Alcohol tax increases 'will save thousands of lives' - Department of Health
The increases in excise duty and VAT on alcohol announced in the
Budget in March will save 3,250 lives in England alone by the end of
March 2013, according to the Department of Health.
This assessment of the likely impact of the tax increases was
given by public health Minister Dawn Primarolo in a speech to the
British Medical Association’s Public Health Conference. Curiously, the
Chancellor of the Exchequer himself made no reference in his Budget
speech to the lifesaving benefits of the tax increases, saying only that
they allowed him to provide ‘additional support for families and lift
more children out of poverty’. The briefings provided by Treasury
officials also seemed to suggest that the taxes on alcohol had been
increased purely to raise revenue.
However, it was clear from Dawn Primarolo’s speech that the
Department of Health had been pressing the health case for tax
increases, and the speech represents the most direct and explicit
acknowledgement by the present Government that alcohol taxation is a
powerful means of tackling alcohol-related harm. Previously, the
Government had been very reluctant to concede this point despite the
many representations made by the public health lobby over the years,
arguing that the scientific evidence shows clearly that alcohol taxation
is one of, if not the, key weapons available to Government to reduce
health and social harm related to alcohol. Ironically, the previous
Health Secretary, Patricia Hewitt, had also argued for alcohol tax
increases at each Budget, especially on alcopops, but had been publicly
slapped down by the Treasury for doing so. In its National Alcohol Harm
Reduction Strategy first issued in 2004 the Government explicitly
rejected alcohol taxation as a means of controlling alcohol harm.
The increases
The Chancellor announced that alcohol duties would increase by
6 per cent above the rate of inflation. Beer would rise by 4p a pint,
cider by 3p a litre, wine by 14p a bottle and spirits by 55p a bottle.
Alcohol duties would continue to increase by 2 per cent above the rate
of inflation in each of the next four years. When these year-on-year
increases are compounded over this period, they represent a nominal 31
per cent increase in duty by 2012. Commenting on the tax issue, Ms
Primarolo said:
“In current market conditions, and we have to recognise this,
the tax increases announced by the Chancellor may not feed through fully
to price and it is price which we know reduces consumption. Our
estimates suggest that higher taxes, if they do feed through to price,
will mainly affect the 7 per cent of the population who drink one third
of all alcohol consumed in Great Britain. And that, in England alone,
the total number of lives saved up to the end of March 2013 – when
Budget 2012, the last Budget with a 2% above inflation increase has
taken effect – will save 3,250 lives by the Department’s calculations.”
The obvious significance of this statement is not only that it
recognises price and tax as key determinants of the level of alcohol
consumption and harm, it also clearly rejects the counterargument put
forward by the alcohol industry and others that tax rises fail to have
any impact on alcohol harm, merely ‘punishing’ the responsible drinking
majority, while the minority of `alcohol abusers’ carry on drinking at
the same level.
There was more bad news for the industry later on in the
speech when Ms Primarolo confirmed the Government’s preparedness to
bring in – to the industry - very unwelcome legislation. She said:
“We share the concerns that have been expressed about the
practice of deep discounting promotions, often as loss leaders, and
below cost price, of alcohol. But as we move forward to challenge this,
we have to make sure that any action we take is based on evidence. That
is why the Department of Health has commissioned a research team from
the University of Sheffield to carry out an independent review of the
evidence on the relationship between the pricing and promotion of
alcohol and harm. We expect the results of the review to be published in
August.
We have stated that, depending on the review’s findings, that
we are prepared to consult on the need to regulate change, including
legislation, if this proves to be necessary. And we have informed the
alcohol industry that we shall not shrink from doing so.
The same holds true pending the results later this year on
monitoring the outcome of the industry’s implementation of the alcohol
labelling regime that was announced last May. We have the powers now
that we need to regulate in this area, if it is not delivered, and we
will if necessary.”
Ms Primarolo also took the opportunity of summarising current
initiatives in regard to the NHS response to alcohol, including
providing specific training in alcohol problems to identify and treat
excessive drinkers. (see page 14)
Reactions to the Tax Increases
Predictably, the public health community supported the
Chancellor’s tax increases while alcohol industry spokesmen condemned
them, speaking of `betrayal’ and ‘the worst Budget for the industry in
living memory’.
Prior
to the Budget, sections of the Industry had been running a campaign
against alcohol tax increases, a campaign which they presumably thought
had succeeded, when in an interview in the Daily Telegraph a few days
before the Budget, Alistair Darling ‘made it clear he (was) not planning
a big rise in alcohol duty to discourage bingedrinking’. “I don’t take
the view that the best way to deal with this is to punish everybody for
the sins of a minority” he said.
Reacting to the increases, Jeremy Beadles, for the Wine and
Spirit Trade Association, said: "That the Government should commit
itself and future Governments to an above inflation rate increase for
alcohol for the next four years is hitting all drinkers for the sins of a
minority even before it has received the results of its own report on
Pricing, Promotions and Harm. A policy of commit now, hurt consumers
now, study the issue later."
For the British Beer & Pub Association (BBPA) Rob Hayward said:
“Government is punishing all beer drinkers rather than
tackling the minority of drunken hooligans. But Government tax policy is
fuelling Britain’s binge drink problem by driving people away from
beer, out of the pub into the arms of the deep discounting supermarkets.
They don’t pay beer duty and don’t allow brewers to pass it on, so
their rock bottom prices will remain unaffected by this tax hike.”
Following
the Budget, an internet campaign was started by an Edinburgh licensee,
with the aim of banning Alistair Darling from any pub in the country.
(Mr Darling represents an Edinburgh constituency.) Asked about the
campaign to ban him from all pubs, a spokesman for Mr Darling again
avoided referring to the health benefits and said:
“The Chancellor made itclear at the time of the budget that
his priorities were alleviating child poverty and helping pensioners.
It’s a small price to pay for doing that.”
Public Health Support
Professor Ian Gilmore, President of the Royal College of Physicians and Chair of the UK Alcohol Health Alliance, said:
“We welcome the Chancellor’s decision to increase tax on
alcohol. The international evidence suggests that even moderate taxation
rises will reduce alcohol related deaths and this move, although
modest, shows that the Government finally recognises the importance of
taxation in reducing alcohol-related harm in the UK….”
The Institute of Alcohol Studies also welcomed the tax rises,
saying that the rises would go some way towards addressing the increase
in the affordability of alcohol that has occurred over the past twenty
years. However, the IAS warned that the tax rise would not of itself
address the growing discrepancy between the cost of alcohol in pubs and
the cost of alcohol bought from supermarkets. Such pricing discrepancies
continued to have worrying public health implications. The IAS called
upon the government to continue pressure upon supermarkets to halt the
sale of alcohol at below cost prices.
The British Medical Association and Alcohol Concern made similar comments.
