Alcohol: Strategy

Debate between Lord Taverne and Lord Strathclyde

Tuesday 27th March 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Glentoran]

My Lords—

[The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Lord Strathclyde)]

My Lords, we have plenty of time for this Question, and the fourth Question is on the same subject. I think that we should hear from my noble friend Lord Taverne first.

[Lord Taverne]

My Lords, I warmly congratulate the Government on abandoning their previous preference for banning below cost sales of alcohol and on adopting a policy that was strongly recommended by the previous Chief Medical Officer, by Sir Ian Gilmore, who is a great expert on this, and by a very convincing study of drinking in Newcastle, which is not known for its abstinence. I suggest to the Minister that this is only a first step, because a higher price could be even more effective. Does he not agree that it is rather sad that the shadow Home Secretary in another place, instead of welcoming something of great importance for the future, should have used the occasion of the Government’s announcement for making party-political points?

Alcohol

Debate between Lord Taverne and Lord Strathclyde

Thursday 2nd February 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Harrison]

My Lords—

[The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Lord Strathclyde)]

My Lords, perhaps we can hear from my noble friend Lord Taverne and then from the other Benches.

[Lord Taverne]

My Lords, the Sheffield University report to NICE in 2010 pointed out the extreme importance of price rises. It came to the conclusion that a 10 per cent price rise would, among other things, reduce hospital admissions by something like 50,000 a year, crimes by something like 96,000 and absenteeism from work by something like 500,000 per annum. Very similar huge social benefits would also come from introducing a minimum price. Does the Minister agree that price rises are probably the most important single weapon in dealing with this social matter?