Coalition's alcohol policy comes under attack
The Coalition Government’s alcohol policy has come under
sustained attack by the Insitutue of Alcohol Studies and other health
aligned organisations, which have decided to boycott the Government’s
Responsibility Deal with the alcohol industry. 
The Government’s policy to ban ‘below cost’ sales of
alcohol has been dismissed as almost wholly ineffective in reducing
alcohol harm by alcohol and health NGOs and even by sections of the
alcohol industry.
And the Government has been condemned by the road
safety community for refusing to heed the advice of its own experts and
the police, and lower the drink drive limit.
Six alcohol and health organisations, led by the British
Medical Association, that had been involved in a Coalition Government
policy initiative, the Responsibility Deal for Alcohol (RDA), did their
best to wreck its official launch by very publicly walking out of it. In
briefings to the media they accused the Deal of being no more than
diversion from the evidence-based alcohol policies likely to achieve a
real reduction in alcohol harm, such as policies on pricing and
availability of alcohol.
The other five organisations are the IAS, Alcohol Concern, the
Royal College of Physicians, the British Liver Trust, and the British
Association for the Study of the Liver. Later, Diabetes UK and the
British Heart Foundation also withdrew their support from the
Responsibility Deal, though their involvement had been with health
issues other than alcohol.
At the time of writing, it appears that the remaining health
groups in the Alcohol Network will continue to support the initiative
despite some reservations. These are the Faculty of Public Health,
Cancer Research UK and the National Heart Forum. The move coincided with
a broader attack by the medical profession on the Coalition
Government’s health policy, its plans for reform of the National Health
Service in particular. On the day the RDA was officially launched, an
emergency meeting of the British Medical Association urged ministers to
withdraw the bill to reform the NHS so the plans could be looked at
again. A motion of no confidence in Health Secretary Andrew Lansley was
only narrowly defeated.
The Walk-out
The health organisations criticised the Coalition Government
and the Responsibility Deal for being too close to the alcohol industry
and for promoting policies lacking evidence of effectiveness. Don
Shenker, Chief Executive of Alcohol Concern said it was “the worst
possible deal for everyone who wants to see alcohol harm reduced. There
are no firm targets or any sanctions if the drinks industry fails to
fulfill its pledges. It’s all carrot and no stick for the drinks
industry and supermarkets.”
However, Health Secretary Andrew Lansley rebutted the
criticisms. He said that, in regard to tackling the alcohol issue, the
Coalition was achieving more in months than the previous Labour
Government had managed in years, and that it did the health
organisations no credit to refuse to co-operate. He also defended the
voluntary approach. He said: “We know that regulation is costly, can
take years and is often only determined at an EU wide level anyway.
That’s why we have to introduce new ways of achieving better results.
The deals published today demonstrate the effectiveness of our radical
partnership approach to deliver more and sooner.”
The Responsibility Deal
The RDA forms one part of a wider Responsibility Deal promoted
by the Department of Health, which also takes in nutrition and obesity,
physical fitness, health at work and behaviour change. The essential
idea is to persuade the various industries relevant to these areas of
health behaviour to sign up to the process of improving health by making
pledges to undertake actions seen as helpful, for example in relation
to improved labelling of food and drink products.
Launching the Deal, Mr Lansley said it showed how partnership
and challenge can be the most effective way of tackling some public
health objectives. Since September, five groups working on food,
alcohol, behavioural change, physical activity and health at work had
developed a series of pledges for action.
Key collective pledges agreed included:
- Calories on menus from September 2011
- Reducing salt in food so people eat 1g less per day by the end of 2012
- Removal of artificial transfats by the end of 2011
- Achieving clear unit labelling on more than 80 per cent of alcohol by 2013
- Increasing physical activity through the workplace; and
- Improving workplace health.
Supermarkets including ASDA, the Co-operative, Morrisons,
Marks and Spencer, Sainsbury’s, Tesco and Waitrose are among more than
170 organisations which have signed up to the Deal. High street food
outlets including McDonald’s, Pizza Hut and KFC have pledged to remove
trans-fats and to put in place calorie labelling. Specifically in regard
to alcohol, as part of the deal, Heineken is expected to announce it
will reduce the alcohol strength of one of its leading brands, thought
to be Strongbow, by 1% (currently 5.3%) by 2013. Asda has pledged to end
front-of-store alcohol displays by the end of April and it will also
give £1 million to community alcohol prevention projects.
The Responsibility Deal for Alcohol
The Responsibility Deal for Alcohol (RDA) is designed to
provide a forum for discussing how agreed measures can be delivered
across the whole of the alcohol industry, particularly at point of sale.
It is co-chaired by Jeremy Beadles, Chief Executive, Wine and Spirit
Trade Association and Professor Mark Bellis, Faculty of Public Health,
and is supported by Paul Burstow MP, Minister of State for Care Services
at the Department of Health.
The Coalition Government describes the alcohol pledges as
showing how industry, along with health group partners and government,
can help deliver the commitment to ‘foster a culture of responsible
drinking to help drinkers stay within the NHS drinking guidelines’.
Drink producers and retailers, including Diageo, Carlsberg,
Majestic Wine and Constellation, the producer of well-known brands
including Hardys, Echo Falls and Stowells, have pledged to provide clear
unit labelling, support awareness campaigns and develop a new
sponsorship code on responsible drinking. The pledges open up the
possibility of alcohol health messages appearing on alcohol products and
in settings where alcohol is sold and consumed.
The main alcohol pledges are
We support tackling the misuse of alcohol in order to reduce
the resulting harms to individuals’ health and to society, in particular
through the implementation of the following pledges:
- A1. We will ensure that over 80% of products on shelf (by
December 2013) will have labels with clear unit content, NHS guidelines
and a warning about drinking when pregnant.
- A2. We will provide simple and consistent information in the
on-trade (e.g. pubs and clubs), to raise awareness of the unit content
of alcoholic drinks, and we will also explore together with health
bodies how messages around drinking guidelines and the associated health
harms might be communicated.
- A3. We will provide simple and consistent information as
appropriate in the off-trade (supermarkets and off-licences) as well as
other marketing channels (e.g. in-store magazines), to raise awareness
of the units, calorie content of alcoholic drinks, NHS drinking
guidelines, and the health harms associated with exceeding guidelines.
- A4. We commit to ensuring effective action is taken in all
premises to reduce and prevent under-age sales of alcohol (primarily
through rigorous application of Challenge 21 and Challenge 25).
- A5. We commit to maintaining the levels of financial support
and in-kind funding for Drinkaware and the “Why let the Good times go
bad?” campaign as set out in the Memoranda of Understanding between
Industry, Government and Drinkaware.
- A6. We commit to further action on advertising and
marketing, namely the development of a new sponsorship code requiring
the promotion of responsible drinking, not putting alcohol adverts on
outdoor poster sites within 100m of schools and adhering to the
Drinkaware brand guidelines to ensure clear and consistent usage.
- A7. In local communities we will provide support for schemes
appropriate for local areas that wish to use them to address issues
around social and health harms, and will act together to improve joined
up working between such schemes operating in local areas as:
- Best Bar None and Pubwatch, which set standards for on-trade premises
- Purple Flag which make awards to safe, consumer friendly areas
- Community Alcohol Partnerships, which currently support
local partnership working to address issues such as under-age sales and
alcohol related crime, are to be extended to work with health and
education partners in local Government
- Business Improvement Districts, which can improve the local commercial environment.
A full list of the companies signed up to the alcohol pledges is available at: http://responsibilitydeal.dh.gov.uk
The attack on the Deal
In a statement, IAS and the other health organisations said that they were unable to support the RDA for a range of reasons:
- The overall RDA policy objective to ‘foster a culture of
responsible drinking’ does not adequately address the need to reduce
alcohol-related mortality and morbidity.
- The RDA drinks industry pledges are not specific or measurable and have no evidence of success.
- The RDA process has prioritised industry views and not
considered alternative pledges put forward by the health community.
These have included proposed pledges:
- not to advertise alcohol based on price,
- not to advertise in cinemas for under-18 films
- and to include health warnings on all drinks products.
