Why all the fuss about pub closures?

Over 1,300 pubs are under threat of closure warns Camra, the real ale group - and action is needed now.

But is this really something we should be worried about? Do we care?

We all know that drinking out-of-home and the popularity of the pub is in decline. The statistics are there to be seen. If people aren't going to pubs, what's the argument for keeping them open?

This is surely about market forces, and 1,300 is only a little over 2% of the total pub stock.

We've heard warnings of pub closures before. Those that remember the Beer Orders will recall the 10,000 locals that were supposed to be disappearing then. Some did; most didn't. Many staggered on, and it is probable that a fair few of the current casualties are remnants of those 10,000.

Changes in social geography, consumer tastes and demographics - not to mention some lacklustre management - are all playing their part in making individual pub sites uneconomic. Some aren't meeting modern needs; some are just in the wrong place. Why should we be trying artificially to keep them alive?

For those still misty-eyed and nostalgic over the demise of a great British tradition, remember the massive surge in new on-licences of a decade ago that saw not only more pubs and bars opening on the high street, but much bigger premises too.

In the 10 years up to 1995, England and Wales had a net increase of over 5,000 new pubs and bars. So is a move in the other direction so bad?

The crux of Camra's argument is that community pubs are the ones being lost. It says that urban pub sites, 80% of all those closing down, are often redeveloped to provide housing under a legal loophole that allows developers to demolish pubs without planning permission.

It wants communities to rally behind their local pub, and is calling on MPs to have this loophole closed. It is also asking that in the future all new large housing developments include provisions for a pub.

There is no argument with providing good social amenities on new developments, and no certainly problem if a pub is what a community wants. But why just a pub? Why not a Starbucks, a Frankie & Benny's, a Pizza Hut or a Subway. Coffee shops and casual diners would seem to a have a better case for inclusion, as they are in growth markets.

It is no co-incidence that retail and leisure park developers are falling over themselves to attract big name food-focussed businesses to their sites. Restaurant and fast-casual concepts are top of their list, not pubs and bars.

This just highlights the problem with pubs - or at least a large number of pubs. It is always dangerous to generalise, and the pub sector is more hazardous than most, because there are a host of great pub operators, big and small, making money, developing new ideas and for whom the distinction between bars and restaurant is largely immaterial.

But there is also a substantial minority of pubs that aren't on the money, don't worry about consumer trends, haven't developed, still think it's all about selling beer, ignore women and are struggling. Unfortunately, they shape much of the image the public has of the pub.

If these are also the ones most likely to be under threat of disappearing, so be it.

The growth of coffee shops helps sum it up. Coffee chains are no longer just a London or big city phenomenon, with growth outside Britain's major cities, according to research experts Allegra, predicted to grow at 10% per annum up to December 2008.

Time spent by customers in stores is increasing, with 45% of people staying more than 30 minutes against 38% in 2003. Coffee shops are no longer just a grab-and-go option, but a place to socialise throughout the day. Women in particular are driving demand, seeing coffee shops as an alternative meeting place to pubs and bars, says Allegra. Just see any Caffe Nero in south east suburbia after the morning school run.

The truth is that the unreconstructed pub hasn't so much as lost this market, but never got close to winning it in the first place.

Trade lobbyists are legitimately using this latest threat of widespread pub closures to highlight the damage that red tape and escalating business costs is inflicting on the sector. Business needs a level playing field, and some marginal pubs would no doubt survive without the growing burden of regulation and tax. But that is not universally true.

There is also the danger in following this path of being seen to defend failure and of playing to the pub industry stereotype of trade protection rather than promotion. Calling for a freeze on beer duty is fine, but what about wine and spirits and doing something about VAT on food? Isn't this a bit narrow and playing to an old fashioned pub image.

All of which inevitably brings us to smoking. Recent weeks have seen numerous reports on what pubs must do come the ban in England and Wales - many stating the obvious.

PricewaterhouseCoopers has urged pubs to innovate and cut costs warning that their sales could dip by as much as 10% - although significantly less in food-driven businesses.

Good pub operators are already well down that road, and even Camra, in another survey, has predicted that close to a million people will start using pubs once the ban comes in.

Change is more often than not a good thing, and the smoking ban can be a major catalyst for positive change in the pub sector. In their time, the Beer Orders stimulated a major upheaval in the operation and ownership of UK pubs - and largely for the better. They brought in a new breed of entrepreneurial operators that started to change the face of pubs and how they treated their customers. Can the smoking ban bring a similar step change?

Concentrating on that forward looking challenge is surely infinitely more vital than worrying about the fate of a thousand or so "community locals" that few will probably ever miss?

Is this the new-look for wine?

When high retailer Marks & Spencer makes a move, others normally listen. So what does its decision to start stocking lower-alcohol wines say?

"High alcohol wines have had their day," proclaimed M&S Wine technologist Sue Daniels last month. "We will be trying to source more wines at 12% alcohol, rather than 14% in the future."

M&S is also investigating wine varieties that are sulphite-free and contain minimal additives for the allergy sufferers among its customer base. It is all part of the M&S plan to target the conscientious consumer and become "a leading retailer in ethical trading"

The increasing level of alcohol within wine over recent years reflects a consumer trend towards bigger and more immediate flavours, improved viticulture techniques and global climate change. So trying to limit excessive alcohol in wines while retaining flavour is becoming a major challenge for wine producers. But big taste and less alcohol is what M&S for one believes will be what the concerned consumer of the future will be demanding.