One over the eight

The fact that there are hundreds of common expressions for getting drunk shows how much it is woven into our society, both in good and bad ways. But there is no precise legal definition, which is why it is somewhat surprising that the Home Office, in its latest cannonade against the licensed trade, is to encourage under-cover police operations to seek out those pubs that are serving people who are drunk.

Ever since licensing laws were invented, there have been penalties for serving drunks, and the case law on the subject goes well back into the 19th century. In most instances, the evidence shows that the person in question was incapable in some way, not just merry. They were slumped over a table, or they staggered around, or their speech was incomprehensible. They were not just drunk in the happy-go-lucky sense, nor were they merely enjoying a good time.

So it would be very interesting to know what sort of briefing these guys in the gabardine macs have been given. We know that they have a pocket full of fixed-penalty notices to hand out, so it is their decision alone, not the court's, to decide if someone has committed an offence. There is an appeals process, but as far as I know it has been little used. People just accept the penalty, if their guilt is obvious.

But in the case of serving someone who is drunk, there are many factors to consider. Suppose there is a large party of revellers, perhaps on a Friday night, or for someone's leaving party. Their object is to have a good time, perhaps get a little tipsy and raucous, but nothing more than that. However, if one or two do have more than enough, or maybe they were drinking before they came in, how eagle-eyed are the bar staff meant to be in these circumstances?

Long-serving licensees will tell you that they have an inbuilt antenna which tells them when someone has had enough. They also keep their eyes peeled for trouble of any kind: if you talk to a licensee in their own bar, as I do, you will know this. They pay you attention, but their eyes are always on the move.

This is what is expected of competent bar staff, too. They are, however, in a much more difficult position when it comes to refusing service to a group because of the state of one of its members. They can risk abuse or even worse if they poop the party. But that is their legal obligation, and the man watching in the corner may not just be in for a quick half.

In truth, I think this far more indicative of the shift of responsibility in Government than anything else. I have mentioned this before, but isn't it interesting how regular are the campaigns and initiatives launched by the Home Office against the trade? Not a peep from the Department for Culture, Media & Sport (about which more next week), but probably they think their job is done. They have delivered this malfunctioning new Act and that is the end of things. Ditto, probably, with gambling, although it is a little more complex. Perhaps James Purnell should airbrush himself back into the trade a little more, but he seems strangely silent on licensing matters.

We have to accept that there is currently a very negative view about the licensed trade and its role in causing drunkenness and rowdy behaviour. A campaign of this type is there to demonstrate that the Government is "doing something" to combat this anti-social behaviour. Which is why I am sure that it will not be the last initiative on this subject.