- The scope of the RDA is extremely limited. It does not
tackle issues of affordability, availability or promotion of alcohol,
and focuses on voluntary interventions with no evidence of
effectiveness. There is no evidence that we have seen to show that
Government is working towards a comprehensive, cross-departmental
strategy to reduce alcohol harm, based on evidence of what works, with
rigorous evaluation metrics. There has been no commitment made on what
alternative actions Government will take if the RDA pledges do not
significantly reduce levels of alcohol-related harm.
The organisations called on Government to provide:
- A clear and firm commitment on how it intends – via evidence
based policy – to tackle affordability, availability and promotion of
alcohol as part of a cross-government strategy, with rigorous evaluation
metrics
- A clear presentation of the steps that will be taken if the current RDA objectives are not met in 12 months time
- A firm commitment to consider change - including through
regulation - if voluntary commitments from business are not met after an
agreed time period.
Katherine Brown, Head of Research and Communications at IAS, said:
“We have serious reservations about the level of importance
placed on the Responsibility Deal as providing a solution to the problem
of alcohol in the UK. The RDA pledges are not based on evidence of what
works, and were largely written by Government and industry officials
before the health community was invited to join the proceedings.
Furthermore, there are no hard outcomes attached to the pledges, which
rely heavily on evaluation by the industry.
“We cannot endorse a process in which the alcohol industry is
invited to co-create and self-regulate health policy. There is clearly a
conflict of interest between industry economic objectives and public
health goals of reducing alcohol consumption and associated harms. This
has been highlighted by two Parliamentary Select Committees and the
World Health Organisation. The most effective means of reducing alcohol
related harm is through adjustments in affordability, availability and
promotion. These policies are supported by a broad evidence base and
have been recommended to Government by a recent cross party House of
Commons Health Committee report. The Responsibility Deal fails to
address any of these policy areas and we are yet to see any real proof
that Government is looking into developing a cross departmental
comprehensive alcohol strategy, based on evidence of what works.” As
well as issuing the statement, the new Director of IAS, Dr Adrian
Bonner, also wrote a letter to Health Secretary Andrew Lansley formally
withdrawing from the initiative and elaborating on the reasons for doing
so. Similar letters were sent from the other health organisations. Most
of these letters stated that “policies outlined in the current RDA
pledges – product labelling, workplace policies, unit information,
education and voluntary marketing codes- have little if any impact on
alcohol related harm.” The BMA letter also criticised the Coalition
Government for appearing to ‘start from scratch’ in regard to alcohol
policy, when in fact there had been two previous attempts by government
to deal with the alcohol problem, and the evidence and experience
required was readily available.
Government Response
In reply, Mr Lansley said that while the BMA and others were
criticising the level of importance placed on the Responsibility Deal,
the Government had made it clear from the start that it was just one
strand of the Government’s public health policy.
He said that the Treasury had announced the results of their
review of taxation, including the introduction of a new tax on
super-strength beers. The Home Office had made their announcement on a
ban on sales of alcohol below duty plus VAT, “an important first step in
linking price to alcoholic strength”. And the Home Office had also
introduced legislation to overhaul the Licensing Act to give stronger
powers to local areas “and end the 24-hour drinking culture”. All this
action, Mr Lansley said, had been taken within less than a year of
office, as promised in the Coalition programme for Government just last
May. Far from ‘starting from scratch’, the Government was making rapid
progress where necessary, and amending poor legislation where required.
On the commitments contained in the Responsibility Deal, Mr Lansley
said: “you say there is little evidence that labelling and consumer
education will deliver public health benefits on their own. Yet even
the Health Select Committee on Alcohol from last year says people have a
right to know the risks they are running. We recommend that information
and education policies be improved by giving more emphasis to the
number of units in drinks.”
Mr Lansley continued:
“…….The Responsibility Deal has achieved more in the last six
months than the previous Government’s Coalition for Better Health did in
a year and a half. What is more, this is only the first step. …..I
would have liked the health partners to make more of their role within
the Alcohol Network to challenge industry to be more ambitious. Instead,
I understand valuable time was taken up repeatedly going over arguments
around pricing, which we made clear at the outset would be addressed
elsewhere. It does no credit to health partners to throw away a chance
to play a constructive part in developing challenging targets with
industry. I would also like to point out that we have also taken on
board the concerns of health partners that they were not being given an
equal voice in the network. Mark Bellis of the Faculty for Public Health
has been appointed as a Co-Chair of the Alcohol Network Group. I hope
you would continue to assist Mark with the necessary input and support
from health partners to carry out this function effectively.”
In regard to the need for a cross-cutting, evidence based
Government Alcohol Strategy, Mr Lansley pointed out that he had already
announced his intention to publish such a strategy. He hoped the BMA and
other health groups would co-operate in helping to determine its scope
and content.
Origin of the Deal
When first announced, the Responsibility Deal was seen as
controversial and it received considerable adverse publicity. Sections
of the media, as well as opposition politicians, accused the Coalition
of ‘selling out’ public health interests to big business. The Guardian
newspaper ran a campaign against the Deal. It reported that ‘Public
health interest experts are still trying to absorb the scale of
Lansley’s pro-business shakeup’, and suggested that ‘Lansley’s public
health reforms are seen as a test case for wider Conservative policies
on replacing state intervention with private and corporate action’. The
newspaper quoted Professor Sir Ian Gilmore, Chairman of the Alcohol
Health Alliance, as saying “I am very concerned with the emphasis on
voluntary partnerships with industry. We have to understand that their
agenda is very different.” The Labour Shadow Public Health Minister,
Dianne Abbott, who was reported to be shocked by the Deal, actually
demanded an inquiry by the health select committee to review the
Responsibility Deal “that gives industry a key role in deciding
Government action on alcohol misuse and obesity.” Presumably, however,
Ms Abbott’s Labour Party colleagues had failed to inform either her, or
the Guardian, that the policy that so shocked her was actually their
own, for the Responsibility Deal is, in reality, the Coalition’s version
of Labour’s ‘Coalition for Better Health’. This brought together senior
decision makers from across the health agenda, including major
industry, public sector and NGO partners, and was designed to bring
together “those organisations serious about playing a part in tackling
the big health and wellbeing challenges facing us today”, with an
initial focus on precisely the same policy areas featured in the
Responsibility Deal: alcohol, work and health, obesity and physical
activity.
The stated objectives were:
- Alcohol - How can we support the third of adults who drink too much, to change their behaviour?
- Obesity - How should we be reversing the rising tide of adult obesity?
- Health & work - How can we use workplaces significantly to improve the health of employees?
- Physical activity - How do we get 2 million people more active by 2012?
The Labour Government set up Leadership Groups on each of
these areas, comprising leading figures from business, NGOs and
professional organisations. These groups were intended to convene two to
four times a year for half-day working sessions, with the first
meetings taking place in autumn 2009. Coalition members would chair the
groups and the Department of Health would provide venues, resources and
secretariat support.
See also: Partnerships for better health
The bodies involved in the alcohol section of the Coalition
for Better Health were largely the same as those who would later
participate in the Responsibility Deal, such as the Portman Group and
the BMA.
However, there was no media campaign against Labour’s
Coalition for Better Health, and there were no walk-outs by any of the
participating organisations. A record of one of the meetings by a
representative of one of the health groups noted “Initial discussions
revealed an acute awareness of conflicts within the group, but a
willingness to seek common ground.” However, it may simply be that the
coming general election put a stop to Labour’s initiative before it
reached the point when the divisions between the different factions
became too great.
Labour’s Alcohol Strategy 
The Responsibility Deal on Alcohol is also the direct
descendant of the specific partnership arrangements between Government
and alcohol industry that were at the heart of the Labour Government’s
National Alcohol Strategy. The Memorandum of Understanding in regard to
the industry-funded Drinkaware Trust, referred to in the RDA agreement,
was drawn up by the Labour Government and signed on 29 June 2006 by the
head of the Portman Group and Government Ministers from the Department
of Health, the Home Office, the Scottish Executive, the Welsh Assembly
Government and the Northern Ireland Office.
There
was an additional Memorandum of Understanding drawn up in 2007 by the
Labour Government, in the person of the then Public Health Minister,
Caroline Flint, and the alcohol industry in regard to the labeling of
alcohol products with information on alcohol units and the sensible
drinking message, including a warning in regard to the dangers of
alcohol in pregnancy. The Memorandum stated that “The Government intends
to work in partnership with and with the support of the alcohol
industry and with Drinkaware to raise awareness of the sensible drinking
message (SDM), and to progress relevant actions arising from the new
English Alcohol Strategy expected to be published in June 2007.”
