Is it right to raise the price of booze during a cost of living crisis?

Unlike its counterpart in Westminster, the Scottish government recognises there is a problem

A very small proportion of drinkers consume a significant share of all the alcohol produced and sold (Getty/iStock)

While the cost of everything from fuel to food is rising, there is one commodity that seems to have bucked the trend: alcohol.

Relative to income, alcohol is now more affordable than it’s ever been. For evidence of this, look no further than your local supermarket, where it usually costs more for a bottle of water than a can of beer.

While this is true for England, the Scottish government has intervened to raise the price of alcohol. Four years ago, in May 2018, it took the bold policy step of introducing a minimum price for alcohol, known as minimum unit pricing. This meant that a unit of alcohol could not be sold for less than 50 pence. The introduction of this policy was delayed by years as the alcohol industry fought the Scottish government in the courts – a sure sign it feared the impact this would have on its profits.

Both parties know that a very small proportion of drinkers consume a significant share of all the alcohol produced and sold. This group consists of approximately 1 per cent who are dependent on alcohol, and 5 per cent drinking at harmful levels (defined as 35 units a week for women and 50 units a week for men). Consuming this amount of alcohol is known to increase the risk of developing alcohol-related health problems such as cancer and heart disease, as well as dependence.

Rather than trying to change the drinking habits of the 1 per cent who are dependent, it was the larger group, at risk of dependence or serious illness, at whom this policy was aimed.

Most people will change their behaviour when prices rise, including how much alcohol they consume, but we don’t know whether the minimum unit pricing policy changes the behaviour of those most at risk of harm from alcohol. Governments and industry have been watching this with interest, albeit with differing views and goals.

The Scottish government commissioned an independent evaluation of the policy, the findings of which were recently published. Even as the average price of alcohol rose from 49 pence to 59 pence per unit, the report found that most people at risk did notice a change in price, but did not reduce their consumption of alcohol.

It would appear that the minimum unit pricing policy was a failure, and didn’t reduce consumption among those most at risk. Worse, researchers found that those on the lowest incomes diverted spending on food and energy to fund the rising cost of alcohol – although there were other factors at play that might have been a factor, such as the move from weekly to monthly payments of universal credit.

These findings will be seized on by the industry to argue that the policy should be scrapped. But looking beyond the overall findings reveals some of the potential reasons the policy has so far not had the impact hoped for by the Scottish government.

It was never expected that this policy intervention would single-handedly solve the problem of harmful drinking in Scotland. As with most behaviour changes, it requires multiple interventions and policies if it is to stand a chance of success.

To keep up to speed with all the latest opinions and comment, sign up to our free weekly Voices Dispatches newsletter by clicking here

What is clear is that, unlike its counterpart in Westminster, the Scottish government recognises there is a problem and is working hard to try to tackle it, by adopting evidence-based policies and fighting to ensure they are introduced – and importantly, using science and research to evaluate them.

Compare this with the UK government, which ignores the evidence that alcohol causes harm, and leaves the industry to self-regulate. It promotes the idea of individual responsibility, which is nothing more sophisticated than “It’s every man or woman for themselves.”

Doing nothing is far worse than doing something, even if the results aren’t what you would like.