Act Called Time on Staff Drinks
Denying bartenders the right to relax with a pint after work is a step too far, says Tods Murray
The issue of staff drinks has recently been in focus thanks to an aborted amendment to the Criminal Justice and Licensing Bill, which will, among other things, make several amendments to the Licensing (Scotland) Act 2005.
Conservative MSP Bill Aitken had proposed an amendment to allow a period of 45 minutes after the end of the licensed hours during which staff would be able to have a drink. His proposal was flatly rebuked by other MSPs.
But why was this amendment needed in the first place?
Staff drinks have been perfectly legal for decades.
The problem arose because of an unintended consequence of the 2005 Act.
The Licensing (Scotland) Act 1976 allowed the supply of alcohol after the end of the permitted hours where the licence holder was providing it for his “private friends” entertained at his own expense.
That exception was not carried through to the 2005 Act and has put a firm end to the “lock-in”.
But it also, indirectly brought an end to the after-hours staff drink, because it was on this exception that such consumption was previously allowed.
That means under current legislation it is illegal to have a staff drink after closing time at the end of a shift.
My view is that it’s only fair that staff be allowed to relax and talk to colleagues over a drink after licensed hours come to a close.
This is a social thing which is taken for granted by nine-to-five workers who can easily pop to the pub after their working day.
Where does the bartender go when he finishes? All the pubs are closed, after all.
That point seems to have been missed by MSP Angela Constance, who said during the debate: “In my ten years of working many a hard shift in the social work department I was never offered a drink at the end of the day”.
MSP Bill Butler and justice minister Kenny MacAskill both said that a staff drink rule would be abused and that the police would not be able to handle it, or tell the difference between some staff winding down and an actual lock-in.
Why is there a presumption that it would have to be monitored in the first place?
For decades staff happily enjoyed a drink at the end of the night and I don’t recall the police clamouring for the practice to end.
Likening the staff drink to the sort of lock-in the police do have real problems with is misdirected and does no favours to the hard-working members of the hospitality industry.
The decision to reject this amendment is to my mind heavy-handed and thoroughly depressing.
It is yet another example of the increasingly temperate, or what Bill Aitken called “doctrinal”, approach to alcohol in the current government.
Scotland has its problems with alcohol consumption, and these need to be addressed, but this is unnecessary.
The killjoys rule.
If you require further information, please contact a member of our Hospitality and Leisure Team