It is these very proposals for product labelling which have
now been resuscitated by the Coalition Government through the RDA.
Moreover, the Labour Government’s move towards unit labeling of alcohol
products was a response to years of pressure from the alcohol and health
lobby, both in the UK and at European level. For example, despite now
appearing to dismiss unit alcohol labelling as having little or no
effect on alcohol harm, on its web site the BMA itself is still calling
for “Details of the unit content of the drink, along with safe maximum
intake levels and a warning about the health risks of excessive drinking
(to be) printed on standardised labels on all alcoholic products. Also
in all printed and electronic advertisements and at the point of sale.”
The alcohol industry’s reaction to the prospect of improved
labelling has been mixed. While some drinks companies and trade
associations have sometimes come round to supporting the idea, and to
undertake labelling voluntarily, somewhat ironically, in view of the
current attitude of the health organisations, others have opposed it as
an expensive waste of time, which could not be expected actually to
reduce alcohol harm.
Top of pagePubs can serve smaller measures

Some Health campaigners have welcomed a move announced by the
Department for Business Innovation and Skills allowing some forms of
alcohol to be sold in smaller measures. Campaigners have complained in
the past that the trend towards larger servings of alcohol, as well as
the increased strength of some drinks, has contributed to the problem of
increased consumption in some groups.
Under the present regulations, wine cannot be sold in measures
less than 125ml, while beer must be sold in thirds, halves or multiples
of half-pints. Fortified wine must be sold in the same quantities as
normal wine. Under the coalition government’s changes, premises will be
able to sell wine in measures under 75ml, beers can be sold in
‘schooners’ which are two-thirds of a pint, while fortified wine will be
sold in smaller sizes of 50ml and 70ml.
Welcoming the move, Chris Sorek, Chief Executive of the
industry-funded alcohol awareness charity Drinkaware, said: “Smaller
measures of alcohol alone won’t solve the UK’s binge drinking problem,
but it’s certainly a great move in helping consumers keep within the
recommended daily unit guidelines. Offering beer, cider, wine and
fortified wine in smaller measures can help people drink less and avoid
alcohol-related harm.”
However, some others have seen in the move a devious ploy to attract women consumers and so to increase alcohol consumption.
Top of pageCoalition overhauls alcohol licensing regime

People in England and Wales will have greater control over alcohol
licensing decisions as the coalition government ‘moves to reclaim high
streets for sensible law abiding drinkers’.
This is the claim made by Theresa May, the Home Secretary, in
relation to the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill which will
give councils new powers to stop premises selling alcohol late at night
and punish those that persistently sell alcohol to children, with fines
of up to £20,000.
The new legislation will allow everyone to comment on
individual licensing applications, in contrast to the original 2003
Licensing Act which restricted the right to object to those living ‘in
the vicinity’ of a particular licensed premises. This was one of the
most disliked features of the Labour Government’s Licensing Act, because
people’s lives could be adversely affected by licensing decisions even
if they did not live ‘in the vicinity’ - if, for example, they lived
along the route in and out of the entertainment area of their town or
city. The new legislation will also allow, for the first time, the
impact of licensing on public health to be taken into account when
granting licences, a reform for which the public health lobby has been
campaigning since the implementation of the 2003 Act.
Drunkenness and violence
Announcing
the reforms, Minister for Crime Prevention, James Brokenshire, said:
“The introduction of 24 hour licensing promised a continental-style
‘café-culture’ which has not materialised - instead we see drunkenness,
violence and anti-social behaviour and too many of our town and city
centres are now considered ‘no go’ areas. We’re not saying every pub and
club is a problem, we know it’s only a minority that drive crime and
disorder. But it’s now time that local communities are put in charge and
allowed to reclaim our high streets for sensible law-abiding drinkers.
This package of measures will reverse the failed experiment that was the
relaxation of the licensing act and ensure local people have the power
to make their pub and local high street a place they want to visit.”
The Bill also includes measures to allow councils to: 
- charge for late-night licences to pay for extra policing
- suspend licences if fees are not paid
The Home Secretary also outlined a package of measures to reduce alcohol related crime and disorder.
They include:
- scrapping bureaucratic and unused alcohol disorder zones
- a commitment to review the mandatory licensing code within
12 months of its introduction to assess its impact and any unnecessary
burdens on business
In 2009 almost one million violent crimes were alcohol-related,
and one-fifth of all violent incidents took place in or around a pub or
club.
Top of pageRetailers will be banned from selling alcohol below the rate of duty plus VAT - but health lobby dismisses change as cosmetic
To tackle the issue of cheap alcohol, the government has announced it
intends to introduce a new proposal which would prevent retailers from
selling a 1 litre bottle of vodka (37.5% abv) for less than £10.71 and a
440ml can of lager (4.2 % abv) for less than £0.38.
The move was described as an important first step in
delivering the Coalition Government’s commitment to ban the sale of
alcohol below cost. However, the announcement from the Home Office was
greeted with a distinct lack of enthusiasm by the health and alcohol
control lobby, which said that the measure would have no significant
impact on levels of alcohol consumption or harm as very little alcohol
was sold below the proposed new legal minimum in any case. Coverage of
the issue was muddled by some commentators and the media, confusing the
Government’s proposal with minimum pricing of alcohol, for which the
health lobby has been campaigning but which is actually a different
concept from the one the Government has in mind.
Announcing the initiative, James Brokenshire Home Office Minister for Crime Prevention, said:
‘We know that pricing controls can help reduce alcohol-related
violent crime and this is a crucial step in tackling the availability
of cheap alcohol. In nearly half of all violent incidents the offender
is believed to be under the influence of alcohol. That’s why we believe
it is right to tackle the worst instances of deep discounting. By
introducing this new measure we are sending a clear message that the
government will not stand by and let drink be sold so cheaply that it
leads to a greater risk of health harms or drunken violence.’
Reactions
If the Coalition expected to win praise for tackling the
alcohol price issue it was rapidly disillusioned by the chorus of
disapproval that greeted the Home Offi ce announcement. Indeed, the
Coalition’s main achievement, an unlikely one, was to unite the health
lobby with some important sections of the alcohol industry in attacking
its proposals.
For Alcohol Concern, Don Shenker said that the Coalition’s
plans would “hardly touch the sides in dealing with binge drinking and
alcohol related harms”. He said that the price of the vast majority of
drinks would not be affected and the threshold was not high enough to
deter those who use cheap drinks to get drunk. There would need to be a
minimum price of at least 40 pence per unit to see a drop in
alcohol-related crime, health harms and deaths. “Once again,” Don
Shenker added, “the supermarkets have won the day.”
Sir Ian Gilmore, Chair of the Alcohol Health Alliance and
former President of the Royal College of Physicians, said that while he
was pleased to see that the government accepts cheap drink is the main
driver of the health harm we’re seeing, the proposed price floor would
have a negligible impact. It equated to just 21p per unit of beer.
Research conducted by the School of Health and Health Related Research
found that if the minimum price was set higher, at 50p per unit, it
would reduce hospital admissions by approximately 100,000 each year with
total cost savings for England of £7.4 billion over ten years.
Sir Ian said:
“Whilst today’s announcement is a step in the right direction,
it is a tiny one. It will impact on a small fraction of special offers
and will have no meaningful impact on the health consequences of alcohol
misuse.”
The strongest reaction, however, came from the Association of
Licensed Multiple Retailers, the national trade body representing pubs
and bars. The Association appeared to see no merit in the Coalition’s
proposals at all, and it warned that “failure to tackle irresponsible
retailing by supermarkets would result in further harm to the nation’s
pubs and bars as people turn away from drinking in a social and
responsible environment in favour of cheaper drinking at home.
Nick Bish, ALMR Chief Executive said:
“Today’s announcement is a fudged compromise – a ban based on
duty plus VAT fails to deliver the very clear commitments the Government
gave that they would ban below-cost selling. It will make no difference
to pocket money prices on the high street nor the irresponsible
retailing practices of Britain’s supermarkets. Actually, today’s
announcement will make matters worse because it effectively legitimises
the status quo and will see the price differential between pub and
supermarket widen.”
