed retailers the incentive to venture into the depressed city centres, and their success was hailed by politicians, City investors and the public as the way towards a "café society", reaching its apotheosis with that wretched sound bite "24-hour drinking".

These measures have successively, if not deliberately, undermined the traditional pub business model. Customers are now seen as victims that need protection. It is not, apparently, the individual's fault he got drunk, but ours for producing alcohol. Whatever happened to individual responsibility?

Actually, we are only 14th in the world for per capita alcohol consumption. Ironically, the French, whose drinking culture we apparently wish to mimic, consume 30% more per capita than us. And, interestingly, many countries, particularly the Nordic nations, wish to adopt our pub culture and reject their own café society. Funny, that!

As a society, we seem to go through periodic phases of guilt about our drinking culture, and embark on a wave of Puritanism by way of catharsis. "Put up the price" and "raise the minimum drinking age" ­ brewers traditionally get the blame, yet beer sales have steadily declined since 1976 while tax-advantaged wine continues to grow.

This is the political environment that spawns the bogus science of the "£20bn cost" of alcohol (what about the benefits?), and which results in the recent populist response of a police levy. This is the mood that is likely to produce the predictable response in the next Budget of a duty hike on beer.

And so the pattern continues of moving more purchases to the off-trade, hitting our products and traditional pubs most when they have contributed least to the problem. Where is the joined-up Government in that?

Now, more than ever, we need a strong Government defence of the good our industry brings. We need a strong and growing on-trade. It is good for jobs, investment, the community and the economy, with the extra VAT and payroll taxes. A strong, traditional pub market encourages people to drink in small groups in their own communities, and is better for safer socialising than accelerating the consumption of cheap take-home alcohol.

As an alcohol producer we take our responsibilities for safer socialising very seriously indeed.

But I fear we will fail in our aims if we keep getting buffeted by political forces. Take, for example, the number of Government departments that we have to deal with. Who is in charge of our industry? DCMS (Department for Culture, Media & Sport)? The Home Office? DEFRA (the Depart-ment for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs)? Customs & Excise? The Treasury?

With whom can we share our vision for alcohol retailing, when we get picked off, issue by issue, department by department?

I urge all Government departments to take time to understand the complexities, and engage in an open, honest debate. They need to be far more responsible in their own thinking about the issues, rather than indulging in kneejerk political responses and shallow sound bites, such as "24-hour drinking".

The appropriate response at this time would be a strong voice in Parliament standing up for the traditional pub and all the good it brings.