Addiction (2000) 95(7), 997–998

EDITORIAL

UK Government announces � rst majorrelaxation in the alcohol licensing laws fornearly a century: drinking in the UK goes 24–7

Here is a policy development which has Britainas focus but which raises issues of wide inter-national relevance. The latest White Paper pub-lished by the UK Home Of� ce, “Time forReform: Proposals for the Modernisation of ourLicensing Laws” raises important concerns forthe international public health community. This,the � rst major relaxation in the UK alcohollicensing laws for nearly a century, opens the wayfor public houses to remain open for 24 hours aday, seven days a week. The new White Paperbuilds on the more modest relaxation of thelicensing laws in Scotland in 1976, and in Eng-land in the 1980s, which introduced, amongstother things, the uninterrupted daytime sale ofalcohol. The press release from the Home Sec-retary, Mr. Jack Straw, heralds the new legis-lation as “… a radical new system which wouldallow greater freedom and � exibility for peopleto enjoy themselves, but balances these libertieswith tough and uncompromising powers for thepolice, the courts and licensing authorities topunish those who abuse those freedoms”. Inaddition to the relaxation in opening hours, thepolice will have greater powers to “shut dis-orderly premises and combat underage drink-ing”.

Although the ‘staggering’ of pub closing timeswith the aim of preventing alcohol-related violentdisorder has found some support from police ina pilot scheme in one major English city(Manchester), the public health consequences ofthis “radical” legislation are likely to be lessdesirable. The traditional British weekend bingedrinking culture, which reaches its zenith at auniform pub closing time of 11pm on Friday andSaturday nights may possibly be moderated bythis legislation, with consequent reductions inalcohol-related violent disorder, although theevidence in support of this is not robust. How-ever, the evidence does suggest that relaxation ofalcohol controls, including longer licensing

hours, is likely to lead to an overall increase inalcohol consumption in the general populationand, as a consequence, an increase in alcohol-related harm, including physical, psychologicaland social problems related to excessive drinking(Edwards et al., 1994; Raistrick et al., 1999).Conversely, studies that have evaluated the ef-fects of restricting physical availability havefound signi� cant reductions in adverse conse-quences including arrests for public drunken-ness, domestic violence, and alcohol-relatedassaults (Edwards et al., 1994). Other unwantedeffects include the cost of employing bar staff towork around the clock due to market pressureswithout signi� cant commercial bene� t for li-censees, and the likelihood that there will be adilution in responsible retailing of alcohol. Fur-ther, some police forces, including London’sMetropolitan Police, are concerned that, ratherthan reducing violent disorder, it may insteadspread an increased level of disorder over anextended period, with consequent resource im-plications.

Proponents of such a relaxation in the lawpoint to an alleged low level of alcohol-relatedviolent disorder in Mediterranean countrieswhere legislation is more liberal, compared withthe higher rates of disorder in Northern Eu-ropean and Scandinavian countries, where legis-lation is more restrictive. While such argumentsappear super� cially compelling, one needs to bearin mind certain troubling observations. Prema-ture deaths from alcoholic cirrhosis are consider-ably higher in countries with less restrictivealcohol control policies (Edwards et al., 1994).This may in part be related to lower alcoholtaxation as well as greater physical availability.The evidence for lower rates of alcohol-relatedviolence in less restrictive cultures is, however,largely anecdotal and not adequately studied.There is therefore a danger that anecdotal stereo-types of drinking behaviour assume a factual

ISSN 0965–2140 print/ISSN 1360-0443 online/00/070997–02 Ó Society for the Study of Addiction to Alcohol and Other Drugs

Carfax Publishing, Taylor & Francis Limited

998 Editorial

status in the debate over licensing and hours ofsale. Further, there is no clear evidence that aliberalisation in licensing laws would translateinto the desired changes in drinking patterns in aBritish drinking culture. One only has to look atthe drinking habits of the British on holiday inSpain, for example, to see the divide between theresponse of Northern and Southern Europeans toliberal licensing arrangements. Of course thiscould be due to other factors, but the effect ofrelaxing drinking controls in the UK has thepotential to increase rather than decease publicdrunkenness, as proponents of liberalisationwould have us believe.