The Association highlighted statements made by the Prime
Minister, David Cameron, in interviews last summer where he pledged that
his government would go after irresponsible promotions such as “20
Stella for £5” and “end deep discounting”. Today’s announcement will
leave both untouched.
Nick Bish went on:
“If the Prime Minister is serious about tackling this social
menace, then we need a package of measures to support the duty+VAT ban.
All pubs and bars are prevented by law from offering the kind of
discounts or special offers that have become almost routine in the
off-trade. We simply want a level playing fi eld and the ban on
irresponsible promotions extended to anyone who sells alcohol. That
would make a material difference to pricing and commercial behaviour and
the Prime Minister has a unique opportunity to deliver that through the
Bill reforming the Licensing Act which is currently before Parliament.
Ministers have ducked a ban on belowcost selling; for the sake of our
pubs they must not duck this”.
Top of pageBudget alcohol tax increases - 'hammer blow' to trade
Move to discourage super-strength lagers
In a move which produced an angry reaction from the beer and pub
industry, the Chancellor retained the alcohol duties ‘escalator’
introduced by the previous Labour government, and increased alcohol
duties in his Budget by 2 per cent above the rate of inflation.
This adds four pence to the price of a pint of beer, 15 pence
to the price of a bottle of wine, and 54 pence to the price of a bottle
of spirits. As previously announced, changes will also be introduced to
beer duty.
Chief Executive of the British Beer and Pub Association,
Brigid Simmonds, condemned the “failed policy” of the escalator, which
she said was a “hammer blow”, adding “The fight to end this damaging
policy continues.”
Finance Bill 2011 will also introduce a new additional duty on
beers over 7.5 per cent alcohol by volume (abv) in strength at a rate
of 25 per cent of general beer duty. A reduced rate equivalent to 50 per
cent of general beer duty will be introduced for beers exceeding 1.2
per cent abv and not exceeding 2.8 per cent abv in strength. These
changes will be effective from 1 October 2011.
The Government says that the purpose of these measures is to
tackle problem drinking by encouraging industry to produce, and drinkers
to consume, lower strength beer. The new high strength beer duty is
intended to reduce the availability and affordability of ‘super
strength’ lagers associated with problem drinking. The reduced rate for
lower strength beer will help to give responsible drinkers a wider
choice of products.
The previous 2010 Budget announced that the Government would
review alcohol taxation to tackle problem drinking “without unfairly
penalising responsible drinkers, pubs or local industry.” The findings
of this review were announced on 30 November 2010 as part of a
Government-wide package of measures to help tackle problem drinking.
The Government now seems fully to have accepted that alcohol
taxes are relevant to public health. The Treasury Budget document says:
‘The Government is committed to fair excise duties on tobacco and
alcohol which contribute to deficit reduction whilst supporting health
objectives.’
However, the Government’s plan to tackle the problem of cheap alcohol from the supermarkets has been condemned as inadequate (see here).
Top of pageAlcohol pricing and harm - the research evidence
As part of the considerations of how to achieve the Coalition
commitment to deliver a ban on below cost sales, the Home Office carried
out a review of alcohol pricing. The Home Office had also commissioned a
study of alcohol pricing and criminal harm from the School of Health
and Related Research at the University of Sheffield.
The main conclusion drawn by the Home Office from these
studies is that there is a link between a rise in the price of alcohol
and a reduction in alcohol harms but that the relationships between
price and harm are complex and not fully understood.
The conclusion of the Home Office review of alcohol pricing is
that, on balance, the international evidence base suggests that
policies designed to increase the price of alcohol may be effective in
reducing the harms caused by alcohol. However, alcohol price is only one
factor that may affect levels of alcohol consumption, with individual,
cultural, situational and social factors also influential.
The review highlights that a number of potential impacts of
increasing alcohol price are currently under-researched. There is
limited UK-based research on alcohol pricing and criminal harm related
to alcohol consumption, with UK evidence, in the main, limited to
theoretical economic modelling studies. The evidence base for a link
between alcohol pricing and crime is less comprehensive than that
between alcohol price and consumption and alcohol price and health
harms. Although evidence for a link between alcohol price and crime
suggests that price increases tend to be associated with reductions in
crime, this relationship is not linear and the evidence base is not able
to support a direct causal link.
For individual crime types rather than overall crime, the
evidence base for a link between alcohol price and violence is largest
with the balance of evidence tending to support this link. Less is known
about the potential distributional impacts on specific population
groups, such as the impact on different income groups or how policies
will impact on the majority of responsible drinkers, with the body of
evidence tending to focus on impacts to heavier and younger drinkers.
Little is known about how the alcohol industry may be affected by alcohol pricing policies.
On the basis of the evidence reviewed, it is not possible to
determine which alcohol pricing policies may be the most effective.
Public perceptions of alcohol and crime - Majority think drinking ‘out of control’ in England and Wales
The results of a study of public perceptions of the link
between alcohol price and crime are also informing the policy-making
process. The study was commissioned by the previous Labour Government
but the findings are being used by the Coalition in regard to its review
of alcohol taxation and pricing.
One finding to emerge was that the public’s views on alcohol questions are not always consistent.
The main findings of the survey were:
- In regard to perceptions of a link between alcohol and crime
and disorder, a majority (65%) of those questioned agreed with the
statement that ‘the amount people drink in this country is out of
control’, although most (71%) also agreed that problem drinking is
carried out by a minority
- 65% agreed that the Government needs to take action to stop people drinking too much, though
- 57% also thought that how much you drink is a personal choice and the Government should not interfere
- 68% of drinkers said they would support an increase in the
price of alcohol in supermarkets, off-licences and convenience stores if
a link could be proved between cheap alcohol and levels of crime and
anti-social behavior
- 46% of drinkers said they would support an increase in the price of alcohol in these stores regardless of a link being proved
- 55% of the total sample felt that raising alcohol prices
would not make any difference to the UK’s drinking levels - 38% thought
it would have an impact
- Only 19% of drinkers said that they personally would drink less if the price of alcohol were raised
- 74% of drinkers thought that raising the price of alcohol would just be another way of increasing taxes
The likely impacts of increasing alcohol price:
a summary review of the evidence base. Home Office, January 2011
Public Perceptions of Alcohol Pricing:
Market Research Report. Bdrc continental. Prepared for Central
Office of Information on behalf of the Home Office. November 2010.
Top of pageMayor orders alcohol sobriety in London
The Mayor of London has put forward a proposal to Members of the
Metropolitan Police Authority for an Alcohol Sobriety Scheme for London:
The compulsory Alcohol Sobriety Scheme is an enforcement
approach providing specific powers for the court to order sobriety as
an order for alcohol related violence offences. The compulsory alcohol
requirement will involve twice daily breath testing for alcohol and
failure of the test will result in immediate breach and sanctions, such
as custody.
The idea of a compulsory Alcohol Sobriety Scheme for London
has been inspired by a scheme that has been tried and tested in South
Dakota and is currently being rolled out in other US states. In his
proposal, the Mayor accepts that the crime types being envisaged are
different from those in South Dakota and that the English legal system
is based upon different principles. However, it is felt that the
essential key principles upon which this model is based would be beneficial for London.
The Mayor states that he is committed to making London a safer
and better place to live and, in doing so, has identified the need to
tackle alcohol related violence in the capital, particularly in town
centres. London experiences disproportionate levels of alcohol related
crime in comparison to the rest of the country. This poses a huge
threat, not only to the safety of Londoners, but also to the general
well-being of Londoners, particularly those who live or work in boroughs
with prominent town centres. It also has huge cost implications for the
MPS and the NHS, as well as borough budgets, diverting increasingly
scarce resources away from priorities.
It is based around some key principles:
- The judges opt to use compulsory sobriety as a sentencing option instead of choosing to incarcerate offenders
- The convicted individual is required to check into a
designated venue twice daily to be breathalysed for alcohol consumption
If the terms of the sentence are breached, the individual is arrested,
put into a police cell overnight and presented to the judge the
following day.
- The judge has the discretion to decide what happens to the
offender, for example to incarcerate them, put them back on community
sentence etc.
- Individuals pay for their testing
The Mayor has tabled an amendment to the Police Reform and
Social Responsibility Bill for changes in the current law to enable the
courts to make this order.
