Morning:
8°c
Ministers retreat from minimum price plan for alcohol
16 Mar 2009Demands for minimum prices to be imposed on alcohol will be backed by the Government's chief medical officer today - but ministers are already retreating from the idea.
Sir Liam Donaldson is expected to recommend that shops be required to charge at least 50p per unit for drinks.
The plan, which is backed by health professionals but opposed by drink manufacturers, could double the cost of some beverages sold as "loss leaders" by supermarkets.
But the Department of Health indicated there was little prospect of the proposal being adopted while households were being squeezed by the recession.
Cabinet minister James Purnell went further yesterday, insisting the Government would not "punish the responsible majority", as he said this policy would do.
If adopted, the plan could see a can of beer costing at least £1 and bottles of wine a minimum £4, depending on strength.
It is set to be outlined today in Sir Liam's annual report on the state of the nation's health amid continued concern about the effects of heavy drinking.
Nuffield, the UK's leading health charity, backed the proposal, saying increasing prices was the most effective way of cutting consumption.
Labour MP Kevin Barron, chairman of the Commons Health Committee, said the idea at least deserved consideration even if it proved unpopular with voters.
His committee was going to study the proposal as part of an inquiry it is undertaking over the next few months.
Drink-related illnesses cost the NHS £3 billion a year, while the total expense to the taxpayer of alcohol misuse is thought to be £25 billion a year.
But there is also furious opposition to the idea from those who argue that responsible drinkers would be punished for the misbehaviour of a few.
David Poley, the chief executive of the Portman Group, set up by drinks manufacturers to promote sensible drinking, said: "This would hit the pockets of hard-working families who are already struggling to make ends meet, and it would not deter those people who drink to get drunk."
Jeremy Beadles, chief executive of the Wine and Spirit Trade Association, which represents wine and spirits producers and wholesalers, said: "It is worrying that in the midst of a recession when sales and consumption of alcohol are falling that the Government should be talking about raising prices for all consumers at a time when many are already struggling to make ends meet."
Shadow health secretary Andrew Lansley also warned against penalising the majority of responsible drinkers.
"There is clearly a need for action," he said. "But it is very important to recognise that to deal with this problem we need to deal with people's attitudes and not just the supply and price of alcohol."
But Mr Purnell, the Work and Pensions Secretary, said today the Government would not punish the responsible majority of drinkers.
"We want to focus on the irresponsible minority rather than I think punishing everyone equally," he told BBC1's The Politics Show.
"Clearly we will look at Liam Donaldson's proposals, he's a very eminent person in his field.
"But we are very clear we don't want to punish the majority for the sins of the minority. I think certainly at a time of economic difficulty that looks like it would be the effect.
"We need to look at the proposals but we are saying we have no intention of going ahead with something that would punish the responsible majority."
A Department of Health spokeswoman made clear there was no prospect of the proposal being immediately endorsed.
"Any decisions we make will take into account their wider economic impact during this difficult time," she said.
Plans to introduce minimum prices for alcohol were announced by the Scottish government earlier this month and could come into force by the end of the year.
It would make Scotland the first country in Europe to introduce minimum pricing, which would be accompanied by a ban on certain drinks promotions.
Reader views (11)
Sweden and Finland have a massive problem with drink, and prices there are far, far higher than here.
- Paul, London, 16/03/2009 15:26
Report abuse
The problem with this policy is that it is likely just to reopen the floodgates of "bootleg" booze brought over from the Continent and resold illegally in corner shops and car boot sales. The Exchequer will be poorer, more pubs will close, but the problems of excessive drinking will be as prevalent as ever.
- Tim, London, 16/03/2009 10:13
Report abuse
Dont want another high profile tax before an election?
- Dave Davies, Basingstoke, Hants, 16/03/2009 10:01
Report abuse
It is not the thought of the injustice of punishing the majority for the folly of the few that has frightened NuLiebour's control freaks away from this issue; it is the fact that booze and junk food are the staple diet of their core vote.
- Keith Lonsdale, Doncaster, 16/03/2009 09:39
Report abuse
Why does Sir Liam think that any taxes raised will go towards the treatment of those who need it? Reality check time, I am afraid.
- Tiggr, London, 16/03/2009 09:37
Report abuse
It's a hair-brained idea. Firstly, in England it will just result in more cash flowing overseas as shoppers and smugglers go to France to buy more and more cheap booze. Secondly, people will just brew at home again and probably end up drinking even more (and even stronger) stuff.
Education is the only way forward. Control never works.
- Thomas, London, 16/03/2009 09:31
Report abuse
Why not go the whole hog and bring back ration books for drink.
- Shallotman, Basildon, 16/03/2009 09:30
Report abuse
The government was just testing public opinion to see if this latest tax raising initiative would get a thumbs up from the public. Sorry Gordon, looks like you will have to go back to more "green tax" stealth.
- John, hornchurch essex, 16/03/2009 09:24
Report abuse
It really does make sense from a health perspective, but, as usual, the nanny state has got it all wrong. The population does not want, nor need, the Labour government continually chipping away at civil liberties.
A suggestion, why don't they concentrate on more pressing matters like immigration, violence on the streets, etc.
NOTE: "Concentrate" does not mean offending our ears (or minds) with a steady stream of insincere sound-bite platitudes. Is our government really incapable of action on critical matters? It really does seem so.
- Peter M, London, UK, 16/03/2009 09:23
Report abuse
As usual when this Government is not being incompetent it acts in a cowardly manner as it backs away from what it sees as the 'court of public opinion'. Whatever happened to leadership?
The alcohol most severely affected by this proposal would be what I call industrial drinks, lacking in any quality, manufactured purely to assist those who want to achieve intoxication. The cost to society and the taxpayer is enormous, in terms of deaths, hospital admissions, policing and lost working time. Never mind the misery caused. Why does the Government not put a price on this rather than back away from their responsibilities?
As for not punishing the sensible majority, this is hollow deceitful rubbish. Apart from the cost to the taxpayer of excessive drinking, the usual method of slapping an across the board duty increase will still be employed, meaning that the majority still pays. Probably extra this year when the VAT is put back up as duty replaced the cuts last December. In addition, this method of taxing alcohol means that the burden lies more heavily on the pub trade. Which is struggling to compete with cut price supermarket offers. Latest figures suggest that 39 pubs are closing every week. Tens of thousands of jobs lost, who pays for that? Pub company Wetherspoons, who have high food sales, say that over 40% of the money received at the till goes back to the Government in taxes. Try and replace that elsewhere.
Let's make this debate more honest.
- Harry H, London UK, 16/03/2009 09:16
Report abuse
If you go back a few years you will find that Gordon Brown had a similar proposal in his budget, he proposed to tax spirits at a rate proportional to alcohol content. This would have wrecked the highly profitable Scottish Single Cask Whisky market as no two casks have the same alcohol content in the whisky.
Had he introduced a modified version of this tax across the board we would have seen an increase in the price of beer, cider and wines and a level playing field for the drinks industry in the UK. Today we would not have had the ridiculous situation where a large bottle of super strength cider selling for a couple of pounds contains more alcohol than a bottle of cheap vodka at three times the price.
- John J, Edinburgh, Scotland, 16/03/2009 09:08
Report abuse