The new legislation also highlights an area ofsocial policy in the UK that is in serious need ofsome “joined up government” (i.e. where policiesare coherent and consistent across differentgovernment departments). An expert advisorygroup was commissioned by the UK Departmentof Health (which is responsible for public health)to prepare proposals for a national alcohol strat-egy (Alcohol Concern, 1999). Nearly a year afterthe publication of its report a response from theDepartment of Health to the proposals is stillawaited. The proposals included advice not tomove to 24 hour pub opening, and advocated areduction in the legal limit for drink driving fromthe current 80mg/100ml to 50mg/100ml. In themeantime, over the past 2 months the HomeOf� ce (which is responsible principally for crimeand disorder) has rejected the advice of the RoyalMedical Colleges, the police, the British MedicalAssociation, and the Automobile Association, aswell as the Department of Health’s expert advi-sory group, and has retained the existing drinkdriving limit. Most other European countrieshave adopted the lower limit. The Home Of� ce’sproposed relaxation of the licensing laws, simi-larly, ignores the advice of the expert advisorygroup engaged by the Department of Health.

Such anomalies highlight an important di-lemma for policy makers. On the one hand, thereis the lure of increased pro� ts and employmentfor the alcohol industry, combined with increasedtax revenue from the sale of alcohol associatedwith more liberal alcohol policies. There are fewvotes in increasing tax, ‘persecuting’ the cardriver, or restricting the physical availability ofalcohol. It is no surprise then that the alcoholindustry warmly welcomes both the maintenanceof the higher drunk driving limit and 24 hourlicensing. On the other hand, the short-sighted

pursuit of tax revenue from increased alcoholsales and votes from grateful citizens “enjoyingthemselves” will obscure the wider publichealth consequences, for which society willultimately have to foot the bill. Further, it is likelyto prove much more dif� cult to re-introducelicensing restrictions than it was to liberalise themif the Home Of� ce’s strategy proves to be asineffective and damaging as the evidence suggestsit will be.

Although the UK government appears now tobe taking drug misuse seriously with the develop-ment of a co-ordinated anti-drug strategy, includ-ing both health and criminal justice initiatives, nopart of UK government appears to be takingalcohol misuse seriously in a similar way. If wehad a coherent national alcohol strategy, perhapsincluding an “alcohol Tsar” to oversee policydevelopment and implementation, we might be-gin to see more coherent and meaningful re-sponses to the serious and costly problemsassociated with alcohol misuse.

Finally, it is important to note that the quantityof alcohol consumed by a population and alcohol-related public disorder are both subject to manycultural, social, economic, physiological andother factors, which makes the effects of majorchanges in alcohol control, as is being proposedin the White Paper, dif� cult to evaluate. Never-theless, it would be easy for the wider publichealth consequences of relaxation of licensinglaws to be forgotten in the laudable but blinkeredpursuit of trying to curtail alcohol-related violentdisorder.

D. COLIN DRUMMOND

St George’s Hospital Medical School,University of London, Cranmer Terrace,London SW17 0RE, UKEmail: colin.drummond@sghms.ac.uk

ReferencesALCOHOL CONCERN (1999) Proposals for a National

Alcohol Strategy for England. (London, Alcohol Con-cern).

EDWARDS, G., ANDERSON, A., BABOR, T.F., CASSWELL,S. FERRENCE, R. et al. (1994) Alcohol Policy and thePublic Good (Oxford, Oxford University Press).

HOME OFFICE (2000) Time for Reform: Proposals for theModernisation of our Licensing Laws (London,HMSO).

RAISTRICK, D., HODGSON, R. & RITSON, B. (1999)Tackling Alcohol Together: The Evidence Base for a UKAlcohol Policy (London, Free Association Books).