The possibility of an Alcohol Sobriety Scheme for London was floated in 2010 (See Alcohol Alert Winter 2010),
and the Mayor has clearly decided to press ahead with the idea, despite
the lukewarm or positively hostile response of some of the main alcohol
control agencies and media commentators. Don Shenker, of Alcohol
Concern, said the scheme would be unlikely to be a success, and the
Guardian newspaper said the idea had to be a bad one because it was
inspired by schemes in the United States. The newspaper described Kit
Malthouse, London’s Deputy Mayor for Policing, as a ‘twerp’ for saying
that an advantage of the scheme was that it would be self-funding as the
offenders would have to pay for their own breath tests, and it also
condemned the scheme as an infringement of civil liberties. The Guardian
added that members of the Coalition government should be breath tested
every time they make ‘an erratic suggestion.”
In reality, the Sobriety Scheme is probably best seen as a
supplement to or variation of the Drink Banning Orders introduced by the
last Labour Government. These are specific orders from a civil court
imposed on an individual who has behaved in a disorderly manner or who
has committed a criminal offence while under the influence of alcohol.
They were introduced on 31 August 2009 and are covered by the Violent
Crime Reduction Act 2006 and the Violent Crime Reduction Act 2006
(Drinking Banning Orders) (Approved Courses) Regulations 2009.
A drink banning order can be put in place to prevent an
individual from entering premises that sell alcohol and entering pubs
and clubs in a specifi ed area or vicinity. A drink banning order is a
civil order, meaning that it does not carry criminal penalties and will
be dealt with by a civil court so will not appear on an already existing
criminal record or create a new criminal record. If, however, the terms
are breached, then that person will have committed a criminal offence.
Top of pageGovernment rejects calls for random testing and a lower drink drive limit
Improved testing equipment to detect drink and drug drivers will be
given the green light and key changes made to streamline enforcement of
both offences. However, in an announcement that will cause dismay in the
police, road safety and medical communities, the Government has turned
its face against the two policies they have consistently advocated as
the most effective measures against drink driving – random breath
testing and lowering the current drink drive limit.
The Government’s policies were set out in its response to the
North Report on Drink and Drug Driving. This was commissioned by the
previous Labour Government but published in 2010 after the Coalition
Government had come into office. The Coalition’s response extends also
to the report of the Transport Select Committee, Drink and Drug Driving
Law, which was published in December 2010 following an inquiry by the
Committee into Sir Peter North’s main recommendations.
The Government rejects random testing as not being cost effective. On this it states:
“An EC recommendation that such procedures should aim to test
all drivers once in three years would require more than ten million
tests per year in this country – less than one million are conducted
now. This would not be cost-effective, or a justified diversion of
police resource. It would be better to develop smarter ways of using the
existing power so that drink-drivers – rather than drivers in general –
become at higher risk of testing and detection.”
However, this argument is unlikely to be regarded as
convincing, especially as the police themselves have been part of the
campaign for the introduction of random testing.
In a memo to the MP’s investigating the issue, the Association of Chief Police Officers stated:
“ACPO wholeheartedly supports the introduction of a power to
randomly check any driver. Putting conditions on when a breath test can
be required simply supports the view that you can drink, drive and avoid
prosecution by playing within the ‘rules’, police have unrestricted
powers to stop vehicles to check tyres, condition and the documents of a
driver but are restricted when they can check for drink or drugs.
“A random power would support targeted checkpoint testing of
drink drivers carried out now in some areas but requiring an element of
consent.
“Random powers are supported, not necessarily because we
believe that the existing powers are inadequate; rather, we believe that
this simple measure, widely publicised, would increase the perception
in the minds of drivers that if they do drink and drive they are likely
to be caught and brought to justice at any time, anywhere.”
The same applies to the Coalition Government’s rejection of a
lower alcohol limit for drivers, which has also been almost universally
supported by the entire road safety community, as well as having the
support of the large majority of the public.
On this, the Coalition’s response states:
‘Our strategy is to help the police to focus on the most
dangerous people – those who feature most prominently in the drink-drive
offence and casualty statistics; as well as the drug-drivers who at
present escape detection. We do not believe that widening the scope of
the drink-drive offence by lowering the limit is consistent with this
approach. It has various operational and practical difficulties; and
imposes social and economic costs which we do not consider, on the
present evidence, to be matched by potential benefits.
‘For all these reasons, the priority on drink-driving must be
to make the present regime work better. We do not propose to lower the
prescribed alcohol limit for driving as well.’
Announcing the Government’s response, Transport Secretary Philip Hammond said:
“Drink and drug driving are serious offences and we are
determined to ensure they are detected and punished effectively. It is
just as dangerous to drive impaired by drugs as alcohol so we need to
send a clear message that drug drivers are as likely to be caught as
drink drivers and that drug driving is as socially unacceptable as drink
driving has become. That is why we will approve drug-testing devices
and change the law to speed up the testing process, ensuring the police
can bring drug drivers to justice.
“The number of drink driving deaths has fallen by more than
75% since 1979. But drink driving still kills hundreds of people so we
need to take tough action against the small minority of drivers who
flagrantly ignore the limit. Their behaviour is entrenched and after
careful consideration we have concluded that improving enforcement is
likely to have more impact on these dangerous people than lowering the
limit.
“We are, therefore, taking forward a package of measures which
will streamline enforcement, helping the police to target these most
dangerous offenders and protect law-abiding road users.”
On drink driving the Government will:
- revoke the right for people whose evidential breath test
result is less than 40% over the limit to opt for a blood test (the
‘statutory option’). The breath testing equipment used in police
stations is now very accurate and technically sophisticated so a blood
sample is not needed to confirm the breath test. The need to organise a
blood sample can mean that drivers who were over the limit when breath
tested have fallen below the limit by the time their blood sample is
taken – removing the statutory option will eliminate this loophole
- introduce a more robust drink drive rehabilitation scheme,
so that we can require those drink drivers who are substantially in
excess of the limit to take remedial training and a linked driving
assessment before recovering their licence
- approve portable evidential breath testing equipment for the
police – this will speed up the testing process and free up police time
- close a loophole used by high risk offenders to delay their medical examinations
- streamline the procedure for testing drink drivers in hospital.
Top of pageSlight fall in alcohol-related deaths
Alcohol-related deaths in the UK have declined slightly since 2008
although they remain at an historically high level, according to figures
from the Office for National Statistics (ONS). The figures relate only
to those deaths regarded as being most directly due to alcohol
consumption and do not include deaths in which alcohol was an underlying
cause, such as some forms of cancer.
The ONS figures show:
In 2009 there were 8,664 alcohol-related deaths in the UK, 367 fewer than the number recorded in 2008 (9,031)
Males accounted for approximately two-thirds of the total number of alcohol-related deaths in 2009.
The number of alcohol-related deaths in the UK has increased
since the early 1990s, rising from the lowest figure of 4,023 (6.7 per
100,000 population) in 1992 to the highest of 9,031 (13.6 per 100,000)
in 2008. In 2009 the number of deaths fell to 8,664 (12.8 per 100,000).
There are more alcohol-related deaths in males than in
females. Male rates more than doubled over the period from 9.0 per
100,000 in 1992 to 18.7 per 100,000 in 2008, although the rate was lower
in 2009 at 17.4 per 100,000. There were steadier increases in female
rates, rising from 4.6 per 100,000 in 1992 to 8.7 per 100,000 in 2007
and 2008. The rate decreased slightly in 2009 to 8.4 per 100,000. In
2009 males accounted for approximately two-thirds of the number of
alcohol-related deaths. There were 5,690 in males and 2,974 in females.
Trends differ according to age. The highest alcohol-related
death rate across the period was in men aged 55–74. In 2009 the rate for
this group was 41.8 per 100,000. The lowest male rate was in those aged
15–34; the rate for this group in 2009 was 2.6 per 100,000. The only
rate to increase among men from 2008 to 2009 was in those aged 75 years
and over, rising from 23.4 to 25.6 per 100,000. The rate for men aged
35–54 in 2009 was 29.1 per 100,000.
Female rates have been consistently lower than male rates, but
the figures demonstrate a largely similar pattern between age groups.
Like men, women aged 55–74 had the highest alcohol-related death rates
over the period. In 2009 the rate for this group was 20.1 per 100,000.
Rates were lowest in women aged 15–34. The rate for this age group in
2009 was 1.5 per 100,000. In 2009 the rates for women aged 35–54 and 75
and over were 13.8 and 13.3 per 100,000 respectively.