Political Reactions
Conservative Party
Prior to the Budget, the Conservative Party launched its own
proposals for targeted tax increases on drinks which were defined as
problematic and which were claimed to contribute to binge drinking. The
Conservatives attacked the Government for unfairly penalizing the
responsible drinking majority because of the sins of the few, and said
that what the Chancellor of the Exchequer should have done was introduce
a revenue neutral alcohol taxation package that increased tax on
problem drinks such as alcopops and super-strength beers and ciders, and
used all the additional revenues raised to cut tax on low alcohol beers
and ciders.
The Conservatives said that this approach had been highly
successful in other countries; in Australia, low alcohol beers now make
up 20% of the beer market, while in Germany the consumption of alcopops
had fallen by half. They claimed that this policy had received support
from alcohol charities and medical experts.
For example, Christopher Day, Professor of Liver Medicine at
the University of Newcastle, had said: "I strongly support this targeted
tax package. The strongest evidence-based approach is to increase the
price of problem drinks and reduce their availability. This has worked
in countries across the world - and I'm in no doubt that it will work
here in the UK too."
Liberal Democrats
The Liberal Democrats also favoured targeting high strength alcoholic drinks.
Shadow Chancellor, Vince Cable, said that “taxes should be
used to discourage binge drinking. Raising the tax on drinks with high
alcohol content would raise £225 million, an amount that could be used
to cut VAT on healthy, 100% fruit juice from 17.5% to 5%."
This, Mr Cable said, would complete the transformation of the
Liberal Democrat Party from the "party of beards and sandals to the
party of smoothies".
The Government dismissed the Conservatives’ and the Liberal
Democrats’ plans for placing additional tax on high strength drinks as
contrary to European Union law.
From the alcohol industry’s perspective,however, the
disagreements between the Government and the opposition parties on tax
policy are probably less significant than the fact that all three major
political parties have now accepted the principle that alcohol taxation
is a legitimate and effective means of tackling alcohol related harm.
Bargain Booze
Ms Primarolo’s uncertainty as to whether the tax increase
would feed through fully to the price paid by the consumer proved to be
well founded. Immediately following the Budget, Bargain Booze, a company
with a range of off-icensed outlets, informed its suppliers that the
company would not accept any price rises consequent upon the tax
increases and that the suppliers would have to absorb the costs
themselves. The letter read:
“As you know, the aggressive market that we’re all trading in
continues to place massive pressure on our industry, and our retail
outlets - like everyone else - are feeling the pinch. Given the discount
pricing strategies adopted in the past few years by the multiple
grocers we are not confident that the Budget will result in material
increases in retail prices.
Top of pageSupermarkets step up pricing debate
“In other words we believe based on past evidence that this tax is
unlikely to be passed on to the consumer in any meaningful way. Given
our position in the market with our fascias Bargain Booze, Bargain Booze
Plus, Bargain Booze Select Convenience, Thorougoods and Thorougoods
Select Convenience price is obviously a key focus for us and we will
have to review the position of any brands where the retail ticket is
increased in our business.
As you know, Bargain Booze is built on high volume turnover so
a reduction in demand and sales would be disastrous (as would the drop
in margin, were we to ask our retailers to swallow the increase).
“As a result we regret to say that we cannot absorb the
increases in costs that the budget would seem to demand. We accept that
these increases have not originated from yourselves but we would ask
your help by joining with other major brand-owners in supporting the
take-home drinks market by absorbing these increases within your own
company.”
Denunciations of the role of the supermarkets in promoting
alcohol problems, principally by selling alcohol at heavily discounted
prices and in some cases below cost, continued apace. At one point Sir
Terry Leahy, Chief Executive of Tesco, was accused of being the
`godfather of binge drinking’ by John Grogan MP, Chairman of the
Parliamentary Beer Group.
The accusation, described as inaccurate and offensive by a
Tesco spokesman, indicates the depth of hostility that now sector and
the supermarkets. The latter often sell alcohol for less than the
on-trade can buy it. Some supermarkets are reported to have been selling
lager more cheaply than water or cola, and indeed to have been selling
alcohol at below cost price. Ten supermarket firms - Aldi, Asda, the
Co-op, Lidl, Morrisons, Netto, Sainsbury’s, Somerfield, Tesco and
Waitrose – all reported to a Competition Commission inquiry in 2007 that
they used alcohol as a loss leader.
These practices have been condemned as antisocial by
politicians and the public health lobby as well as spokesmen for the
on-trade. They have given rise, amongst other things, to what is
referred to as ‘pre-loading’ whereby customers, mainly young, consume
cheap alcohol from supermarkets before going out for the night and are
thus at least partially drunk when they arrive at the pubs and the bars.
An academic study has provided confirmation that pre-loaders do indeed
tend to drink more than others who wait until they get to the bars and
that they are also more likely to get into street disturbances and other
sorts of trouble. This is, of course, occurring in the context of a
long-term trend towards home consumption and the relative decline of the
on sector as the principal location of purchase and consumption.
While the supermarket bosses have consistently denied any
responsibility for fuelling the binge drinking problem with their
pricing policies, their protestations of innocence appear to be regarded
with growing impatience and the climate of opinion has clearly shifted
against them. The Government has commissioned research specifically into
the impact of price discounting in relation to alcohol consumption and
harm and supermarket sales of alcohol were on the agenda of the Downing
Street summit on binge drinking called by Prime Minister Gordon Brown.
In an interview in The Publican, Conservative Party leader David Cameron
also supported moves to end irresponsible supermarket sales practices.
“One of the things we’ve said is if we want to stop the practice of
heavily discounted alcohol in supermarkets, we need to change the law,”
he explained.
The pressure on the supermarkets became so intense that Tesco
was finally driven to announce that it wished to work with the
government on possible legislation to limit its own ability to sell
cut price alcohol. Lucy Neville-Rolfe, Tesco's Executive Director for
Corporate and Legal Affairs, said government would have to take the lead
because competition laws stop retailers from artificially raising
prices. Moreover, she said, it would be commercial suicide and pointless
for Tesco to act alone, as shoppers would simply go elsewhere.
Another indication of the supermarkets’ wish to improve their
image was provided by Asda which announced that it intended to phase out
sales of "shooter" alcopops, popular with young teenagers as part of a
drive to stamp out underage drinking. In addition, from April, the
chain's 100 town-centre 24-hour stores ceased selling alcohol between
midnight and 6am to stop people buying alcohol late at night when
leaving bars and clubs. However, not everyone found the supermarkets’
claims to be mending their ways convincing. The Institute of Alcohol
Studies commented that despite the rhetoric about social responsibility
the supermarkets were still heavily discounting alcohol for bulk
purchase in the run up to St Patrick’s Day and a major rugby tournament.
Speaking for IAS, Russell Bennetts said:
“The Institute of Alcohol Studies strongly condemns
supermarkets for continuing to sell and promote alcohol in an
irresponsible manner. As we enter a weekend of major sporting events and
St. Patrick’s Day celebrations, supermarkets have been promoting
cut-price alcohol that encourages binge drinking.
