Basic HTML Version
WHEN THE GOVERNMENT PUBLISHED ITS
ALCOHOL STRATEGY LAST YEAR,
many people
were surprised to find that it contained a commitment
to introducing minimum unit pricing (MUP) (
DDN
, April
2012, page 4). But now, almost 18 months later, MUP
is once again seemingly off the agenda.
Although it remains ‘a policy under consideration,’
according to crime prevention minister Jeremy
Browne’s carefully worded statement to the House of
Commons, it will ‘not be taken forward at this time’
(see news story, page 4). While lack of evidence has
been cited as the reason, even the government’s own
Public Health England body has expressed
disappointment and pledged to ‘take forward a
comprehensive and scientific review of all the
available evidence’ to inform any final decision.
The University of Sheffield has also published
research claiming that the government’s alternative
measure – a ban on selling alcohol below the level
of the tax payable on it – would have a ‘small
impact’, as just 1.3 per cent of units sold would fall
below the threshold.
When the rumours started earlier this year that the
government was planning to abandon MUP, much of
the talk was about the rise of Nigel Farage – often
photographed with a pint in his hand – and UKIP, and
the desire to not be seen as ‘anti-booze’ or out of
touch with ordinary people. But now the discussion
has turned back to a far more long-standing and
intractable obstacle – the sheer might of the drinks
industry – with a joint statement from Cancer
Research UK, the Faculty of Public Health and others
saying that it was ‘perfectly clear that MUP has fallen
victim to a concerted and shameful campaign of
lobbying’ by sections of the industry happy to put
profits ‘before health and public safety’.
‘One thing is undoubtedly the power and
influence of the industry,’ Alcohol Concern chief
executive Eric Appleby tells
DDN
. ‘We know they’ve
put massive resources into lobbying. But it also
appears that MUP is a bit of a victim of internal
divisions in the Conservative party, with certain
ministers in favour and then against. When the news
first came out that they were thinking of dropping it,
it coincided with a bit of caballing between various
people like Theresa May, Andrew Lansley and
Micheal Gove, so there’s internal politics in this as
well. But what it all boils down to, again, is that
public health is way down at the bottom of the
agenda when it comes to what’s important to them.’
What does his organisation make of the
commitments the government has made, such as
banning the sale of alcohol below the level of duty
plus VAT, or ‘facilitating local action’? ‘Banning sales
below duty has absolutely no impact whatsoever,’ he
states. ‘It will just do nothing. I think the reckoning
[from researchers at the University of Sheffield] was
that it would save 15 lives a year, instead of the 3,000
you’d get with MUP. It’s just a very flimsy fig leaf.’
Local action, meanwhile, relies on ‘good local
people’, he points out. ‘There are some good
examples around, obviously, but not everywhere are
there people with the understanding and resources.
We know that the whole thing with alcohol – and
why it’s different to drugs – is that it’s about whole-
population approaches, and you don’t get that just
from local action. You can’t knock it, but on its own
it’s not the answer.’
A vital function of minimum pricing has been to
provide a focal point for campaigners and a means
of unifying the message. Can it still do that now? ‘I
think it can – almost even more so,’ he says. ‘The
dropping of it has been done in such a way that it’s
almost become a cause célèbre. The government’s
arguments that there’s not enough evidence are
plainly just wrong. The fact that the government
have said they’re not doing it doesn’t lessen the
arguments for it in any way, and the very obvious
sense that they’ve just bowed down to the alcohol
industry is only going to fire people up more.’
He told
DDN
in June (page 16) that minimum
pricing was ‘not going to go away’. Is that
something he still believes? ‘Absolutely,’ he says.
‘And I can tell you that we’re not going to go away
either, and other members of the Alcohol Health
Alliance are not going to go away. We’re gearing up
to take it on even more strongly.’
So what happens now? ‘Obviously we’re going to
do some planning over the next few weeks about what
we do next, but at the moment we’re looking at things
like party manifestos for the next election,’ he says.
‘The Coalition haven’t actually ditched it – they’ve
backed off a bit and said that they’re just not doing it
right now – so if that’s the case they can at least put it
back in their manifestos for the next election.
‘We know those aren’t necessarily worth that
much, but nonetheless it’s one way of keeping the
discussion going, keeping it in the forefront of
debate. And just making sure that – every step of
the way – they’re confronted by the fact that there’s
evidence that it works, and that none of the
alternatives can do the same job.’
Modelled income group-specific impacts of
alcohol minimum unit pricing in England 2014/15 at
www.shef.ac.uk/news/nr/below-cost-selling-ban-
1.294086
Last month saw yet another chapter in the ‘will they, won’t they?’ saga of minimum
unit pricing for alcohol, when the government announced it was shelving plans for
its introduction.
DDN
considers what might happen next
News focus |
Analysis
IS MINIMUM PRICING
DEAD IN THE WATER?
6 |
drinkanddrugsnews
| August 2013
www.drinkanddrugsnews.com
‘The government’s
arguments that
there’s not enough
evidence are plainly
just wrong.’
ERIC APPLEBY,
ALCOHOL CONCERN