Across the 2000–09 period, rates were highest amongst those aged 55–74.
Top of pageHospital admissions for alcohol 'due to rise to 1.5 million per year by 2015'
Rates of alcohol-related hospital admissions are due to rise to 1.5m
per year by the end of this parliament if the Government does not invest
in alcohol services, according to a new report from Alcohol Concern.
The report, Making Alcohol a Health Priority, says that over a million
hospital admissions per year are currently caused by excessive drinking,
with the total cost to the NHS expected to rise to £3.7 billion, if no
further action is taken to arrest this increase. Hospital admissions for
alcohol misuse stood at half a million in 2002 and have doubled, now
costing the NHS £2.7 billion every year. The report states that, If the
100% rate of increase continues, it will waste billions of pounds to the
NHS.
The campaign group has called for Government to invest in
alcohol health workers in every hospital, A&E unit and GP practice.
This will save the NHS £3 for every £1 spent, according to the report,
as well as reduce the current level of 15,000 alcohol-related deaths per
year and 1.2m incidents of violent crime. Alcohol is now the second
biggest risk factor for cancer after smoking and is the biggest cause of
liver disease, which is the fifth most common cause of death in
England. Campaigners have called for Government to make tackling alcohol
misuse a public health priority, claiming that recent action to reduce
smoking and illegal drugs has left tackling the nation’s alcohol problem
far behind.
Alcohol Concern Chief Executive, Don Shenker said: “Whereas
successful action has been taken to reduce rates of smoking and illegal
drugs, successive Governments have failed to act decisively in treating
the country’s drink problem. With the Prime Minister saying that the NHS
is becoming ‘increasingly unaffordable’, we can show how billions can
be saved simply by introducing alcohol health workers in hospitals to
help patients reduce their drinking.
“Government must make tackling alcohol misuse a priority for
public health, leading to huge savings for the whole country. We need to
encourage those who drink too much to realise it and get the help they
need. As problem drinking costs the country so dear, a modest investment
in supporting problem drinkers will lead to a three-fold saving, surely
a necessity in an economic downturn.”
Number of alcohol-related hospital admissions and projection based on current rate of increase (Department of Health, 2010)
Top of page100 Scots per day treated for alcohol related injuries
Scotland’s accident and emergency rooms dealt with 36,000
alcohol-related admissions in 2009, according to the latest issue of
Alcohol Statistics Scotland.
The figures show that, in total, there were 39,278
alcohol-related discharges from Scottish hospitals - nearly 100 every
day - with 92% of these coming from A&E departments. This does,
however, represent a small decrease compared with the previous year.
They also show that Scots continue to out-drink the English
and the Welsh, consuming an average of 11.9 litres of alcohol each in
2009. Over a third of men and women were exceeding the recommended daily
limits for alcohol units on their highest drinking day during the week,
while over 50% said they drank most of their alcohol at home.
Alcohol was recorded as the underlying cause of 1,282 of the
53,856 deaths registered in Scotland in 2009, a small drop from the
previous year. Deaths and disease from alcohol are disproportionately
high in the most deprived areas of the country. People living in
Scotland’s poorest areas are seven and a half times more likely to be
treated in hospital suffering from alcohol problems.
In terms of age, an analysis of the figures for 2003 shows
that deaths from alcohol in men and women are highest in the age group
35 - 54. (See graph showing alcohol attributable deaths below.)
However, although the highest numbers of deaths were seen in
older age groups, younger age groups were more likely to be affected by
their alcohol use as a proportion of overall deaths. For example, among
16 to 24 year old males, 17.5% of all deaths in this age group were
estimated to be caused by attributable alcohol conditions. Over one in
four (26.1%) of deaths in men and one in five of deaths (21.1%) in women
aged 35 to 44 years old in 2003 were attributable to alcohol
consumption. This compares to 2.0% and 1.1% in men and women aged 75 and
over respectively.
Below the age of 35, alcohol attributable deaths were most
likely to occur from the acute consequences of alcohol consumption, in
particular, intentional self-harm and road traffic accidents.
Beyond the age of 35, chronic diseases, including mental and
behavioural disorders due to alcohol use, alcoholic liver disease,
cancer of the oesophagus and breast, colorectal cancer and hypertensive
diseases were the more common causes of alcohol attributable deaths.
In relation to social harm, (see graph below) over 60% of both
male and female violent offenders are under the influence of alcohol at
the time of their offence, with high percentages of victims also being
under the influence.
Dr Evelyn Gillan, Chief Executive of Alcohol Focus Scotland,
said the figures showed that alcohol was still “ruining lives” in
Scotland.
She added: “It’s worrying that the number of people dying from
alcohol-related deaths has almost doubled since 2003. As a nation,
Scotland needs to drink less and we need to push up the price of alcohol
and also make it less available.
“These figures show we have a serious problem with alcohol and
parties need to work together to bring in stronger policies to bring
these figures down.” Responding to the figures, Scottish Government
Health Secretary Nicola Sturgeon said: “Almost £100m has been invested
in local services to prevent alcohol-related problems occurring and in
providing treatment and support for those who already have problems.
However, there is still a great deal of work to be done.
That is why our Alcohol Framework outlines a package of over
40 measures to reduce alcohol-related harm by helping prevent problems
arising in the first place and by improving support and treatment for
those who are already experiencing problems.”
Ms Sturgeon said the Alcohol (Scotland) Bill, passed by the
Scottish Parliament last November, was a “significant step” in tackling
alcohol problems; however, she re-stated the Scottish Government’s
position on minimum pricing, which was not included in the act. She
added: “We still consider minimum pricing to be the most effective and
efficient way of reducing alcohol consumption and hence alcohol-related
harms.”
Top of pageAlcohol a main cause of house fires in Scotland
Brian Sweeney, Chief Officer of Strathclyde Fire & Rescue, has
urged people in Scotland to take more responsibility for their
consumption of alcohol, which is linked to the key “three main reasons”
for fire in the home.
In a hard-hitting message to journalists about the spate of
domestic fires over the Festive Season which left five people dead and
68 people injured in Strathclyde, Mr Sweeney said: “The last 10 days
have seen deaths and injuries in house fires in Scotland that have been
worse than in the last 10 years.”
Mr Sweeney told a press conference on the recent ‘spike’ in
house fires that the three key causes of domestic fires were smoking,
cooking and heating. He continued: “There are also three key reasons
(for house fires). Number 1: alcohol, Number 2: alcohol, and Number 3:
alcohol.”
Mr Sweeney continued: “Scotland needs to redefine its
relationship with alcohol. We believe the Scottish Government will
introduce this year the Alcohol (Scotland) Bill. But the individual
needs to take responsibility.
“People in Scotland and communities across Scotland are simply
drinking too much and when we are drinking and under the influence of
alcohol, our ability to simply go about our business in this seasonal
period is diminished.”
Assistant Chief Officer Lewis Ramsay, SFR’s Director of
Community Safety, said that close working with partner agencies
including local authorities was resulting in ‘very specific’
identification of people particularly at risk of fire in the home.
Strathclyde Fire & Rescue was piloting case studies of
every house fire and this policy would hopefully be rolled out across
Scotland. The cause of each fire would be investigated and steps taken
to avoid a repetition.
Top of pageAlcohol behind 'most violence'
Most violence in the west of Scotland is caused by alcohol, the head
of Scotland’s largest police force said. Stephen House, Chief Constable
of Strathclyde Police, said Scots need help to tackle their drinking
problem, even though that may smack of the “nanny state”. He raised
concerns about the amount people drink in the home where violence can
flare because there is no “level of control” as there is in pubs.
Chief Constable House told Real Radio:
“Virtually all violence in the west of Scotland has got some
link to drink. The main contributors are cheap vodka from the
supermarkets and lager and cider.
“We’ve all seen it: someone goes into one of the big
supermarket chains at six o’clock, seven o’clock at night and comes out
with a slab of lager.
“Does that look like sensible drinking? If it’s for him and
his 23 mates then maybe it is, but if it’s for him and two other people
then it’s not sensible.
“We are spending our time managing unacceptable behaviour by
the whole nation but certainly in the west of Scotland police are
dealing day-in, day-out with people who have had far too much to drink.”