He added: “Supermarkets claim that cut-price alcohol bought
from their stores is consumed over a long period of time and in a
responsible manner. However, they are hypocritical to say this while
they continue to advertise cheap alcohol in relation to specific events.
“The Competition Commission have found that five leading
grocery retailers sold £38.6 million worth of alcohol at below cost
during the 2006 World Cup. Supermarkets know full well that drinks
promotions linked to such events entice consumers to buy more alcohol
and to drink more alcohol. To claim otherwise is disingenuous.
“Supermarkets are not truly interested in saving the consumer
money or in ensuring their customers remain healthy. They are aware that
alcohol is a more price responsive product than milk. This is why they
choose to use alcohol as a loss-leader. In fact, the Office of Fair
Trading has claimed that the leading four supermarkets colluded to keep
the prices of milk, cheese and butter artificially high.
“A Sainsbury’s radio advertisement offered cut price Guinness
in the lead up to a weekend of rugby matches and St. Patrick’s Day
celebrations. This appears to be part of a continuing trend for
supermarkets claiming sporting and other events as a reason to drink at
home. Tesco have continued to advertise cut-price alcohol even after
claiming that they wish to halt such behaviour.”
Top of pageStronger Government action needed to tackle the epidemic of alcohol misuse, says new BMA report
A new hard-hitting report ‘Alcohol misuse: tackling the UK epidemic’
issued by the British Medical Association (BMA) calls on the government
to show leadership and implement a full range of effective control
policies that will reduce the burden of alcohol misuse.
“Recent governments have worked too closely with the alcohol
industry and have pursued policies of deregulation and liberalisation
regarding alcohol control” said BMA Head of Science and Ethics, Dr
Vivienne Nathanson. She added: “As doctors we see first hand how alcohol
misuse destroys lives. It causes family breakdowns, is a major factor
in domestic violence, ruins job prospects, is often related to crime and
disorderly behaviour and it kills. Alcohol misuse is related to over 60
medical conditions including heart and liver disease, diabetes, strokes
and mental health problems. The government approach has led to
increased consumption levels and alcohol-related problems and
demonstrates a failure in the political drive to improve public health
and order.
“Alcohol misuse not only costs lives it also costs the country
many millions of pounds. The NHS spends millions every year on treating
and dealing with alcohol problems and the criminal justice system also
spends similarly large amounts dealing with alcohol-related and
drink-driving offences. The BMA is very worried about alcohol consumption
among young people, particularly young girls. It is shocking that in
Europe, the UK’s teenagers are most likely to be heavy drinkers.”
Key recommendations from the report include (a full list can be found on page seven of the report):
Higher taxes on alcoholic drinks and this increase should be proportionate to the amount of alcohol in the product.
An end to irresponsible promotional activities like happy hours and two-for-one offers.
Standard labels should be displayed on all alcoholic products
that clearly state alcohol units, recommended guidelines for consumption
and a warning message advising that exceeding these guidelines may
cause the individual and others harm.
The legal limit for the level of alcohol permitted while
driving should be reduced from 80mg/100ml to 50mg/100 ml throughout the
UK.
Mass public awareness campaigns may be politically attractive
and increase knowledge about alcohol misuse but they are very expensive
and ultimately ineffective if unsupported by broad based policy, says
the BMA report. Targeted approaches are vital, including measures to
reduce alcohol availability and thus consumption by young people and
children.
BMA Chairman of Council, Dr Hamish Meldrum, said: “Our report
is making some tough recommendations but if the government is serious
about tackling this issue this is what is needed. Since 1997, taxes on
wine and beer in the UK have only increased in line with inflation while
taxes on spirits have not increased at all. There is strong and
consistent evidence that price increases result in reduced consumption
and that increased opening hours are associated with increased alcohol
consumption and alcohol related problems. The government needs to act on
this evidence.” The Licensing Act 2003 now permits 24-hour opening in
England and Wales and the BMA is dismayed that public health was not
considered as one of the licensing objectives in the Act.
While most people in the UK drink sensibly and do not put
their health at risk, there are significant numbers of men and women,
across all ages, who are drinking significantly above the recommended
guidelines. Although there has been a slight downward trend in recent
years, the UK is still one of the heaviest alcohol consuming countries
in Europe.
Alcohol consumption in the UK is not equally divided between
genders and ethnic groups. Men in the UK are more likely to drink
heavily compared to women although the upward trend of alcohol
consumption among young women between the ages of 16 and 24 is now the
highest in Europe. Only 9 per cent of the White British population are
non-drinkers compared to 90 per cent among those of Pakistani and
Bangladeshi origin or 48 per cent of those of Black African origin.
Preventing alcohol-related harm requires the accurate
identification of individuals who misuse alcohol, but there is currently
no system for routine screening and management of alcohol misuse in
primary or secondary care settings in the UK. The BMA report is calling
for a more comprehensive system to identify patients at risk of alcohol
misuse – this could be done via screening questionnaires when
individuals visit their GP, or attend for a general hospital appointment
or when they go to A&E. The report is also calling for new
ring-fenced funding for specialist alcohol treatment services so that
patients can be seen as soon as possible.
Dr Meldrum, who is also a family doctor in Yorkshire, believes
it is necessary that more is done to help people with alcohol problems:
“We need to identify patients who are misusing alcohol much earlier,
but it doesn’t end there. There must be enough funding in place to refer
patients who are at risk to specialist centres. As a GP it is
disheartening to refer someone who has an alcohol problem for help but
know that they’ll be waiting months to be seen by the appropriate
specialised agency. In that time not only does their health worsen but
the effects on their family and work life can be catastrophic.”
Top of pageGary Newlove - the true price of binge drinking?
The kicking
to death of father-of-three Gary Newlove in Warrington, Cheshire by a
gang of teenage boys led by Adam Swellings, gave a powerful further
prompt to the national debate on binge drinking and its link to crime
and anti-social behaviour, who is to blame and what should be done. The
teenagers were drunk on cheap, strong cider and high on cannabis at the
time of the murder.
Before the killers were sentenced, the Chief Constable of
Cheshire, Peter Fahy, spoke of a hard core of young men not in work,
education or training but characterised by poor or non-existent
parenting combined with ready access to cheap alcohol. He called for
schools and other local agencies to develop a joint strategy to target
this hard core. He wanted the parents concerned to be called to account,
and he also demanded action at national level – higher taxes on
alcohol, especially high strength lager and cider, for it to be made
easier for a whole town centre to be made an alcohol-free zone, and the
legal age for buying alcohol raised to 21.
