Alcohol health report - make or break?

The parliamentary Health Committee's 130-page report into alcohol attracted plenty of headlines for its call for a minimum price.

Beyond that, there are other recommendations that will both cheer and send a chill down the spine of licensees...
What does the report recommend?

The government should introduce a minimum price to cut consumption and, in theory, alcohol-related health problems. The report suggests a 50p unit minimum would save more than 3,000 lives a year.

It recommends an increase in duty on spirits and industrial white cider, but a cut in duty on beer below 2.8 per cent ABV.

A mandatory labelling scheme - showing the number of units in a drink and the weekly recommended limit, should be implemented, the report says, and restrictions introduced on alcohol advertising and promotion where children are likely to be affected.

The committee also wants police to enforce more stringently the law which makes it illegal to serve somebody who is already drunk.

And it calls on the government to look at why venues "associated with heavy drinking" do not have their licences revoked.

It also says the government should consider including a public health objective in the Licensing Act.
How does the report view pubs?

Favourably, on the whole.

Based on evidence from CAMRA, which favours minimum pricing, the report points out the measure would benefit "traditional pubs".

It notes, however, that: "Alcohol-related crime and anti-social behaviour have increased over the last 20 years, partly as a result of the development of the night time economy with large concentrations of vertical drinking pubs in town centres".

It also notes the rise of alcohol sales in the off-trade compared to the continuing drop in the on-trade.
How does the report view supermarkets?

Badly.

A quote from one witness, Professor Plant, a specialist in addiction, states: "Supermarkets are exhibiting the morality of a crack dealer".

Another passage effectively blames the off-trade for the problem of binge-drinking.

"Over recent decades an ever increasing percentage of alcohol has been bought in supermarkets and other off-licence premises.

Such purchases exceed those made in pubs and clubs by a large margin…heavily discounted and readily available alcohol has fuelled underage drinking, led to the phenomenon of pre-loading where young people drink at home before they go out and encouraged harmful drinking by older people."

How has the report been received?

Predictably, health bodies have welcomed it with open arms, while the drinks industry has generally panned it. With the producers, this is a no-brainer, rolling out the argument that it will affect the responsible majority.

What has drawn comment is the British Beer & Pub Association's position. Surely some of its pub company members would welcome a minimum price to stop the deep discounting supermarkets? But as a number of those members are also producers and are seeing profits increase from their off-trade sales it could not support this position.

CAMRA has welcomed the call for a minimum price, while the Association of Licensed Multiple Retailers still favours a ban on below-cost selling.
Should the industry be worried by this new puritanism?

Yes - despite the idea minimum pricing would help pubs, there is still plenty to worry everyone in the business of booze. In a chapter entitled "Solutions: a new strategy", the report states: "We believe England has a drink problem". And it urges the government to listen more to the health chiefs and less to the drinks industry.

Meanwhile, throughout the report, alcohol is portrayed purely as a problem for society. Nowhere does it doff its cap to its health benefits (in moderation) of alcohol, or the way it can aid social cohesion.
How likely is it the recommendations will be followed?

The government has until the beginning of March to respond to the report. But with an election not far behind, it is unlikely to be acted upon anytime soon.

And minimum pricing is definitely not a vote winner. However, health committees have been influential in the past, notably pushing hard for a clampdown on smoking, pre the ban. So don't rule out a future government adopting some of its proposals.