August 2012 |
drinkanddrugsnews
| 23
Soapbox |
Mev Brown
www.drinkanddrugsnews.com
Soapbox
DDN’s monthly column
offering a platform for
a range of diverse views.
MINIMUM
PRICING – AT
WHAT COST?
Politicians are getting it wrong on
alcohol strategy, says Mev Brown
MINIMUM PRICING IS IN THE NEWS AT THE MOMENT, particularly in Scotland where, if
things go according to the Scottish Government’s plans, it will take effect next year.
Alcohol abuse costs Scotland an estimated £3.6bn annually, so it’s hardly surprising that
there have been calls for years that ‘something must be done’. It would seem that minimum
pricing is seen as that ‘something’ and Westminster seems keen to follow.
It's at times like this when my frustration with the political process becomes tangible.
Two points come to mind. Firstly, that nobody has undertaken a risk assessment of
minimum pricing. Secondly, that anybody with any real life experience would ever consider
this policy. Nobody is more committed to tackling alcohol abuse than I am. Ten years ago I
started working with Edinburgh’s homeless. For somebody with no previous ‘frontline’
experience of homelessness, family breakdown, social dysfunction, mental health, alcohol
abuse and drug addiction, it was an eye-opening experience. It wasn't too long before I
realised that, despite the best efforts of politicians, there were flaws in the system. Indeed,
sometimes there was a complete absence of policy.
In 2004 I started writing in the
Evening News
, sharing my experiences with readers. My
work also provided the opportunity to talk to colleagues in other agencies and professions,
including the police and NHS. This is why the Frontline Policy website was set up. Many
frontline professionals are as frustrated with failures in policy as I am, so our independent,
social media/web-based think tank provides a platform for frontline professionals, past and
present, to tweet, blog and write about policy and to meet, discuss and engage with
politicians in the policy debate.
I think part of the difficulty for politicians is that all they see are the glossy reports and
the statistics. They don't have a ‘street-level perspective’. As frontline professionals, we can
put names to the faces. That was why I started to write my
Evening News
articles. It was my
way of expressing my frustration at the system.
In general, we believe there are four main reasons for policy failure. Firstly, the proverbial
and yet inevitable ‘loophole’; secondly, the so-called ‘law of unintended consequences’;
thirdly, that policy can be based on flawed, incomplete or ‘cherry-picked’ evidence; and
fourthly, ‘blinkered vision’, where policymakers simply don’t see the big picture.
In the first three cases, frontline professionals can make an invaluable contribution to the
policy debate because, by definition, we are much closer to the public. We have a much
greater understanding of how people and our society works. In the case of ‘blinkered vision’,
this is a challenge. It requires a multidisciplinary approach as well as a full understanding of
interdepartmental issues. But by providing a multidisciplinary platform for all professionals,
we feel it's a challenge we can meet. Any sensible initiative to tackle alcohol abuse must be
supported. Unfortunately, the minimum pricing policy is a prime example of a policy that
meets all four criteria for policy failure.
Frontline Policy has organised a conference in Edinburgh to undertake a risk assessment of
minimum pricing. The guest speaker will be Dr Richard Simpson, MSP, who has considerable
experience of working with alcohol abuse. We will be looking at the behavioural and cultural
issues surrounding alcohol abuse as well as looking at the policy from the four policy failure
perspectives. Indeed, I will strongly argue that minimum pricing is a gift to organised crime
and have research that gives an insight into the impact and benefits crime could experience
from this policy.
And there are many perfectly valid alternatives to minimum pricing. For example, given
that so much antisocial behaviour is committed when under the influence of alcohol, where
better to start than ensuring that convicted offenders pay their fines? Currently, if an offender
refuses to pay a fine, there is little the courts can do – their hands are tied. A recent report
published by the cross-party public accounts committee showed that almost £2bn of fines
remains unpaid. If Home Office ministers wanted to ensure offenders pay their court fines, this
could be easily achieved. And HMRC and the Benefits Agency can provide the solutions.
In the case of working offenders, rather than arrest wages, existing HMRC mechanisms
must be used to collect fines by adjusting the offender’s tax code. So if an offender moves to
a new job then collection of the fine will automatically follow them to the new employer.
In the case of offenders on benefits, the courts simply need to get the offender’s NI
number. If a fine is not paid within 28 days then the court must be compelled to use the
Benefit Agency's existing ‘third party deduction’ mechanism to guarantee collection in full.
In the case of on-the-spot-fines, the issuing police officer would record the offender’s NI
number, ensuring that unpaid fines will be collected using the above mechanisms. Nationally,
over half of on-the-spot-fines never get paid. Ensuring offenders pay their fines would send a
powerful message to those offenders who think, perhaps rightly, that they are above the law.
For more details and background information visit our website, www.frontlinepolicy.org.uk
and follow us on Twitter @frontlinepolicy