However,
Cheshire Constabulary were themselves criticized for failing to take
action against the Swellings gang. One of their earlier victims,
ironically the teenage daughter of a Cheshire police officer, described
how she and her friends were threatened and attacked by Swellings on
several occasions. She said:
“I think the police should feel ashamed of themselves. They
could have prevented all of this. It’s so sad that someone has to lose
his life because people didn’t do anything about (Swellings) and his
gang. It’s taken someone to be murdered for them to sit up and do
something.”
Helen Newlove, Gary’s widow, condemned the magistrates for
releasing Adam Swellings from court on bail only hours before he and his
friends murdered her husband. Swellings had pleaded guilty to
assaulting another man who had complained about him and his friends
causing trouble around his house. The Crown Prosecution Service had
advised against releasing Swellings on the grounds that he had breached
previous bail conditions but the Warrington magistrates disregarded the
advice.
Mrs Newlove said:
“We knew he (Swellings) had previous convictions, but it was a
shock to hear he had been released that day. I’m absolutely disgusted.
These magistrates, it’s unbelievable. They let him out and walk the
streets…. He’s gone out, got drunk and taken drugs and my husband has
been left dead.”
In an unusual move, Cheshire police in the person of Gary
Finchett, then Acting Chief Superintendent for Warrington, wrote an open
letter to the people of the town via the local newspaper, the
Warrington Guardian, calling for the community to pull together to solve
the problems of anti-social behaviour. Mr Finchett explained that while
crimes such as the murder of Gary Newlove were rare and that the level
of crime and anti-social behaviour in Warrington was declining, as it
was in the whole of Cheshire, it was still too high. He wrote:
"No one can be anything but appalled by the tragic death of
Gary Newlove and the devastating impact that this has had on his family,
friends and the community of Warrington. The police have a vital role
in tackling the scourge of alcohol related crime and antisocial
behaviour in our society. However, crime and anti-social behaviour is
not the sole responsibility of the police and we cannot do this alone.
“The fact is that society, responsible authorities,
parents/carers and the licensing trade all need to do a lot more.
Alcohol and substance misuse, drinking in public, the absence of
parental control, a lack of responsible citizenship, the abdication of
responsibility by a small hard-core of young people and their
parents/carers and the ready availability of strong, cheap alcohol
sometimes purchased by adults for young people are significant
contributory factors to crime and antisocial behaviour in our
neighbourhoods.
“Society's promotion of an alcohol culture and a tendency to
find humour in drunkenness, along with outlets irresponsibly selling
cheap strong alcohol, and parents who condone such consumption lie at
the heart of this problem. Tackling this complex and deep-seated problem
cannot be the sole responsibility of the police. A modern and committed
society must see that we must address these issues together.
“My Neighbourhood Policing Units spend a huge amount of time
dealing with the impact of alcohol abuse, particularly the impact on
young people. Over Christmas and New Year every available police officer
and CSO in Warrington was allotted duties to tackle alcohol related
crime as well as underage drinking. If society wants the police to deal
with anti-social behaviour all of the time, it must ask itself what it
doesn't want us to do……. There is an alcohol culture in this country
which is not repeated in other countries where alcohol is enjoyed more
responsibly. The police and local authority are key stakeholders in the
debate around strong, cheap alcohol which is too readily available. We
are also jointly responsible with Trading Standards and other
responsible authorities for enforcing the licensing laws which is why,
despite a successful Pubwatch and Challenge 21 Scheme, we have
proactively targeted off-licenses and other licensed premises suspected
of directly or indirectly supplying alcohol to children. Alcohol misuse
by young people is a grave concern of mine. Warrington has one of the
highest admission rates to Accident and Emergency Departments of females
under 16 years for alcohol related illness in the Country. I have also
received a letter from a Consultant in Emergency Care expressing his
concern about seriously intoxicated underage drinkers. Responsible
members of the licensing trade are also working with us to tackle this
problem.

“Gary Newlove's death was fuelled by alcohol. We will continue
to lobby the licensing trade to stop cheap drinks promotions, to limit
the alcohol content of strong beer and to consider raising the legal
drinking age to 21. Ultimately, parents and young people must act
responsibly and respect the communities they live in.
“The high density of bars, pubs and clubs and fast food
outlets in Warrington Town Centre is a particular concern of mine. We
have the highest density of licensed premises outside Blackpool. Too
many of my resources are being dragged in from our neighbourhoods to
police the town centre at night. My officers are taking quick and
decisive action yet still being overrun by the spill-out of drunks from
licensed premises who offer no alternative to an environment which
encourages and facilitates drinking to excess, premises which offer
cheap booze deals just in order to stay competitive, and an environment
that speaks loudly to all who look in upon it as if to suggest that
there is nothing wrong with their behaviour.
“We are dealing with too many people who arrive in the town
centre late at night, often already having consumed cheap, strong
alcohol elsewhere, getting more and more intoxicated as the night
progresses, hanging around fast food outlets until the early hours of
the morning and then become either the victims or perpetrators of crimes
such as criminal damage and assault. We are committed to working with
Warrington Borough Council to address this issue once and for all. We
expect all other partners including the licensing trade to match our
commitment. Society needs moral integrity to set and police its own
values and standards to prevent such incidents occurring in the future.
Mr Newlove's tragic death was caused by the criminal actions of youths
who had consumed alcohol. It only took a few seconds of alcohol-fuelled
violence to destroy a life. The police cannot always be there in those
moments. It is a credit to my police officers and staff that the
offenders were arrested and brought to justice so swiftly.”
Top of pageAddiction as a mitigating factor
Alcohol and other forms of dependence may be regarded as mitigating
factors in sentencing people convicted of some criminal offences,
allowing burglars and thieves to escape the jail sentence they would
otherwise be given.
This is one of the proposals contained in a new consultation
exercise by the Sentencing Guidelines Council, which is chaired by Lord
Phillips, the Lord Chief Justice.
The consultation document discusses the question of how the
seriousness of offences should be assessed, and in considering
aggravating and mitigating factors the document states:
‘Many offenders convicted of acquisitive crimes are motivated
by an addiction, often to drugs, alcohol or gambling. This does not
mitigate the seriousness of the offence, but an offender’s dependency
may properly influence the type of sentence imposed. In particular, it
may sometimes be appropriate to impose a drug rehabilitation requirement
or an alcohol treatment requirement as part of a community order or a
suspended sentence order in an attempt to break the cycle of addiction
and offending, even if an immediate custodial sentence would otherwise
be warranted.’
The document also states that `the fact that an offence has
been committed in desperation or need arising from particular hardship’
may also count as personal mitigation in exceptional circumstances’.
Critics were quick to attack the proposal. The Conservatives
said the guidelines were an indication that the courts were being
pressed into issuing non-custodial sentences in order to keep offenders
out of overcrowded jails. Nick Herbert, the Shadow Justice Secretary,
said: "People will be uncomfortable with the idea that professional
thieves who prey on the vulnerable may only receive community service.
Punishments should fit the crime, not prison capacity."
