A very small bomb exploded on Wednesday night in Committee Room 17 of the House of Commons, but no one was hurt and no guards came running. In fact no one seemed to notice at all.
It happened at a meeting of the All-Party Parliamentary Beer Group when Professor Philippe De Witte*, speaking in that kind of Flemish accent that just radiates expertise, proceeded, with the aide of a handout that covered no more than two sides of A4, to reveal the British government’s approach to the issue of alcohol management to be both wrong and pointless.
10% of the population are problem drinkers, he said. Recent policies have reduced overall alcohol consumption in society and the result of that reduction in consumption is that 10% of the population are problem drinkers. That figure is intractable and the reasons that people end up in that 10% are complex and varied, but – and hold on to your hats here – are nothing to do with price.
British governments, of whatever hue, have only one approach to the issue of drink related problems; the fiscal approach. In this the Treasury is backed up by the Department of Health who, in turn, swallow whole the logic of bodies like Alcohol Concern. The result is a policy direction based on the premise that if we had all only drunk a little less then George Best would still be alive. This argument is clearly stupid. However it is the position the government takes and continues to take in the face of continued failure.
Now at first glance the maxim ‘if at first you don’t succeed, try, try and try again’ is uplifting and admirable, but if the thing you are trying for is patently absurd then, like attempting to push water uphill, the repeated effort is also absurd. Much better the maxim of that much underrated philosopher W.C Fields. ‘If at first you don’t succeed, give up. There’s no point in being a damn fool.’
The government, however, stubbornly refuses to accept that there is an alternative to constantly raising taxes on beer, despite their being no evidence that this policy works and plenty of evidence that it has no effect on ameliorating problem drinking at all. The reverse is true, if the 10% figure is indeed intractable, meaning that problem drinkers will continue to consume the same levels of alcohol regardless of price, then raising taxes is harmful to those in their families who then find the overall disposable income of the family unit declines as alcohol spend goes up.
The remaining 90% of us, for whom alcohol consumption is not and never will be a problem, must find that our pleasures in life must continually rise in price in the name of a belief that is dogmatic rather than practical. Our government really is of an incredibly poor quality.
Professor de Witte confirmed what many us instinctively know, especially if we have ever spent time in Europe. Issues surrounding alcohol misuse are ‘not a question of price’, they ‘are a question of education.’ Moreover, ‘in Europe alcohol is inside the culture of the family. In the UK it is outside,’ and ‘in the UK children don’t know how to drink alcohol.’
The quotes are directly from Professor de Witte to the MP’s present. They also heard from Chris Sporek, Chief Executive of Drinkaware [an independent trust which brings together both the alcohol industry and the health community]. His view from the moral high ground of the nanny state I won’t comment on. Frankly, it makes me want to tear down the entire apparatus of the established order.
* Chairman of the Scientific Advisory Board of the European Foundation for Alcohol Research (EARB).
