Alcohol played its part in securing a lively discussion at my GC last week. No, I’m not talking about the argument in the pub after the meeting – a well-informed and thoughtful discussion, led by our CLP chair (in her day job she’s a manager for a local alcohol service) took centre-stage in the meeting itself.
The discussion was sparked by the Scottish government’s decision to bring forward proposals to set a minimum unit price for alcohol. But as a Greater Manchester constituency, we’d also been struck by the recent report from the North West Public Health Observatory whose Local Alcohol Profiles for England showed the exceptionally high rate of alcohol-related problems that exist in the north west. Manchester and Salford, both local authorities coping with high levels of poverty and deprivation, were the worst affected. But even in our own relatively prosperous borough of Trafford, admissions to hospital attributable to alcohol are significantly worse than the England average.
Everyone knows the problems caused by alcohol misuse: the harm to health, the contribution it makes to crime and disorder, the misery and havoc it brings to individuals, families and communities. New figures from the British Beer and Pub Association show a reduction in overall alcohol consumption in the UK in 2009, and that’s welcome, but no-one would deny the significant health and social problems that result from alcohol misuse.
So further action’s clearly needed, and the Scottish Government’s plan to introduce unit pricing has been welcomed by medical experts, including Scotland’s chief medical officer and the BMA. Yet prior to the general election, Labour refused to introduce minimum pricing, claiming reluctance to penalise responsible drinkers, and these new proposals from the SNP government have again been rejected by Labour MSPs as a ‘tax on the poor’. Industry voices meanwhile, from the Scotch Whisky Association through major supermarkets to the hospitality sector, have long expressed concerns that such measures will have only a marginal effect on alcohol consumption, and fail to tackle the real problems of high-strength alcohol and cut-price booze shops. Who’s got it right?
Clearly pricing alone can’t resolve all the problems of alcohol misuse – or get at the underlying issues of poverty, effective public education, poor mental health or despair. A wide-ranging preventative strategy is needed, of which pricing (and taxation) are only a part. But numerous academic studies have demonstrated the evidence of a connection between pricing and consumption, and the damage that high levels of consumption are doing at population level, and it’s surely time to take note of that evidence in formulating a coherent and comprehensive policy response.
It seems secretary of state Andrew Lansley has expressed an interest in the role of minimum pricing in public policy, but it’s perhaps of little surprise that his speech to the UK Faculty of Public Health conference in July made no mention of the subject, minimising the role of regulation, and emphasising personal responsibility instead. What a contrast with Labour’s smoking ban. That too faced criticisms beforehand about its likely impact on business, and on the poorest, and accusations of ineffectiveness, exactly the criticisms levelled at minimum pricing for alcohol now. Yet today the smoking ban’s recognised as one of our best and boldest public health measures, making a significant contribution to improving the health of the nation, something of which Labour can surely be proud.
It’s time for us to be similarly courageous and radical when it comes to alcohol misuse. Minimum pricing could be effective at reducing problem drinking, with all its knock-on costs for individuals, for public services and for society, and on drinking by young people, a cause of particular concern. It would have little impact on consumption in pubs and restaurants, where prices would already likely comfortably exceed the minimum proposed. And importantly such a measure would remind, even, I’d dare say, reassure voters that Labour’s a party that’s willing to take bold and radical measures, using intervention and regulation if necessary to improve our nation’s health. At the very least, we should watch the Scottish government’s initiative with careful attention: rubbishing it out of hand now is the wrong way to go.
A good commentary in my opinion.
As the public affairs guy for ASH during the UK smoking ban campaign, I would however point out that although the Labour Government put the issue on the agenda, achieving a comprehensive ban in England required a determined public campaign, strong cross-party support and a free vote in Parliament.
It was depressing to see Scottish Labour spokespeople criticisiing minimum alcohol pricing as a “tax on the poor”. The same could of course be said for tobacco taxaton – since poorer people are more likely to smoke and spend a higher proportion of their income on cigarettes. It’s a pretty poor argument if you care about public health
A good commentary in my opinion.