Patrick Mercer, a Conservative member of the Home Affairs
Select Committee, said: "Whatever the background of the criminal they
should be made to serve the sentence. Rehabilitation can go on in
prison. I don't see why these are mitigating factors."
Sentencing Guidelines Council: Theft and Burglary
(Non-Dwelling) Consultation Guideline. March 2008. Responses to the
consultation should be received no later than 28 May 2008.
Top of pageAlcohol Harm Reduction Toolkit published
A guide to implementing alcohol harm reduction strategies at local
level has been published jointly by the Department of Health, the Home
Office and the Department of Children, Schools, and Families.
The toolkit is intended as a resource to help local teams
develop strategies to address alcohol-related crime, ill health and
other harm in line with Safe. Sensible. Social. The next steps in the
National Alcohol Strategy. It is written specifically to help alcohol
leads and others within local authorities, primary care trusts (PCTs),
children’s services and delivery partnerships such as Crime and Disorder
Reduction Partnerships (CDRPs) and Drug and Alcohol Action Teams
(DAATs) – the people most likely to be responsible for developing and
delivering alcohol strategies locally. It will also be useful to
individual agencies tackling alcohol misuse.
The toolkit is based on the Local Alcohol Strategy Toolkit
produced by London Drug and Alcohol Network and Alcohol Concern in 2004.
It provides a step-by-step process on how to develop a local alcohol
strategy, and suggests a range of activities to help with the three key
strategic areas of health, community safety and children and young
people.
The strategy is available on the Home Office website
Top of pageMore money for alcohol screening in Scotland
The Scottish Government has announced that funding for alcohol
screening, prevention and treatment services will more than double to
£25 million for the year 2008/2009. This compares to £10.13 million in
2007/08.
The package forms part of an additional £85 million funding
commitment to tackle alcohol misuse over the next three years. Minister
for Public Health Shona Robison said:
"The record funding I am announcing demonstrates the Scottish
Government's clear commitment to address Scotland's complex relationship
with alcohol. Far too many Scots are drinking above the recommended
amounts on a regular basis - often without realising that they are doing
so, and without understanding the impact it is having on their health.
Today's funding will ensure that people across Scotland have
access to advice and support about their drinking and to treatment
services where necessary.
But Scottish Government action does not stop there. We are
currently developing a long term strategic approach to tackling alcohol
misuse. We plan to publish our proposals for action before the summer."
NHS BOARD FUNDING ALLOCATION
Ayrshire & Arran - £1,775,085
Borders - £700,915
Dumfries & Galloway - £897,971
Fife - £1,636,844
Forth Valley - £1,275,324
Grampian - £2,014,386
Greater Glasgow - £6,325,293
Highland - £1,496,320
Lanarkshire - £2,455,698
Lothian - £3,401,218
Orkney - £333,164
Shetland - £345,022
Tayside - £1,816,885
Western Isles - £390,621
Top of pageYoung people at risk from energy drinks
Young people who mix energy drinks with alcohol are twice as likely
to end up harmed than those who just drink alcohol, a study has found.
US researchers surveyed over 4,000 students about their drinking habits
and found that people who drank energy drink cocktails were more likely
to suffer injuries, require medical help or get into problems related to
sex. The researchers concluded it was because the energy drinks masked
feelings of drunkenness. Energy drinks typically contain high levels of
caffeine as well as other stimulants such as ginseng. It has become
popular among young people to mix them with alcohol, particularly vodka.
Independently of this study, there was already concern and
controversy in the US about prepackaged energy alcohol mixes, critics
arguing that not only were there particular health issues attached to
them but also that the appearance and packaging of the drinks appeal to
the under-aged as well as adding to the confusion as to which drinks are
alcoholic and which not.
The new study, presented at an annual meeting of the American
Public Health Association, found that a quarter of those who had drunk
alcohol in the previous 30 days had consumed energy drink cocktails.
Compared with students who did not mix alcohol with energy drinks, they
were twice as likely to be hurt or injured, to require medical
attention, and to travel with a drinking driver. They were also more
than twice as likely to take sexual advantage of someone else, and had
almost double the risk of being taken advantage of sexually. In a
typical drinking session, they drank up to 36% more than the other
students, and they also reported twice as many episodes of weekly
drunkenness.
'Serious consequences'
Lead researcher Dr Mary Claire O'Brien said: "We were surprised
that the risk of serious and potentially deadly consequences is so much
higher for those who mixed energy drinks with alcohol." She said the
problem was that students did not realise they were as drunk as they
were when they mixed alcohol and energy drinks.
"Students whose motor skills, visual reaction times, and
judgment are impaired by alcohol may not perceive that they are
intoxicated as readily when they're also ingesting a stimulant. Only the
symptoms of drunkenness are reduced - but not the drunkenness. They
can't tell if they're drunk, they can't tell if someone else is drunk.
"So they get hurt, or they hurt someone else."
Pre-packaged EnergyAlcohol Drinks
In the US, public health and safety officials were already
campaigning against pre-packaged alcoholic energy drinks containing
caffeine and other stimulants as well as alcohol. In 2007, 29 State
Attorneys General signed a letter to Anheuser-Busch expressing their
concern about Spykes, an alcoholic energy drink packaged in colourful 2-
ounce bottles which, they said, had obvious appeal to youth. The
objections of law enforcement officials as well as parents and leading
public health organizations caused Anheuser-Busch to withdraw Spykes
from the shelves but many other alcoholic energy drinks remain on the
market.
In the US, The Marin Institute produced a report `Alcohol,
Energy Drinks, and Youth: A Dangerous Mix’. The report reviews the
limited amount of evidence available about the health issues connected
with alcohol energy mixes and examines the alcohol industry’s marketing
practices promoting the consumption of alcoholic energy drinks. The
Marin Institute says that the results, while preliminary, are
unsettling.
Top of pageNew report focuses on teenage drinking
A detailed picture of teenage drinking in the North West of England
is provided by a survey carried out by the Centre for Public Health at
John Moores University. The survey found that while there was a small
decrease in the number of 15 and 16 year olds who drank alcohol compared
with 2005, among drinkers there was an increase in the percentage
drinking in public places (e.g. bars, parks) and in the frequency of
consumption.
The research team calculated that of the 189,731 15 and 16
year olds in the North West, around 56,900 (30.0%) binge drink at least
weekly (i.e. drink five or more drinks in one session).
For the first time, estimates of total alcohol consumption by
15 and 16 year olds in the North West were made. The researchers
calculated that 65.9% of 15 and 16 year olds in the region drink at
least monthly and that their total annual consumption was 83,943,726
units. This is equivalent to 44.2 bottles of wine (177.0 pints of beer)
per year for every 15 and 16 year old in the region, or 67.2 bottles of
wine (268.7 pints of beer) per year for each 15 and 16 year old that
drinks at least once a month.
Other main findings were:
Substantial levels of binge drinking, frequent drinking and
drinking in public places were seen in all demographics. However, binge
drinking in particular was more frequent amongst those living in more
deprived areas (31.1% of drinkers binged rank at least once a week in
the most affluent areas compared to 39.1% in the least affluent
[quintiles]).
Among drinkers, 34.1% stated that they bought their own
alcohol. These individuals were more likely to engage in a risky
drinking behaviour (e.g. three times more likely to binge drink once or
more a week).
Consistent with findings in 2005, those who had alcohol
provided to them by parents (48.5% of drinkers) were 1.64 times less
likely to binge drink each week and 1.28 times less likely to drink in
public places.
Having a hobby or being involved in sports was protective
against most risky drinking behaviours with, for instance, those having a
hobby or sports pastime being 1.59 times less likely to binge drink.
Among those that drank once a week or more, 39.7% of females
and 42.0% of males had been involved in violence following alcohol use.
Those from the two poorest deprivation quintiles of residence were
around 50% more likely to have been involved in alcohol-related violence
than those in the most affluent quintile.
Engaging in binge drinking, drinking more frequently, and
drinking greater amounts of alcohol each week, were also associated with
alcohol-related violence.Thus, those binge drinking three or more times
per week were over five times more likely to have been involved in
alcohol-related violence (than those who drank each week but did not
binge drink).
Among those that drank once a week or more, 20.7% of females
and 15.4% of males reported regretted sex following alcohol. Females;
those aged 16; those binge drinking more frequently; and those drinking
at greater volumes per week were more likely to have had regretted sex
following alcohol consumption. For instance, those drinking over 40
units per week were two and a half times more likely to have had sex
they later regretted following alcohol (than those who drank each week
but consumed up to five units per week).
Heavy drinking patterns were associated with higher levels of
smoking. While only 2.1% of those that drink at least once a week but
never binge drink smoked more than five cigarettes per day, this rises
to 47.7% amongst those that binge drink three or more times per week.
Risky drinking in North West school children and its consequences: A study of fifteen and sixteen year olds
Sara Hughes, Mark A. Bellis, Karen Hughes, Karen Tocque, Michela Morleo, Matt Hennessey, Linda Smallthwaite
Centre for Public Health. Liverpool
Top of pageUnfinished business - an evaluation of the Licensing Act 2003
New licensing laws came into operation in England and Wales in
November 2005, opening the way for 24 hour drinking. Two years on, the
Government published its assessment of how the legislation is working.
Here, Marion Roberts gives her own assessment.
Wednesday 5th March 2008 saw the publication of the first Government review of the impact of the Licensing Act 20031.
The early morning news reports highlighted a ‘mark’ of 7/10, apparently
produced by the Department of Culture, Media and Sport, for the
‘success’ of the Act2. This somewhat triumphal assessment had
been upstaged the night before by a statement from Sir Simon Milton,
Chairman of the Local Government Association and leader of Westminster
City Council, who dubbed the Act a ‘catastrophic’ mistake that had
‘failed miserably’ to change Britain’s drinking culture3. The media debate was therefore effectively framed in simplistic terms: modest success versus catastrophic failure.
When the Ministerial statement and the report that prompted it
were made available a more balanced and mixed picture emerged. The DCMS
evaluation, as would be expected from contemporary government,
relentlessly emphasised the positive. No, 24 hour drinking was not the
norm, licensing hours for on-licensed premises had increased by only 21
minutes on average and overall alcohol consumption had decreased rather
than increased. Crimes involving violence had not increased in the
evening and the night. Somewhat refreshingly the ministerial statement
went on to report the negatives, highlighting the finding that alcohol
related crime had increased between the hours of 3 am and 6 am and some
locations had seen an overall increase in disorder. Drinking cultures
had not changed on the one hand, but on the other, there had been no
significant detrimental impact on live music performances. The media
debate that followed focused on the issues of binge drinking, underage
drinkers and pricing controls. The Government argued that the Licensing
Act 2003 was only the beginning and that further action would be taken
through tougher enforcement against licensees, shopkeepers and
disorderly drinkers, better management of venues and town centres and
voluntary agreements with the industry.
Although the debate was more reasoned than that surrounding
the implementation of the Act two years earlier, some key observations
were not made and several questions were left unanswered. To begin with,
the evaluation of the crime statistics was judged against forecasts of
steep rises in crime made by Chief Police Officers in January 2005 and
reported in the Daily Mail’s ‘campaign’ against the Act. A more
reasonable evaluation would have taken the original rationale for
removing permitted hours proposed by the Better Regulation Taskforce
report4 that preceded the White Paper5. This
argued that doing away with permitted hours would in itself reduce crime
and disorder and promote a more ‘relaxed drinking style’. Quite clearly
this has not happened, for the very reasons that critics of the
Licensing Bill made at the time: that in the 1990s venue sizes became
larger and concentrations of licensed premises increased. The complaints
made by the police then, that their resources would be stretched
further into the night, were reiterated in ACPO’s response to the
Evaluation report.
Evaluation of the Act suffered because, as with most ‘before’
and ‘after’ investigations of urban situations, precise impacts are
difficult to isolate. Not only are changes made in anticipation of
legislation, but other external influences, such as policing, change
simultaneously. It is therefore not surprising that the legislation
appears to have had little impact on behaviour or practices.
At the time of the Act’s implementation much was made of local
residents’ potential for representation in licensing hearings. As Phil
Hadfield pointed out in his excellent account of the Bill’s passage
through Parliament, this was somewhat disingenuous given that the first
draft of the Licensing Bill had effectively excluded residents from
having influence and concessions were wrung out of the Government as the
Guidance to the Act went through successive iterations6. The
Evaluation quite properly points to the successes for residents and
councillors in the transfer of responsibility to local authorities, but
does not fully consider the problems that residents still have to face
with regard to appeals and reviews. The burden that is placed on local
residents and councillors to monitor applications requires a constant
vigilance that may be beyond the means of some localities.
The concept of designating cumulative impact zones or ‘special
policy areas’ was reluctantly conceded as the Bill passed into law.
Attempts by the ODPM Select Committee to agree a further clause that
would allow local authorities to set guidelines for an upper limit of
licensed premises in any one locality were rejected on the grounds of
restricting trade7. It is somewhat ironic then to see that
the Ministerial statement now suggests local authorities and the police
should identify ‘hotspots’, exercise more caution and conditions when
issuing licenses in those areas and even allow the ‘wholesale
withdrawal’ of licenses.
The reform of licensing law opened up an opportunity to
simplify and streamline legislation, but if a more radical approach had
been adopted, some genuine ‘joined up’ thinking could have been
produced. The two systems, licensing and planning, were separate, even
though planning legislation can impose conditions on premises’ hours and
operation. A thorough reform of licensing legislation could have
combined the two systems through one process for certain types of
license application, thereby permitting a more holistic approach to
forward planning and fulfilling the early objectives spelt out in ‘Time
for Reform’, namely to make the centres of our towns and cities more
pleasant. As it is, our own research at the University of Westminster8 found that in certain boroughs, wily lawyers were finding ways of playing off planning and licensing to achieve later hours.