Mr House told the station that he doesn’t believe, as a nation, Scotland is able to self-regulate its drink.
He said: “We need to have it done for us. Now that might be a
bit of a nanny state but I think it’s necessary in the first couple of
stages for the state to step in and say no, sorry, the £3 billion a year
we’re spending on drink-related problems in health and in violence and
social care is just money we can’t afford to spend any more.
“We’ve got to do something about it. It’s got to be cut back. The police can do their bit but we cannot solve the problem.”
Top of pageMaking alcohol policy - increasing consumption or reducing harm
Claire Harkins and David Poley disagree
In a recent issue of its magazine ‘People and Science’, the
British Science Association invited two people of opposing views to
debate in its columns the proper aims and objectives of alcohol policy.
The two protagonists were Claire Harkins of the School of Applied and
Social Sciences, University of Strathclyde, and David Poley, Chief
Executive of the alcohol industry’s Portman Group. The debate took the
form of open letters, which we here reproduce with the permission of the
British Science Association.
Dear David
Alcohol is damaging the health of the British population.
Respected medical organisations are now calling for evidence-based
alcohol control policy to tackle this public health crisis.
Over recent decades alcohol has become increasingly
affordable. Drinking exessively is more prevalent and socially
acceptable, particularly for young women, than it was in the past.
The domination of large alcohol companies has created a market
reliant on high volume sales. Heavy supermarket discounting, marketing
and promotions have also contributed to the escalating rates of
alcohol-related harm. Meanwhile, alcohol policy has, in the words of the
2009 Health Select Committee report, ranged from ‘the non-existent to
the ineffectual’.
We require a strategy which will promote public health instead
of cosseting the alcohol industry. The most robust evidence points to
the need for restrictive measures on pricing, availability, advertising
and marketing. All of these measures pose a serious threat to alcohol
industry profits. The industry depends on harmful drinking: if people
drank responsibly, alcohol sales would plummet by 40 per cent. It is the
industry’s job to increase sales of alcohol. It is the government’s job
to regulate and protect public health over trade - just as with other
addictive drugs. Government should ignore special pleading by the
alcohol industry and prioritise public health.
Yours, Claire
Dear Claire
There is a problem of alcohol misuse in the UK; the question is how it should be addressed.
The health lobby favours restricitve measures on pricing,
availability, advertising and marketing, in the belief that this will
reduce overall levels of consumption. Leaving aside some of the flaws in
that assumption, is this really the fairest and most effective way of
tackling the problem? Most of us who drink, do so moderately and
responsibly; we don’t need to drink less. The people who need to cut
back are the 7 per cent of drinkers whom, it is estimated, account for
33 per cent of all alcohol consumption in the UK. These are also the
people who are least likely to change their drinking behaviour if their
favourite tipple is made a little bit more expensive, or if they had to
travel a little bit further to the nearest retail outlet.
Rather than impose these blunt, ineffective measures that
impact on the moderate majority, the industry believes that one should
instead educate consumers into drinking responsibly. It is only through
education, coupled with targeted interventions against misusers, that we
shall ultimately change the drinking culture and make a lasting
difference to alcohol health harms.
Yours, David
Dear David
As a lobbyist, you argue that ‘we don’t need to drink less’ and
that alcohol-related harm is essentially a problem for only 7 per cent
of drinkers, presumably those who are addicted. The evidence, as opposed
to alcohol industry propaganda, shows that the greatest costs
associated with alcohol are linked to drunkenness rather than addiction,
with the involvement of emergency, social and law enforcement services.
Education has been found to be an ineffective means of
controlling alcohol consumption (price and availability are the most
effective tools, as virtually all disinterested parties agree). A
worrying precedent can be found in the anti-smoking campaigns funded with
tobacco money which actually raised smoking rates. Research, on
‘responsible’ drinking campaigns found that such messages often
encourage alcohol consumption by reinforcing social norms of drunkenness
as part of a night out, rather than acting as a serious health warning.
The public need to be aware that most alcohol ‘education’
originates from the alcohol industry itself. It is a drive towards
greater corporate social responsibility for economic ends rather than an
altruistic source of objective public health information.
Yours, Claire
Dear Claire
I appreciate that drunkenness is as big a problem as chronic
misuse. The 7 per cent of drinkers who consume a third of all alcohol
(Department of Health estimate, not drinks industry propaganda) will
include many of those who get drunk and cause trouble in town centres.
Education doesn’t work? Take a look at drink-driving. Deaths
are 70 per cent lower than they were a generation ago. Educational
campaigns have transformed attitudes and behaviour. We should now do the
same to make public drunkenness socially unacceptable.
And yes, the industry is responsible for much of the alcohol
education that takes place. Surely, this is to be applauded? In fact,
the industry’s educational effort is now channelled through Drinkaware,
an independent charity funded but not controlled by the Industry. You
are right that the alcohol industry, like any industry, acts more out of
self-interest than pure altruism. That doesn’t mean its actions can’t
be worthwhile and of benefit to society.
No doubt , if the industry didn’t have a social responsibility
programme, the health lobby would be even more apoplectic. It seems a
case of ‘damned if you don’t and damned if you do’. The industry should
and does, play its part in tackling alcohol misuse.
Yours, David
Dear David
The 7 per cent you refer to accounts for harmful drinkers whose
consumption has already damaged their health or are addicted. Hazardous
drinkers are those whose consumption risks their health but who have not
yet developed health problems. This applies to 33 per cent of men and
16 per cent of wormen. Your use of the statistics to frame the debate in
your favour is propaganda which replaces objective information.
Education alone did not change behaviour and attitudes towards
drink driving; supporting sanctions such as fines, or even prison, did
that. The effects of educational campaigns are counter balanced by
widespread advertising of alcohol that does not portray the serious
consequences of the drug.
The Portman Group is an effective lobby for specific private
interests which profit from the harm that drink does. Industry-funded
educational campaigns underplay the dangers and provide a sanitised view
of alcohol-related harm - further offset by the illusions fostered by
marketing, advertising and PR. The problem for those interested in the
health of ordinary people is the power and influence that alcohol
lobbyists have over public health policy. An industry that sells an
addictive drug should not be responsible for education relating to its
safe use. This is a clear conflict of interest and should be the
responsibility of independent health organisations - not the alcohol
lobby or its proxies.
Yours, Claire
Dear Claire
I’m sorry if I did not make this clear enough last time:
Drinkaware is independent. Its board includes highly respected academics
and health experts. Are you saying that the industry is wrong to fund
it?
The industry voluntarily promotes Drinkaware’s educational
website on over 3 billion drinks containers each year and in all
advertising. This helps the website to attract over 130,000 visitors
each month.
Alcohol marketing must be responsible and is regulated through
strict Codes of Practice operated by the Advertising Standards
Authority and the Portman Group. The Codes are independently enforced;
the rare examples of irresponsible marketing are immediately withdrawn.
Finally, let’s return to your belief that the only way to
reduce alcohol problems is to curb overall demand through restrictions
on price and availability. Since 2005, (which, incidentally, was when
licensing laws were relaxed), alcohol consumption has fallen by 11 per
cent. Alcohol-related hospital admissions over the same period have
risen by 52 per cent. The link between per capita consumption and
alcohol-related harm unfortunately is not as simple as you portray. We
need to persuade excessive drinkers to cut back through targeted,
innovative actions. The industry should be seen not as part of the
problem but as part of the solution. Yours, David
David Poley is Chief Executive of the Portman Group, the social responsibility organisation for UK drinks producers - dpoley@portmangroup.org.uk
Claire Harkins is at the School of Applied and Social Sciences, University of Strathclyde -
c.harkins@strath.ac.uk
Top of pageManual workers smoke more but drink less than professionals
While smoking is nearly twice as common among adults in routine and
manual occupations as it is in managerial and professional groups, a
higher proportion of top earners drink more frequently, and they are
more likely than manual workers to exceed the recommended limits for
daily consumption. These findings are set out in two publications from
the Office for National Statistics.*
Other facts revealed on drinking habits in 2009 were:
In managerial and professional households, 41% of men exceeded
4 units and 35% of women exceeded 3 units on at least one day in the
week before interview, compared to 34% of men and 23% of women in
routine and manual households
In managerial and professional households, 23% of men and 15%
of women drank heavily (more than 8 units for men, more than 6 units for
women) on at least one day in the previous week, compared to 19% of men
and 11% of women in routine and manual households
Average weekly consumption was similar in all age groups from 16 to 64 years but was much lower in the 65 and over group
Older age groups tended to drink more often than younger age
groups. The proportions drinking on 5 or more days in the week before
interview were: 4% (16-24 years), 10% (25-44), 18% (45-64) and 20% (65
and over). The proportions drinking every day in the previous week were:
1% (16-24 years), 4% (25-44), 10% (45-64) and 14% (65 and over)
When they did drink, however, young people were more likely to
drink heavily than older people. Of those that drank alcohol in the
week before interview, the proportions who drank heavily on at least one
day were: 46% (16-24 years), 35% (25-44), 25% (45-64), 6% (65 and over)
* Smoking and Drinking among Adults, 2009 published by the
Office for National Statistics Health Survey for England 2009, published
by the NHS Information Centre
Top of pageDrinking to belong

Why young people drink
A new report from the Joseph Rowntree Foundation examines the
relationship of young people with alcohol and identifies the factors
behind their drinking habits. It highlights the influence of the way
they go drinking with friends and how pricing plays a significant role
in how much young people drink.
