Scottish trade bodies slam 'alarmist and wholly inaccurate' report questioning Covid safety in pubs

The study, which was funded by the Scottish Government Chief Scientist Office, suggests licensed premises in Scotland did not adhere to strict Covid-19 guidelines last summer.

Research conducted between May and August last year and published in the Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drug sought to examine the operation of Covid-19 measures in licensed premises that had reopened after the first national lockdown.

In total 29 venues were observed in the study with the researchers monitoring premises for up to two hours while posing as customers.

The report claims that wide range of incidents with 'potential to increase transmission risk' were observed in all but three venues, with multiple incidents reported in most. 

Incidents deemed to be of greater concern – due to the repeated or continuous nature of the potential risk, the large number of customers involved, or the involvement of staff – were observed in 11 venues.

These included: various combinations of singing, shouting or playing music; mixing between groups; standing and moving around the bar without distancing; customers taking photographs with other customers and staff; shaking hands or embracing others who did not appear to be in their household. 

In the majority of premises, no staff intervention in incidents or attempts to enforce restrictions were observed. In some cases, staff intervened in a light-hearted way – for example, by gently or playfully reprimanding customers – but such interventions were largely ineffective. Enforcement by external agencies – such as environmental health or police officers – was not observed in any of the venues. 

Commenting on the study, UKHospitality Scotland executive director Willie Macleod said the report appeared 'flawed in the extreme'.

“The research by the University of Stirling paints an alarmist and almost wholly inaccurate picture of the efforts to which Scotland’s hospitality businesses have gone to keep people safe," he said.

"It is limited to just 29 licensed premises out of an estimated 9,000 across the country, with these venues only being visited for a maximum of two hours each. The report states that research was also carried out during the period of May to August 2020, even though businesses were only permitted to reopen in mid-July.

"We do not agree that the efforts of the researchers are anywhere near enough to accurately represent even a reasonable proportion of the sector, never mind its entirety."

Macleod states that the vast majority of businesses, owners, managers and staff members have taken a diligent approach to conform with Government regulations and guidance, adding that industry investment in PPE and other measures was around £900m UK-wide and around £90m in Scotland.

An 'out-of-date witch-hunt'

Stephen Montgomery, spokesperson for the Scottish Hospitality Group (SHG), said that it's 'a farce' that the report is even on the table for discussion.

"It is an out-of-date witch-hunt, that is wholly unreflective of our industry, and while Scottish Hospitality businesses are left to fail daily, the government has paid hundreds of thousands of pounds on a six-month old study based on a tiny number (0.17%) of Scotland’s bars and restaurants.

“In reality we are talking about just a handful of premises. From those 29 targeted, criticism is levelled at in their own words a ‘substantial minority of observed bars.’ You don’t need to be a mathematician to work out that basing the closure of a £10.5bn industry on this sham of a report would be ludicrous.

"We made it clear to the government last year, long before hospitality reopened in July, that face coverings should have been made mandatory from the start and that the government should design a QR code system, both of which were ignored.

“Yet again, the Government has failed to listen and work with our industry. Rather than haemorrhaging cash - when businesses and employees need a financial lifeline - time and money would be better spent on working with the sector to reopen safely and allowing us to help rebuild the economy."

Montgomery, who questions the decision to publish the report now, adds that 'there is no evidence' to support the claim that hospitality is a vector for transmission.

SHG members, which collectively employ over 6,000 people, have registered just 32 positive cases of Covid-19 among staff since July.

Over the period from July to 26th December, staff at SHG premises have worked around 1,150,000 hours, meaning there has been only one confirmed case for every 36,000 hours worked.

“Targeting the few bars and restaurants which are breaking the rules is the proper and proportionate way to proceed, but the vast majority have been adhering religiously to every regulation that has been introduced because we realise the very future of our industry is at stake."

The study claims to be 'the first in the world' to examine the operation of Covid-19 measures in licensed premises and its findings will supposedly inform governments, public health experts, and policymakers in the UK and other countries as they consider the impact of the pandemic on hospitality and the risks of lifting restrictions. 

“Our study makes a unique contribution by providing the first evidence, including direct observation data, of how premises operated in practice when allowed to reopen during the COVID-19 pandemic," said Professor Niamh Fitzgerald, who is director of the University of Stirling’s Institute for Social Marketing and Health and led the report.

"Overall, our findings suggest grounds for uncertainty about the extent to which new rules can be consistently and effectively implemented in a sector where interaction between tables, households and strangers is the norm, and alcohol is routinely consumed.  

“Despite the efforts of licensed premises, and detailed guidance from Government, potentially significant risks of Covid-19 transmission persisted in a substantial minority of observed bars – especially when customers were intoxicated.

"Blanket closures, curfews or alcohol sales bans are more likely to be deemed necessary to control virus spread, if such risks cannot be acceptably, quickly and cost-effectively reduced through support and/or sanctions for premises operators. Such blanket actions may also have benefits in terms of protecting staff from occupational exposure and reducing pressure on emergency services from alcohol-related injuries or disorder.

"However, attention also needs to be paid to the impact of closures on businesses, economic activity, employee hardship, and ownership patterns in the sector, as well as any risks posed by diversion of some drinking to the home.”