Ministers defend cheap booze ban

First published in Business Daily

MINISTERS have defended controversial plans to ban cheap deals on booze, insisting they would save hundreds of lives every year.

The coalition is proposing a minimum alcohol price of 45p per unit, and an end to multi-buy offers at supermarkets and off-licences. Officials estimate the move will save the taxpayer millions of pounds a year by cutting crime and health problems linked to binge drinking.

But the drinks industry warned that responsible consumers would suffer, with wine and spirits prices being pushed up. They also suggested the move would break EU law, as imports would be hit by price hikes.

Unveiling the package of measures being put out for consultation, Home Office minister Damian Green said: "The evidence is clear - the availability of cheap alcohol contributes to harmful levels of drinking. It can't be right that it is possible to purchase a can of beer for as little as 20p."

He told BBC Radio 4's Today programme: "Too many of us have seen city centres on a Friday and Saturday night often become a vision of hell. A lot of this is fuelled by very cheap, very strong alcohol.

"The point of having a minimum unit price rather than, say, increasing taxation, is that you can target ... the shops that do deliberately sell very strong drink very cheaply. It is just a fact of economics and indeed of life that if you put the price of a particular product up, demand for it goes down."

The Government believes imposing a 45p minimum unit price will reduce total alcohol consumption by 3.3%, and cut the number of crimes by 5,000 per year and hospital admissions by 24,000. There will be 700 fewer alcohol-linked deaths annually, according to the predictions.

The department's impact assessment suggests moderate drinkers will spend an extra £7 per year as a result of the plans, while harmful drinkers - defined as more than 50 units per week for men and 35 for women - would need to find an extra £118.

The public purse will lose around £200 million in duty due to falling sales and there would be a £500,000 bill for enforcing the rules, plus up to £16.6 million in "transitional" costs for the industry. But it estimates the health benefits are worth more than £400 million annually and the reduction in crime nearly £13 million.

The consultation says banning "two-for-one" and other multi-buy offers "would be expected to result in an overall reduction in alcohol consumption and its related harms" - but admits there is not yet enough evidence to assess benefits properly.

© Press Association 2012

Comments (2)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

4:02pm Wed 28 Nov 12

stour67 says...

Go to a city centre at night and hospitals at weekends,if they need the evidence.
Go to a city centre at night and hospitals at weekends,if they need the evidence. stour67
  • Score: 0

7:56am Tue 4 Dec 12

Respectable says...

Yet another scenario where the sensible users get hit with an "Idiot Tax" penalty... I love a drink and at the age of 45 can honestly say I've never been thrown out of a pub or arrested for Drunk and Disorderly... Why the hell should I pay more ?? Maybe a little bit of law enforcement towards the idiots and the retailers that keep serving people already drunk or under age might be fairer..
Yet another scenario where the sensible users get hit with an "Idiot Tax" penalty... I love a drink and at the age of 45 can honestly say I've never been thrown out of a pub or arrested for Drunk and Disorderly... Why the hell should I pay more ?? Maybe a little bit of law enforcement towards the idiots and the retailers that keep serving people already drunk or under age might be fairer.. Respectable
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree