• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to footer

Institute of Alcohol Studies HomepageInstitute of Alcohol Studies

Bringing together evidence, policy and practice to reduce alcohol harm

  • Home
  • About us
    • People
    • Our strategy
    • Small Grants Scheme
    • Networks
    • Vacancies
    • Contact us
  • Publications
  • Explore by Topic
    • Alcohol across society
    • Availability
    • Consumption
    • Economy
    • Health
    • Marketing
    • Price
    • The alcohol industry
    • Transport
    • Violence and crime
    • Help and support
  • News & Comment
    • Latest news and events
    • Blog
    • Alcohol Alert
    • Podcasts
    • Videos
    • See all
  • Search

IAS analysis of responses to the Home Office Consultation on minimum pricing

View this report

view

In its analysis of submissions to the Alcohol Strategy Consultation, the Home Office stated that the majority of respondents opposed the policy proposal to introduce a 45 pence minimum price per unit of alcohol (MUP). However, this conclusion failed to distinguish between those responses that were against the principle of introducing a minimum unit price at any level and those that wanted a minimum unit price higher than the one proposed by the government (45p per unit).

IAS has conducted an independent analysis of the consultation responses published online by the Home Office in order to investigate the levels of support for MUP at 45p and above.

Results of IAS analysis found:

  • Many respondents who were noted by the Home Office as against a 45p per unit minimum price were actually in favour of a higher minimum price of at least 50p per unit
  • When accounting for this discrepancy, the proportion of respondents for and against the measure was split fairly evenly (45%:46% respectively), contrary to the Home Office figures (34%:56%)
  • Thousands of responses from members of the public collected by Balance North East expressing support for a 50p minimum unit price were omitted from the published responses and Home Office calculations, whilst other submissions from individuals appear to have been accepted.
  • A lack of clarity about the purpose of the consultation; whether it was designed to seek views on the level or the principle of MUP and it is unclear what role the consultation responses played in the decision-making process to delay the introduction of MUP.

View this report

view

Footer

IAS is proud to be a member of

  • Twitter
  • Bluesky
  • Spotify
  • YouTube
  • LinkedIn

Contact us

©2025 Institute of Alcohol Studies

Terms and Conditions | Privacy Policy

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you continue to use this site we will assume that you are happy with it.Ok