There is hardly a better day in the year than today for the temperance lobby to make its voice heard. Much of the nation has been nursing a hangover, and for the thousands returning to work feeling jaded after too much Christmas and new year, the appeal of a sober lifestyle is fleetingly attractive. Traditional pious new year resolutions are still barely tested by reality, and alarming statistics about binge drinking and the usual seasonal rise in alcohol-related accidents and injuries can only reinforce the calls by the anti-drink lobby for tougher measures to curb Britain's alarming addiction to alcohol.

It is therefore surprising that Gordon Brown has come to the conclusion this week that the Government should not, after all, reverse the liberalisation of Britain's drinking laws or attempt to reimpose some of the restrictions that were swept away in 2005 when the review of the Licensing Act came into force. Those changes effectively removed closing time and gave local councils the right to award 24-hour drinking licences. It was hoped that more flexible opening hours would encourage moderate drinking, help the tourist industry and cut the peak in drunkenness after closing time without necessarily encouraging greater consumption. But there was soon a backlash. The public saw a direct link with the growth in drunken rowdyism, communities complained about noise, and police forces pointed to a rise in alcohol-related violence and late-night crime. There were calls for a repeal of the new law, with concerns voiced by police, health workers, clergy, local authorities and politicians.

On coming into office, Mr Brown seized on the issue to signal not only a readiness to break with some of the measures enacted by his predecessor but to demonstrate his willingness to “listen” to voter opinion. He told a press conference in July that he understood the “strong feelings” about 24-hour drinking and had ordered a review of the legislation's impact. Since then, however, many people, including the Prime Minister, have had second thoughts. It appears that some of the criticism has been exaggerated or misplaced, that the worrying trend in binge drinking cannot be attributed directly to the law's liberalisation and that both health workers and the police now accept that recent problems relating to alcohol consumption are better dealt with by other means.

A main point overlooked when the legislation came into force 14 months ago is the greater array of powers that local councils and the police now have to regulate drinking in their areas. They are able to restrict, suspend or remove the licences from any pub or club that fails to curb noise or rowdyism after objections. And they have not been slow to use these new powers. In the first full year of the new Act, 110 premises were forced to change their opening hours, 400 had conditions placed on licences, 92 licences were revoked and another 91 were suspended for up to three months.

That does not mean that serious problems over alcohol sales have disappeared. The binge-drinking culture among young people is as sad, unsightly and dangerous as ever. It must be fought with tougher penalties on under-age sales, insistence on proof of age, more robust attitudes by publicans and selective police crackdowns. The restrictions on “happy hours” and the irresponsible promotion of alcohol should continue. The proliferation of lap-dancing clubs and other establishments trading on alcohol sales may need to be challenged. And the cost of licences may have to rise to deal with the clean-up needed each morning in bigger cities. None of these depends on reimposing closing times on pubs. And although the Scots, especially, have often led the way both in seasonal drinking and in denouncing the demon drink, Mr Brown is right not to let a new year hangover alter the law.