The research was carried out for the Joseph Rowntree
Foundation by a team from Glasgow Centre for Population Health, who
looked at the experiences of eighty 18-25 year-olds.
The research shows that:
For most young adults drinking to get drunk was seen as the
default choice for socialising with peers. Few could imagine realistic
alternatives to alcohol consumption for getting young people together.
The price of alcohol does play a role in the amount of alcohol young people consume and also the way in which it is consumed.
The research also highlights issues for policy makers to consider in order to have an impact on excessive alcohol consumption.
Moderate drinking in the family environment provides a
potentially more balanced, alternative view of drinking behaviour, in
contrast to the excessive consumption promoted commercially, and which
specifically targets young adults.
The way alcohol is sold to young people needs to be looked at
carefully, as young adults moderate their behaviour when subject to
informal pressures of drinking among more mixed age groups, as opposed
to drinking in bars aimed at young people.
Young people saw heavy drinking as a phase that would end when
they reached adulthood. For young people who took longer to have adult
responsibilities such as employment and parenting, the move away from
excessive drinking was delayed.
Report author Peter Seaman said:
“With the increasing consumption of alcohol in the UK in
recent decades, getting drunk together has become an established part of
the experience of young adulthood. Alcohol has found a unique role in
the way friendship groups are forged and maintained, partly because of
the special nature of young adulthood; the absence of other group
bonding opportunities; and the success of alcohol markets in filling
that void. Working with young people to offer alternatives may help
address this, rather than just imposing constraints.”
Joseph Rowntree Foundation Policy and Research Manager, Claire Turner, said:
“We know there is considerable interest in the drinking
patterns of young people, and a desire to encourage safer use of
alcohol. Having a good understanding of the drinking behaviour of
today’s young adults is vital to reducing future levels of
alcohol-related harm. This research can help policy makers understand
the reasons why young people drink, and highlights issues needing
consideration if they wish to make an impact on excessive alcohol
consumption.”
Top of pageOffenders who misuse alcohol 'do not get enough support'

Offenders who drink harmfully are not offered as much support as
those who use illegal drugs even though alcohol misuse is a bigger cause
of crime and ill health. This is the main conclusion of a report, A
Label for Exclusion, by Rob Fitzpatrick and Laura Thorne of the Centre
for Mental Health.
The report explains that six out of ten male and four out of
ten female sentenced prisoners in England are harmful or hazardous
drinkers. Almost half of probation clients are recorded as having an
alcohol problem. And alcohol is a factor in three-quarters of cases of
domestic violence and more than half of assaults.
Yet A Label for Exclusion finds that there is inadequate
support for offenders who misuse alcohol at all levels, from basic
screening and advice to specialist counselling and treatment programmes.
The policy paper is based on research carried out in the South
West of England to assess the support that is offered to offenders who
misuse alcohol and to find examples of good practice that could be taken
up more widely. A Label for Exclusion makes ten recommendations. It
calls for commissioners of health and justice services to come together
to pool their limited resources for offenders who misuse alcohol and
involve service users in planning the support they offer. It says all
front line workers, such as police officers and GPs, should have basic
skills in recognising alcohol misuse and referring people on to
specialist services if they need them. And it calls for good quality
alcohol support to be available to people at any point in the criminal
justice system, from first contact with the police, to courts, prisons
and probation services.
Centre for Mental Health joint Chief Executive, Professor Sean
Duggan, said: “Having a diagnosis of alcohol dependency or misuse is
too often a label for exclusion from both health and drug treatment
services. For people in the criminal justice system this exclusion can
have a devastating impact.
“We have found in the South West a number of impressive
examples of services who have responded creatively and sensitively to
the challenge of offering better support to offenders who misuse alcohol
despite the lack of policy support to do this. We hope that the
Government will create a more conducive environment to improve responses
at all levels and for all who need more help to manage their alcohol
use and offending.”
Public Health South West policy lead, Dr Ruth Shakespeare, said:
“Alcohol misuse is a major public health issue across England,
costing some £23 billion a year, more than half of it in the costs of
crime.
“I am delighted that commissioners, providers and individual
workers across the South West have taken the initiative to offer
improved support to offenders who misuse alcohol. This not only improves
the health of offenders but also reduces crime and makes communities
safer - everyone benefits.”
The research for the paper was commissioned by the Department of Health South West.
Top of pageNew Management Team at IAS
A new management team has been installed at IAS, and the Scientific Advisory Board has also been strengthened.
The new Director of IAS is Dr Adrian Bonner. Dr Bonner is an
academic with many years experience in the addictions field. He remains a
Reader in the Centre for Health Services Studies, University of Kent,
where, as founder and Director of the Addictive Behaviours Group, he has
facilitated the development of undergraduate and postgraduate teaching
and research activities aimed at practitioners and managers working in
social and health-related agencies. He has been a member of various UK
government working groups, including Skills for Health. Adrian’s
principal research has focused on mechanisms of brain damage and the
role of alcohol and other nutritional factors in cognitive function.
This research has become more integrated with psychological and social
approaches, and underpins his current research into health inequalities
and the role of alcohol in adversely affecting personal wellbeing.
Adrian provides health-related support for The Salvation Army Social
Services in the UK and internationally, including with the UNODC. He has
produced over 100 books, reviews, and peer-reviewed papers.
Katherine Brown is the new IAS Head of Research and
Communications. She joins IAS from the Central Office of Information
where she worked on a variety of public health communications campaigns,
including tobacco control, organ donation and the HPV vaccination
programme. Katherine is a history graduate of the University of Exeter
and was awarded MSc in Global Health and Public Policy by the University
of Edinburgh, where she specialised in commercial sector involvement in
global health governance, using the WHO Global Alcohol Strategy public
consultation as a case study.
Derek Rutherford was appointed Chairman of IAS following the
death of Professor Brian Prichard in 2010. His involvement in the
alcohol field stretches over 60 years. He was the founder Director of
the Teachers’ Advisory Council on Alcohol and Drug Education, and he
also directed the National Council on Alcoholism, the precursor to
Alcohol Concern. He is a former Director of IAS.
The IAS Scientific Advisory Board has been joined by two new
members, Professor Petra Meier and Professor Gerard Hastings, both of
whom are well known in the alcohol field.
Professor Meier is Professor of Public Health and Deputy
Director of the Section of Public Health, University of Sheffield. Her
research interests include alcohol policies and their effectiveness,
especially pricing, marketing and availability.
Professor Gerard Hastings is the Director of the Institute for
Social Marketing and the Cancer Research UK Centre for Tobacco Control
Research, University of Stirling.
The other members of the IAS Scientific Advisory Panel are:
- Professor Rob Baggott, Director of the Health Policy
Research Unit, Department of Public Policy, De Montfort University,
Leicester
- Dr Marsha Morgan, Reader in Medicine, Royal Free Hampstead NHS Trust
- Professor Chris Cook, Professorial Research Fellow, Department of Theology & Religion, Durham University
- Professor Jonathan Chick Consultant Psychiatrist, Royal Edinburgh Hospital
- Miss M Le Feuvre, Former Head of Legal Services, Southampton & New Forest Magistrates Courts
Top of page