Today a comprehensive and candid investigation into UK national alcohol policy comes to fruition. A report released by the Health Select Committee highlights the damage caused by alcohol misuse and the need for a minimum pricing control. But proposals will be widely misunderstood — minimum pricing will not ‘punish the sensible majority’.

We’ve seen from our recent economic woes that markets do need degrees of regulation, particularly when a public interest is at risk. The difficulty, as always, is finding the balance. Like our financial sector, the alcohol supply market needs careful consideration in this respect; as well as the economic implications people’s health and social well-being are at stake.

The market conditions in which we drink have shifted dramatically and the affordability of alcohol has increased by 69% between 1980 and 2007[i]. Alcohol misuse now costs our economy over £21 billion a year[ii], made up from crime, health, social and lost productivity costs. In response, England has its own cross-governmental national alcohol harm reduction strategy. But this policy has largely skirted round the issue of supply, and its priorities have therefore not fully reflected the most evidence-based approaches.

A key component is missing. Whilst health authorities, councils and voluntary organisations are tackling issues from the ground up, a sense of frustration exists because the cheap and ready availability of alcohol makes it an improbable battle.

The fact is that the most effective way to reduce alcohol-related harm is through addressing price and availability[iii]. This does not need to be as radical is it sounds. A minimum price per unit policy would not affect prices in pubs and clubs that already sell above the probable benchmark of 50 pence per unit. But it would affect those that currently buy three-litre bottles of cider for £2.99.These drinkers are most likely to suffer or perpetrate the negative consequences of alcohol, whether it be domestic violence, depression or alcoholic liver disease.

It is estimated by independent academic research that a minimum price would prevent 3,400 deaths and reduce the number of hospital admissions by 98,000 per year[iv]. Such an approach would add significant strength to an alcohol harm reduction policy that may otherwise fail facing an era of pending public sector cuts and increasing social malaise.

A minimum price is opposed by those who have vested interests[v], those who mis-understand the implications for the majority of moderate drinkers, and those who object on the basis of excessive government interventionism. Of the three, only the latter argument has real credence and widespread misunderstanding had so far prevented informed public consideration of a minimum price measure. But our NHS and public services cannot continue to pick up the huge burden of acute costs alcohol places on them; reducing alcohol harm is not only a social responsibility, it is an economic necessity.

Our rights as individuals must therefore be considered against wider costs and harms to society. A city banker has the right to a performance-related pay, just as consumers have the right to shop around for good value products and services. But just as uncontrolled excess of city bonuses have contributed to a toxic banking system, the uncontrolled supply of cheap alcohol has exacerbated chronic levels of harmful alcohol consumption.

A cap on city bonuses may be a complicated argument, but we acknowledge the need to curb incentives that encourage excessive risk taking when the taxpayer bears the costs. In this way, whilst we all have the right to enjoy alcohol, we should curb incentives that encourage harmful alcohol use. A minimum price would not only make heavy drinkers less likely to damage themselves and others, it would also cost the taxpayer less to pay for the health care and social costs when they do. Alcohol policy should be more evidence based and less politically expedient.

____

James Morris is an alcohol strategy consultant and writes on www.alcoholpolicy.net

[ii] Prime Minister’s Strategy Unit ‘Interim Analytical Report’ 2004

[iii] As agreed by the WHO, the Chief Medical Officer and demonstrated by meta-analyses such as by the University of Sheffield’s 2008 ‘Independent Review of the Effects of Alcohol Pricing and Promotion’

[iv] University of Sheffield 2008, the ‘Independent Review of the Effects of Alcohol Pricing and Promotion’

[v] Mainly the supermarkets and sections of the alcohol indsutry, barring the pub trade who tend to support a minimum price due to loss of business to off-sales

This website uses IntenseDebate comments, but they are not currently loaded because either your browser doesn't support JavaScript, or they didn't load fast enough.