There are more problems that are coming to light. One of the
most pressing is that rather than encouraging ‘family friendly’ venues,
the Act has unwittingly permitted an expansion in the numbers of
lapdancing or ‘gentlemans’ clubs. Unwanted expansion has been reported
in Brighton, Tower Hamlets and Durham. A campaign, ‘Object’ has been set
up in opposition9, with action research funded by the Joseph
Rowntree Reform Trust. It is to be hoped that Government will soon take
action to rectify this situation.
So, was the Licensing Act 2003 a modest success or a
catastrophic failure? Perhaps the verdict of history will be neither of
these, but more of a lost opportunity for more profound and genuinely
radical reform.
References:
1 DCMS (2008) Evaluation of the Impact of the Licensing Act 2003 [http://www.culture.gov.uk/Reference_library/Publications/
archive_2008/ evaluation_licensing_act_impact.htm]
2 www.politics.co.uk/issueoftheday/opinion-formerindex/ communities-and-local-government/24-hourdrinking-$ 1209319$1209319.htm
3 Winnett, R. Council Leaders attack 24-hour drinking laws The Daily Telegraph,4th March 2008. [www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/ 2008/03/03/nbooze103.xml]
4 Cabinet Office (1998) Better Regulation Taskforce: Licensing Regulation London: The Cabinet Office
5 Department for Culture Media and Sport (2001) Time for
Reform: Proposals for the modernisation of our licensing laws (White
Paper) CM4696.
6 Hadfield, P. (2006) Bar Wars: Contesting the Night in Contemporary British Cities Oxford, Oxford University Press.
7 House of Commons (2003) Government Response to the
Committee's Sixth Report on the Licensing Bill (Lords) and the Evening
Economy, (Ed, ODPM: Housing, P., Local Government and the Regions
Committee) The Stationery Office, London.
8 Roberts, M. & Eldridge A. (2007) Expecting 'Great
Things'? The Impact of the Licensing Act 2003 on Democratic Involvement,
Dispersal and Drinking Cultures,University of Westminster [www.ias.org.uk/ resources/ukreports/cci/cci-0707.pdf]
9 For further information please contact Sandrine Levêque at sandrine@object.org.uk
Professor Marion Roberts is the Director of the Central Cities Institute at the University of Westminster
Top of pageLicensing Act 2003 - facts and figures
Most popular closing times
Across all types of premises, there was little change in
closing times, though there was some movement towards later closing
times. Tables show the percentage of premises with each of the most
popular closing times, before and after the Act came into force.
Pubs, registered social clubs and hotels all still have a majority closing at 11pm.
Premises |
|
11 pm
|
midnight
|
Pubs |
Before |
88%
|
4%
|
|
After |
63%
|
7%
|
Social clubs |
Before |
87%
|
2%
|
|
After |
77%
|
10%
|
Hotels |
Before |
68%
|
15%
|
|
After |
56%
|
23%
|
Restaurants have a range of closing times from 10 pm to midnight
Restaurants |
10pm
|
10.30pm
|
11pm
|
11.30pm
|
midnight
|
Before |
8%
|
9%
|
44%
|
9%
|
15%
|
After |
6%
|
8%
|
41%
|
14%
|
18%
|
Bars have a wide range of later closing times.
Bars |
11pm
|
Midnight
|
1am
|
2am
|
Before |
55%
|
12%
|
9%
|
9%
|
After |
42%
|
18%
|
13%
|
12%
|
Nightclubs’ closing times range from 2am to 4pm
Nightclubs |
2am
|
3am
|
4am
|
Before |
56%
|
22%
|
4%
|
After |
44%
|
30%
|
8%
|
Data compiled by CGA Strategy for DCMS. Based on 9,894
registered/social clubs, 3,383 hotels, 21,929 pubs and bars, 8,375
restaurants and 1,182 nightclubs for which information was available
about typical closing times before and after the introduction of the
Act.
Recorded crime
A survey of 30 police forces found a reduction in violent
crime during the day, and an increase between 3 am and 6 am. Overall,
there was no increase in violent crime (1% decrease).
Time |
Dec 04 - Nov 05 |
Dec 05 -Nov 06 |
Absolute Difference |
% difference |
6am-5.59pm |
534413
|
516469
|
-17944
|
-3
|
6pm-8.59pm |
323407
|
319899
|
-3508
|
-1
|
9pm-11.59pm |
323369
|
319846
|
-3523
|
-1
|
12am-2.59am |
239382
|
242999
|
3617
|
2
|
3am-5.59am |
47543
|
57778
|
10235
|
22
|
Not known |
12613
|
9609
|
-3004
|
-24
|
Total |
1480727
|
1466600
|
-14127
|
-1
|
Hospital data
A survey of 33 Accident and Emergency departments found a 2%
decrease in the number of patients seeking treatment for violence
related injuries in 2006, compared with 2005. There was no record of
alcohol consumed by either the assailant or the victim. Data were
compiled by the Cardiff University Violence Research Group. A question
asked in Parliament elicited the total number of A&E admissions in
England for the years 2002 to 2006 in which the patient had an
alcohol-related diagnosis, whether or not this was the main reason for
admission. These figures showed an increase of 8% from 2005/06 to
2006/07. This was a smaller increase than the previous years, each of
which showed a 17-19% increase.
Year |
No. of Admissions |
% increase |
2002-03 |
91325
|
|
2003-04 |
108034
|
18%
|
2004-05 |
128342
|
19%
|
2005-06 |
149865
|
17%
|
2006-07 |
162080
|
8%
|
All alcohol-related diagnoses were counted, including liver
disease. This increased by 10% in 2006/07, and by 14% in each of the
four previous years. Given this general rise in alcohol-related
diseases, is perhaps unsurprising that those attending A&E, possibly
for unrelated injuries, would also show a rise in alcoholrelated
diagnoses.
Data supplied to the Institute of Alcohol Studies show that
the total number of hospital consultant episodes (which may be more than
admissions, if one patient saw two or more consultants) in which the
patient was diagnosed with acute intoxication increased by 7% in
2005/06. In each of the previous three years this figure had increased
by more than 20%.
Year |
No. of consultations |
% increase |
2002-03 |
2489
|
|
2003-04 |
31219
|
25%
|
2004-05 |
38239
|
22%
|
2005-06 |
46126
|
21%
|
2006-07 |
49325
|
7%
|
Data were supplied by the NHS Information Centre for health
and social care. These figures are for all diagnoses of alcohol
intoxication, whether or not this was the main reason for needing
treatment. They include figures from A&E as well as other hospital
departments.
