Today’s post comes from publican Gav and is really a study on ‘be careful what you wish for’. We are looking at the process of pubs coming out of lockdown and the requisite stages.
Now most people know that pubs could open outside from 12th April, inside from 17th May and then back to normal on the 21st June so , by corollary, most people are wrong. Firstly the dates are all predicated by ‘no earlier than’ although, in all likelihood, the red tops will ensure that the dates are pretty much fixed. Secondly this pesky date of the 21st of June when ‘all legal restrictions will be lifted’, that means back to normal right? No it doesn’t.
Volumes of correspondence with parliamentarians has revealed that there are no actual plans to allow adults to stand up with an alcoholic beverage. Significant pressure is growing to end the table service requirement but it is likely that you will only be allowed to collect your drink and return to your pre-allocated, socially distanced, table.
There is a separate review into so called ‘passports’ and social distancing as a whole and it is in there that we will find any return to normality for the pub. This is where we, as a trade, have been led rather than leading. The rumour that passports could allow a return to normality was rallied against by the trade bodies as yet another overly burdensome regulatory task. I do get that this is true but in decrying it the industry has fallen through the scant camouflage of yet another government trap.
Normally the government are keen to ignore the cries of the licensed trade. Contrary to popular opinion we are not massive government cash cows, although we contribute a lot, in direct taxation there is little between the on and the off trade. Beer duty (2.8-7.5% ABV) is 95.4 pence per litre regardless of whether it is served in a clean cold glass in a pub or a dusty tin on a supermarket shelf.
But this time somebody woke Tom, Bob and Collin the MPs for Dunderton, Duffington and Snorington out of their slumber and set them at it. No sooner than they had enjoyed a three course lunch, 5 pints and 3 naps they were out of the stalls and running. Needing a passport to get into a pub, the very essence of British society, they simply were not having it. They gathered many of the other nocturnal residents of the house and set about looking at why this was wrong.
It turned out that Bob (63) had the most recent experience of a pub because he was suspended from school and visited the ‘Up Her Arms’ when he was 19. The group formed a committee to listen to Bob espouse the wonders of the great British local from his visit in 1977, after all it is important to stay up to date with ones subject. Stories of smoke filled rooms, buxom young barmaids and Bob’s own boyish charm conjured memories in the assembled band and reminded them why social distancing was so damn important in pubs.
To the matter in hand, they decided that it was an affront to British society to require a man to demonstrate his fitness to enter a pub and they would not stand for it. Now Tom knew an usher who spoke to a bloke who cleaned the speakers chair and he said he could get their voice heard by the leaders. A hurried note was drafted, passed through three readings, four committees and rubbed on a ravens beak before being passed on to the bloke who knew the bloke…
And so as the speaker took the chair he found the note, carefully placed under a half eaten chocolate digestive that he had been saving for PMQs. The note said ‘BoJo smells of jam’, the speaker smiled and added it to the pile but what was this, another note underneath, how curious.
‘Passports for pubs -No’ well thought the speaker, if that’s what the members say then who am I to argue. From his dark tower, watching by zoom call Hangcock let out a Machiavellian snigger “excellent” and brought another 2000 shares in Tesco as the speaker folded the note carefully.
And so it came to pass that the government were forced to fiercely deny that they would impose any such restrictions on the right of every person to visit their local pub. Pubs, they declared, were a mental health haven and there would be no discrimination on who could use them. The trade press celebrated, the trade itself despaired.
If we deconstruct the current position then firstly we are all aware that the government hates us being at the bar or in any way vertically drinking (unless we are not in a pub in which case it is fine). So by rejecting out of hand the use of passports in pubs they have ensured open access for all which sounds great. The trouble is that they are far to late in realising the mental health aspects of the social hub of the pub, their rules have already destroyed that. The old fella who lives alone takes no great solace in being forced to sit at a table on his own in the pub after all.
An educated trade body would have argued that the adoption of a passport system in exchange for removing restrictions should have been a choice for venues. Allow a venue to decide what suits them, passports and bar stools or open access, rule of six, sit down, table service , blah, blah , blah. My own straw poll indicates that 100% of the publicans that I know would have opted for passports and no restrictions but I get that it should not be mandatory.
So we now face the prospect that you can show your passport and attend festivals or nightclubs with unfettered freedom but you won’t be able to tell your mate down the pub because they are not on your table of six, after all we have to be ‘covid safe’.
The only words that I have found some comfort in of late are regarding the actual passports. Buried in the review document is a paragraph full of buzzwords like ‘inclusivity’ and ‘non-discriminatory’. The review goes so far as to say that whilst evidence of a vaccine, previous infection or negative test result will act as a passport; it will also be available to those who cannot have the vaccine and find testing is overly arduous. So it sounds like Tarquin, who is opposed to vaccines and doesn’t like putting anything up his nose apart from street level drugs, will still be able to get a passport or, at least, not be challenged as to why he doesn’t have one.
It seems inclusivity will make the same mockery of the passport that it does the mask. Wearing a mask is a legal requirement unless you are exempt. You can be exempt because you don’t like masks and it is illegal to ask you why you feel that you are exempt so, in effect, masks are optional. Hopefully the government are simply using the lure of freedom to encourage vaccine uptake before they buckle to the loons and agree that everyone can have a passport anyway.