Philip Hensher: Britain's real drink problem is wine at £1.97 a bottle

The question of the costs and benefits of alcohol is a very difficult one to understand. How much does it impose on society, in the form of additional health costs, criminal damage and so on? How much does it actually contribute in the form of job creation, the leisure industry, and, indeed, in the form of healthy mental relaxation through the occasional moderate or even not-so-moderate night in the pub?

Some of these questions are occasionally attempted, though, clearly, observers are more concerned about the costs evident in widespread alcoholism and alcohol-fuelled social disintegration than about explaining the economic and social benefits. But one development must give everyone pause for thought, and it's to be found on the shelves of almost every supermarket.

Analyses of the changing costs of alcohol tend to show that the number of licensed outlets has increased considerably over the last two or three decades; that the consumption of alcohol per head has gone up enormously; but that the price, relative to general expenditure, has not shown a clear tendency in any direction.

But this conceals a number of very peculiar cases, as you will see if you look at the alcohol shelves in any supermarket. Tesco, Sainsbury's and Asda are currently selling lager at 22 pence for a 440ml can. This is not a unique case. I am sure that if we examined the facts of the case, we could easily find bottles of wine and perhaps even spirits in each supermarket for sale at prices, in real terms, much lower than they have ever been before.

There is no denying that these are clearly loss leaders. The supermarkets, in some cases, must have to pay more in duty than the cost of each can. Of course, one is completely delighted to be offered alcohol at such a low price. I am sure there is very little difference between Tesco's own brand of lager and much more famous brands. To me, they all taste very much like the water that peas have been boiled in. But could it not be that when lager costs less than the cheapest bottled water, some encouragement to binge drinking is discernible?

The odd thing is that since the cost of drinking in pubs and bars hasn't, on the whole, sunk in any obvious way, there are now two quite different markets for alcoholic drinks. An early-day motion in parliament tabled by John Grogan has drawn attention to the ridiculous price differential between pub beer and supermarket beer. The Publican has wondered why it is, when supermarket beer can be an unmatchable sixth of the cost of a pint in a pub, that the emphasis in policy is always on curbing drunkenness in town centres on a Friday night.

I don't deny that that is an unattractive thing, and pubs should certainly do more to keep their own promotions sensible, and maintain a responsible eye on their customers' drinking. But much more dangerous levels of drinking take place in the home.

In recent weeks, the authorities have taken exception to the extent of middle-class drinking. Many people were frankly irritated by this no doubt highly nannying piece of advice, and one heard from a lot of people who considered, quite rightly, that their modest pleasure in drinking a couple of glasses of wine with their dinner added to their enjoyment of life and, entirely plausibly, their overall wellbeing.

Along with those, however, were some people whose drinking was evidently on quite a different scale. I happily admit to liking a drink myself, but it was surprising how many people declared that they individually drank a bottle of wine or even two every single night, and didn't see why they shouldn't. Well, I don't see why they shouldn't, from a moral point of view, either. What surprised me greatly that nobody seemed to wonder at the fact that they were now able to afford to.

It would seem quite extraordinary to previous generations that anyone but the rich could sit down to a meal with a bottle of wine or two every single night of their lives. I don't think it's a question of morality, or Puritanism. If you go further back in history, it is absolutely clear that when you offer the British public the opportunity to get drunk for a penny, dead drunk for tuppence – in the words of Hogarth's famous engraving – they will take it.

But the cost of alcohol in bars nowadays, it seems to me, is much closer to a sustainable cost, in every sense, than the 22 pence can of lager or the bottle of white wine I just found on Tesco's website for £1.97 in a case of 12. If the cost of alcohol in supermarkets was closer, in real terms, to what it was 30 years ago, I dare say the levels of alcohol abuse would be more under control as well. If supermarkets were not permitted to undercut pubs, I think people of all ages would rediscover the pleasures of a night out, and city centres at night would not be quite the playgrounds of puking post-adolescents that they currently resemble.

It might not be a bad idea, in short, if supermarkets, which make quite enough money from other things, were not granted licences for the sale of alcohol at all. That would encourage your friendly neighbourhood off-licence, who might actually know something about the subject, as well as a much wider variety of pubs and bars. If people were serious about alcohol abuse as well as about encouraging diversity in our communities, that might be a very interesting first step to take.

More from Philip Hensher