Top of pageNew Welsh Substance Misuse Strategy puts new emphasis on dealing with alcohol misuse
In January 2008 the Welsh Assembly Government launched its substance
misuse Strategy for Wales 2008 - 2018. Here it is reviewed by Aneurin
Owen.
Brian Gibbons AM, Minister for Social Justice and Local
Government, in his foreword to the Strategy states: “I believe that we
must redouble our efforts to tackle alcohol misuse. Most of us drink
sensibly (though we also drink more than we think we do), but a
substantial minority drink too much, too often, and blight the streets
of our towns and cities through alcohol related crime and disorder and
damage their own long term health in the process.” This is a familiar
mantra, and not surprising since the implementation of the Strategy will
be through partnership working at Community Safety Partnership level.
Alcohol policy, health and social issues will need to continue to
compete for agenda time and a fair share of resources at the
commissioning tables of the CSPs. But there is at least recognition at
Strategic and Ministerial level of the need to intensify responses to
alcohol misuse.
Since the introduction of a joint substance misuse strategy in
the mid-1980s alcohol issues have not always commanded centre stage in
Wales and the overall emphasis has been on reducing crime and increasing
harm reduction services in the drugs field. This new ten year Strategy
“Working Together to Reduce Harm” now places alcohol firmly in the arena
of harm reduction with all its incumbent benefits and pitfalls.
The Strategy is written in the belief that “there are
distinctive issues to be considered in relation to alcohol misuse and a
clear consensus exists for our Strategy to focus on tackling the
problems caused by inappropriate or risky consumption of alcohol”. A
specific alcohol plan (again a new feature within the Strategy) will
focus effort on those who cause damage or problems for the wider
community “but who may not need specialist treatment for addiction.”
(Executive Summary p.1) For those who do require support and treatment,
the Strategy outlines proposals for the expansion of services in an
attempt to “do more to engage and help priority groups.” (p 3) There is a
welcomed emphasis here on more investment in youth and other outreach
services, on whole system approaches to the provision of services to
children and on wraparound services – housing, education, training and
employment.
Action Area 3 focuses on the need to support families by
reducing the risk of harm to children and adults that is a consequence
of a parent’s, a partner’s or a child’s substance misuse. An estimated
17,500 children and young people in Wales are living in families
affected by drug misuse and “64,000 Welsh children may be adversely
affected by parental alcohol problems.” (p 35)
The Welsh Assembly Government is to consult on a Strategy for
Vulnerable Children in 2008 with the proposed Legislative Competency
Order for Vulnerable Children and Child Poverty enabling the
introduction of legislation in relation to the welfare of children and
young people. Based on the experience of several imaginative and
coordinated interventions, and on a growing evidence base, there is a
stated objective to “develop an integrated family support tool to assist
local authorities and their partners” and to increase support for young
carers, parents and adult carers. There is also a commitment to
producing a “module of the Substance Misuse Treatment Framework which
sets out good practice in joint working where there is domestic abuse
and coexisting substance misuse.” (p 39)
On the broader issue of tackling availability and protecting
individuals and communities via enforcement activity, the Strategy
recognises that “access to” the supply of alcohol has been increased
through changes to the licensing legislation and a fall in the relative
price of alcohol.” (p 41)
Under the heading ‘Tackling Alcohol Related Crime and
Disorder’ (pages 42 – 44) the Strategy outlines actions to be taken to
control the supply, sale and consumption of alcohol. This section
recognizes the limitation of working within legislation (Licensing Act
2003) that is not devolved to the Welsh Assembly Government and concern
is raised that “partners are not yet making best use of the Licensing
Act and Violent Crime Reduction Act to reduce harms to individuals and
communities from excessive drinking.” (p 42) Greater collaboration
between CSPs and NHS Trusts should ensure that “traders who persistently
sell or supply alcohol to children” and individuals “who drink
irresponsibly and become involved in crime and anti-social behaviour”
are tackled using the full force of current powers and legislation.
Holistic approaches to the management of towns and cities, including the
management of the evening and night-time economy, requires partnerships
to work on the wider use of Proof of Age card schemes and on tackling
rogue retailers, licensing, underage drinking, transport, CCTV and other
environmental issues. “Reducing alcohol related injuries and the
resultant pressure on the health service should be a key objective.” (p
44)
In another new departure from previous Strategies, the new
Strategy contains specific references to the areas in which the Welsh
Assembly Government will seek working co-operation with the UK
Government, retailers and the alcohol industry in order to “tackle the
inappropriate availability of alcohol.”(p 45)
The Welsh Assembly Government will “press the case for:
- Stricter rules on the promotion of alcohol
- Consideration of reducing demand by increasing the price by greater taxation
- An increase in taxation on cider
- A reduction of the drink drive limit and better enforcement of the limit through random testing for both alcohol and drugs
- Inclusion of “safeguarding public health” as a statutory objective of the Licensing Act
- Strengthening the Code of Conduct for the alcohol industry
- Ensuring the availability and better promotion of low strength alcoholic drinks and low priced soft drinks
We will also consider whether there is support for exploring
opportunities under the Government of Wales Act 2006 to strengthen the
hand of licensing authorities in Wales in tackling these and related
issues and for establishing a working group involving the licensed trade
in Wales.” (p 43) Increases in direct resources to deliver this
strategy are planned - a further £9.6 m to the Substance Misuse Action
Revenue Fund, and £3 m over the period 2008/9 to 2010/11 specifically
for the delivery of the alcohol action plan. The ringfenced allocation
to LHBs will be increased to £10.9 million for 2008-9. Other funding
streams such as those from the Home Office and Ministry of Justice, the
European Union Convergence Fund, Rural Development Programme and Lottery
Funding will support the delivery of the Strategy.
The delivery of the Substance Misuse Strategy for Wales 2008 -
2018 with its four priority action areas (prevention, support for
substance misusers, support for families, tackling availability and
protecting individuals and communities) will require the involvement of a
range of policy areas within the Welsh Assembly Government and a
variety of devolved and non-devolved agencies and service sectors. A
commitment is made to the establishment of a National Substance Misuse
Strategy Implementation Board made up of key stakeholders and
representatives to oversee set indicators. (Annex 3) This is an
important and new development that will provide stability over the
medium to long term as local delivery mechanisms change.
The Substance Misuse Strategy for Wales 2008 - 2018 sets out a
clear harm reduction course for Wales for the next ten years with firm
commitments, new delivery structures and a new focus on alcohol. It is
sufficiently broad to allow for the possibility of greater co-ordination
across policy areas and service sectors. It specifies actions to be
taken to tackle the inappropriate availability of alcohol and to provide
support for at risk groups, families and communities. As the Strategy
evolves it will be interesting to note the impact or otherwise of these
ambitious plans and calls for action within Wales and on the UK
Government. Harm reduction approaches need also to be supported by
actions that take into account the evidence base for total population
approaches and the sensitization of professionals, decision makers and to
alcohol policy issues would also keep Wales in tandem with other
national and European policies.
Top of page