As the public affairs guy for ASH during the UK smoking ban campaign, I would however point out that although the Labour Government put the issue on the agenda, achieving a comprehensive ban in England required a determined public campaign, strong cross-party support and a free vote in Parliament.
It was depressing to see Scottish Labour spokespeople criticisiing minimum alcohol pricing as a “tax on the poor”. The same could of course be said for tobacco taxaton – since poorer people are more likely to smoke and spend a higher proportion of their income on cigarettes. It’s a pretty poor argument if you care about public health
Now that the ban has succeeded in closing many pubs, banning alcohol is obviously the next step. Social control works in steps. The smoking ban was only the first.
I think the mistake both Kate and comment contributor Ian Willmore make is to conflate Minimum Unit Pricing with action on alcohol pricing more generally.
A big problem with MUP is that it is based on econometric modelling by Sheffield University which assumes that the heaviest drinkers are the most price sensitive, when health survey data suggests that regularly drinking over recommeded limits actually increases with income.
It is worth bearing in mind that a 45p minimum unit price will not touch anyone who is prepared to pay a bit more than £4 for a bottle of wine for example but, unlike increasing duty, it would generate an extra £140m to retailers according to the Sheffield model.
The comparison with tobacco is also specious. Not all people on low incomes drink excessively but there is no safe level of tobacco use.
The Smoking Ban has been a disaster to the Country with 6000 pubs etc., closing mainly due to the Ban and not one life saved ,some have been lost in fact with Landlords commiting Suicide and people being attacked while outside Smoking ,Smoking rates are up as well in some studies,increase the price of Alcohol yes as it causes far more harm and cost to the Country.
Mathew,
no safe level of tobacco use , nonsense, you must work for ASH ,theres an old saying, everythings o.k for you in moderation,even drinking too much water can kill you !
Minimum pricing for alcohol will have no long-term effect on consumption. Yearly tax increases on cigarettes had no impact in reducing smoking levels – that only happened when smoking was banned in public places. Likewise, reducing alcohol consumption will only happen when it is banned in some ways – such as consumption in public places, rigorous enforcement of minimum age purchasing regulations, automatic overnight imprisonment (followed by £100 fine) for antisocial drunks disturbing the peace in any public place. There is even an argument for raising the minimum age for legal consumption to, say, 20.
Alcohol is next Prohibition..drip by drip http://fightingback.homestead.com http://thetruthisalie.com
‘Labour should not simply dismiss the idea’. What’s this, the nanny state objecting to more nannying?
MichaelM “Yearly tax increases on cigarettes had no impact in reducing smoking levels – that only happened when smoking was banned in public places.” Smoking prevalence in England has RISEN since the smoking ban. However, the rest of your post I tend to agree with. Minimum pricing doesn’t target the problem drinkers and in actual fact may be a direct attack on some of the most vulnerable people i.e. the very poor/homeless and alcohol dependent. If I were to put money on it I would suggest minimum pricing will kill far more people than it “saves”.
“Yearly tax increases on cigarettes had no impact in reducing smoking levels – that only happened when smoking was banned in public places”. Wrong. The Treasury model estimates about a 4% reduction in smoking for a 10% increase in price. “Smoking prevalence in England has RISEN since the smoking ban”. Also wrong. Smoking prevalence in GB was estimated at 24% in 2005, 22% in 2006 and 21% in 2007 and 2008. Source table 1.1. of the ONS General Lifestyle Survey 2008, Smoking and drinking among young adults 2008.
Ian, You seem to of overlooked the massive amounts of smuggled cigarettes which has increased due to U.K Tax,Smoking rates are based on U.K purchases in shops etc., I presume, so Smoking rates will be definately higher than your figures, you only have to look around to realise that anyway.
No. Smoking prevalence research does not distinguish between illicit and licit cigarettes, so that point is not relevant in this context. “Smoking rates will be definately higher than your figures, you only have to look around to realise that anyway”. Hmmm…. Personally I prefer evidence to anecdote.