Minimum alcohol prices to be introduced in Manchester?

Article published: Tuesday, August 31st 2010

Plans by Manchester City Council’s to introduce a minimum price-per-unit for sales of alcohol have received a mixed reception. While supported by medical professionals, detractors claim that the proposals impinge on individual freedom and are regressive.

The Greater Manchester Health Commission (GMHC) is currently compiling a report on the feasibility of a bye-law prohibiting the sale of drinks at prices less than 50p per unit of alcohol contained. This will be subsequently presented to the Executive Committee of the Association of Greater Manchester Authorities (AGMA).

The potential bylaw would set the lowest price for a litre bottle of 40% spirits at £20, while the least you could pay for a pint of 5% lager would be £1.50.

The development has been met with accusations of paternalism by civil liberties campaigners, who claim that the Council are presuming the right to make choices for individuals. Alex Deane, Director of Big Brother Watch, a group which campaigns against intrusions into privacy and civil liberties, said: ‘People should be free to choose to eat or drink whatever they want, without interference from a nannying council.”

Mike Jones, who will head the review, was keen to stress that minimum pricing is exclusively a health issue: ‘Greater Manchester is disproportionately affected by alcohol and therefore we have to look after our residents and promote a healthy lifestyle.’

However despite its critics the plan does have the backing of the medical community, with broad support across the professional sector coming from The British Medical Association and The Royal College of Nursing.

Government-funded research conducted by the University of Sheffield backs up the idea of the effectiveness of minimum pricing in reducing alcohol consumption and related harms. A report concludes:

‘General price increases were effective for reduction of consumption, health-care costs, and health-related quality of life losses in all population subgroups.’

Support has also been voiced by charity organisations with deal with abuse. Don Shenker, Chief Executive of Alcohol Concern, said:

‘With practically every health body in the country now backing the move on alcohol minimum pricing, the new government needs to accept the evidence and introduce a minimum price urgently before thousands more lives are affected’.

While the North West is below the national average for the amount of alcohol consumed in general, it has the second highest number of ‘binge’ drinkers. The GMHC estimates that most of this occurs in Greater Manchester. Furthermore doctors in the region sign the highest number of prescriptions for alcohol dependency in the country, and the NHS bill for alcohol-related illness in the region stands at £400 million a year.

The consequences of alcohol misuse cast a long shadow over the UK. The BMA estimates that the combined loss to the national economy in terms of costs to the NHS, criminal justice services and effects on productivity stand at around £55 billion.

Nevertheless the proposal has been attacked for its potential social implications. One of these is voiced by Alex Deane of Big Brother Watch, who criticises the plan as financially regressive:

‘Not only is the principle wrong, but these schemes always fail in practice too: “Sin taxes” don’t stop people doing what you want to stop them doing: they just pay more, thus disproportionately harming the budgets of poor people”.

Another cogent criticism is that the plan for minimum alcohol pricing symbolises a modern form of social engineering. A parliamentary health report from 2009 which looked at alcohol indicated that the poorer in society are the most afflicted by liver disease; despite drinking less on average than those in higher income groups, the ‘unskilled’ socio-economic band has double the rate of alcohol-related mortality of that of the ‘higher’ social strata. The proposal seen in this light would therefore signify an attempt to alter and influence the behaviour and habits of certain socio-economic classes.

In light of the manifest public health problem, those in favour of progressive education and information state that authorities appear more keen on using punitive market mechanisms and disincentives rather than addressing root causes of alcohol abuse. How the proposals will be met by the public in the city remains to be seen.

The report will be submitted to the AGMA Executive Board for its consideration at its meeting on 29 October.

James Legge

Tweet

More: Manchester

Comments

1. really interesting article!

   Comment by Withingtonian on September 10, 2010 at 10:42 am

The comments are closed.