Marc Allinson: Solutions to the trade's ills

As a follow on to my previous blog​ about the way in which society is being picked apart, which I admit is very negative, I would like to offer some ideas that I believe may at least help to solve some of these problems.

Firstly, before any actions can be taken, the government has to understand and appreciate the roles of pubs in knitting together communities filled with people of different backgrounds, age and gender.

Although pubs are not the be-all and end-all of society, they do provide a focal point for communities. Since religious devotion has diminished, the church has become less and less important in people's daily lives, and, since community centres were primarily church- and council-run and were easy to lose when budgets had to be cut, very few remain.

And don't get me started on post offices!

This leaves the local pub as the only place where people can get together to chat, sort out problems, plan events or just spend time together.

The factors which are causing serious problems to the pub trade almost without exception can be addressed by the government. Tighter regulation on the practice of tied leases could save many pubs, and a little more thought before increasing minimum wages or extra legislation on how things have to be done would not go amiss.

The big issue at the moment is the extra and unworkable duty that is being heaped onto the already overpriced drinks was originally supposed to be to reduce binge drinking, but now is supposed to be to help combat child poverty and for OAP's winter fuel allowance, although the treasury claim never to allocate specific taxes against specific outgoings.

These duty rises are simply short term solutions that will in the long term have the opposite effect. Pubs which cannot trade, cannot pay corporation tax, and cannot employ people who in turn pay income tax.

One solution that I believe will remedy this problem and others is very simple.

Reduce duty on all draught products. For example reduce beer by 50p/pint, and increase it dramatically on packaged products. Supermarkets will only stand to lose so much on a loss leading product.

If a 2 litre bottle of cider had £2 duty slapped on it, a can of Special Brew £1.50, and a case of Budweiser an extra £24 on it, supermarkets would be less wiling to do their irresponsible offers. This would increase the price in the pubs too, but people would simply move onto the draught products.

This would mean that less people would drink at home, and instead move into the controlled environment of pubs, helping to create jobs, and income for the government.

This could also be packaged as a green measure as it would drastically reduce the number of glass bottles and cans sent to landfill. Even those that are recycled use a massive amount more resources than glasses and kegs which are simply washed and reused.

But over-taxation is not solely a problem of the licensed trade. If business tax is reduced across the board, it would attract investment in Great Britain. This new investment would be taxed, albeit at a lesser rate and new investment creates jobs, so again more income tax would be generated.

As a net result, more money would be recouped by the treasury. For a prime example of how this would work, look at Ireland. Taxing less has allowed it to become one of the fastest growing economies in the world over the past 10 years, without the reliance on national debt that has screwed us up.

We should re-nationalise some industries that do not benefit from competition. We can't choose which train to get at 8am from a certain station, so what's the point? It just means that profit is more important than customer service. The same goes for the whole postal service, and airports to name but a few.

Another point that was mentioned in the previous blog was the PC brigade. The definition of "Human Rights" should be clarified. As I see it, a right is something that you are allowed to have or do, not something that it is imperative for you to have or do.

For example, I have the right to have a 60" TV in my living room, but I do not have to have it, in the same way that an immigrant worker (legal or otherwise) has the right to have a house, but does not have to have one provided. If they choose to come to the country without knowing the language, it is their problem; they should find and pay for a translator if they want help.

If someone is found guilty of crime, some common sense has to be used in their treatment while they are incarcerated. Serous complaints should be looked into, but they are there for punishment and rehabilitation. Rights and privileges should be kept to a minimum. They should be made to take classes, and do menial tasks to pay for their keep. It should be a place they don't want to go back to.

If you only get a fine, then it should be in keeping with the specific crime committed and the victim gets a portion of it as compensation.

The benefits problem is a bit more complex. In this case, I believe that everybody who is able to work, should have to work, or get no benefits.

People who are just signing on should have a grace period of a couple of months in which to find a job that they want to do, but if nothing changes within this grace period, then they should be made to do a day's community service every week in order to earn their allowance.

This would make it less attractive to sit on benefits, and for those who genuinely want to work, it will give them a sense of self worth, and maybe valuable experience to help them into work. Those refusing to work should have benefits withdrawn.

People on disability should be assessed regularly by more than one independent doctor. This will stop the unscrupulous family doctors who are far to willing to sign people off without good cause.

The same should go for people who are looking to make claims for accidental injuries, and sensible limits put on payouts. IIf people claim for lack of income due to some injury, the independent doctor could decide if it is a genuine claim.

Genuine claimants should not have a problem, and anyone making fraudulent claims should be penalised. More claims should be thrown out immediately if claimants have a history of rejected cases. And people who lose cases should be counter sued as a matter of course.

This way people may go back to taking an element of responsibility for their own lives, understanding that not all pavements are completely flat, and so they should watch where they are going, and toilet floors may be wet, and water is slippy, they don't need a sign to tell them that. Stop No Win No Fee. It encourages fraudulent cases.

I think that these are simple solutions, there may be good reasons that some may not work, but I can't see them. Those who have no interest in working, and commit crime will hate them, and I'm afraid that the aforementioned PC brigade many kick off about them, as it would force people to earn their keep.

However it would be great if some of these suggestions were to be passed on to people who could do something about it.

Maybe David Cameron could think about this as future policies for the Conservative party. I don't expect Mr Brown to listen.