(Congleton)
(Con)
I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision
about the minimum price at which alcohol may be sold from
licensed premises in England; and for connected purposes.
I should like to begin by thanking the Government for the
action that they have already taken on alcohol harm,
including the duty increase on white ciders proposed by the
Chancellor in his latest Budget, when he said:
“Excessive alcohol consumption by the most vulnerable people
is all too often done through cheap, high-strength,
low-quality products, especially so-called white
ciders.”—[Official Report, 22 November 2017; Vol. 631, c.
1053.]
The Health Secretary recently announced £6 million of funding
to support the children of alcoholics, stating:
“The consequences of alcohol abuse are devastating for those
in the grip of an addiction”,
as well as for those around them. Alcohol harm affects not
only those who drink but their families, children and
colleagues, and wider society. Tackling this issue as a
matter of social justice.
In England, more than 23,000 people die every year from
alcohol-related causes, and many are from the poorest
sections of society. The availability of cheap alcohol is a
key driver of health inequalities, and it perpetuates
deprivation. Of the 1 million alcohol-related hospital
admissions last year, half were from the most deprived
sections of society. Alcohol harm is the leading cause of
death among 15 to 49-year-olds and, in 2015, it caused more
years of life to be lost to our workforce than the 10 most
common cancers combined. Alcohol harm is estimated to cost
the NHS £3.5 billion a year, which equates to 117,000 nurses’
salaries, and Public Health England has estimated that the
problem of dependent drinking could be costing UK society as
much as £52 billion a year.
There is no silver bullet to eradicate alcohol harm, but I do
not accept that we have exhausted our options for reducing
it. There are still a number of reasonable, targeted policies
that would have a significant impact, socially, economically
and fiscally, and not least by helping to boost productivity.
One is minimum unit pricing. What is minimum unit pricing?
MUP sets a minimum price, sometimes called a floor price,
below which drink cannot be sold. It is based on the number
of units of alcohol that a drink contains. For example, the
floor price could be set at 50p per unit, as has been done in
Scotland, where MUP was recently introduced. That would mean
that the minimum price at which a pint could be sold would be
£1.15.
Crucially, that would leave most drink prices untouched,
including those in pubs, while increasing the price of the
cheapest, strongest products, which are consumed by the most
dependent and vulnerable drinkers and which cause the most
harm. That should end the sale of irresponsibly discounted
drinks in the off trade and, in so doing, provide some
protection for local pubs. Moderate drinkers would barely
notice the difference, as nearly all the alcohol they buy
would be above the minimum price. Under a 50p MUP, moderate
drinkers would spend just £2.25 extra a year, according to
research quoted by the Institute of Alcohol Studies and
Alcohol Concern. MUP is not a tax, nor is it telling people
how to live their lives. It is a policy aimed at discouraging
consumption among those drinking at harmful levels, many of
whom want desperately to reduce their drinking and are far
more likely to purchase alcohol at less than 50p a unit than
other drinkers.
MUP would have the limited, specific impact of helping
“those who are most vulnerable: the heaviest drinkers, the
lowest socioeconomic groups and children.”
That is not my claim, but what was said in expert evidence to
the Select Committees on Health and Social Care and on Home
Affairs earlier this year by Professor Sir Ian Gilmore, chair
of the Alcohol Health Alliance. Rosanna O’Connor, director of
alcohol, drugs and tobacco at Public Health England, told
those Committees that MUP is “exquisitely targeted” at people
who are drinking the strongest, cheapest alcohol. That is a
staggeringly small group of people. About 4% of the
population drinks just under a third of the alcohol consumed
in this country—about 2 million people. Again, to distinguish
it from a tax, Professor Nick Sheron, academic clinical
alcohol adviser to Public Health England, told the Committees
that MUP
“is far more likely to be effective in reducing
alcohol-related harm, because it does not put up the price of
alcohol across the board, it does not increase the price of
alcohol in pubs and clubs, and it is targeted at cheap
alcohol.”
By affecting the affordability of the lowest-cost, often
high-strength alcohol, the policy is well targeted at health
outcomes, and the Government’s own evidence review,
undertaken by Public Health England in 2016, stated that
tackling affordability is
“the most effective and cost-effective approach to
prevention”
and health improvement. Since then, Scotland has introduced
MUP, the Republic of Ireland is preparing to legislate for
it, and the Welsh Assembly’s Bill is currently at stage 3—its
Report stage. Aside from the cross-border complications that
will ensue if England is out of step with both Scotland and
Wales, particularly across the more populated England-Wales
border, and notwithstanding what the Government are saying
about waiting to see how MUP impacts in Scotland a year or so
hence, would it not be preferable, and indeed right, to
prepare for action now? Hence, my Bill. Can it be right that
England lags behind on this social justice issue?
The policy would disproportionately benefit the poorest, with
evidence suggesting that 80% of the lives saved by MUP would
come from the lowest-income groups. An MUP in England of 50p
would save 525 lives, prevent 22,000 hospital admissions, and
lead to 36,500 fewer crimes every year. MUP is targeted well,
because it does not adversely affect local community pubs.
Indeed, research by the Institute of Alcohol Studies shows
that publicans support MUP by a rate of two to one. The
measure is widely supported not only by colleagues across all
the major parties, but by doctors, the police, homelessness
services, children’s charities and 51% of the public. The
significant and tragic impact of alcohol harm is far too
great for us to fail to act. This matter is urgent. Public
Health England’s latest update, published in January this
year, states:
“In recent years, many indicators of alcohol-related harm
have increased.”
This Bill has support from across the House, and I urge the
Government to give it serious consideration without delay.
As a postscript, I thank the Under-Secretary of State for
Health and Social Care, my hon. Friend the Member for
Winchester (Steve Brine), for announcing just last
month—after I applied for this motion—that he is
commissioning a review of the evidence for MUP in England. No
doubt that will form part of the current Home Office-led
consultation on a new alcohol strategy, which I greatly
welcome. I hope that that work will eventually lead to a
Government Bill on MUP in England and that my Bill will
therefore become unnecessary. In the meantime, I thank all
colleagues who support my Bill here today.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That , Sir ,
, Dr , , Sir , , , , , Dr and present the Bill.
accordingly presented
the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday
26 October and to be printed (Bill 223).
