Tuesday 13th November 2007
Dear Sir/Madam,
As I am sure you are already aware, BBC News is today carrying a story regarding calls to raise tax on alcohol. I write to you today with regard to this.
The Government should reject these proposals outright, of all people the UK Government is in the best position to recognise that similar methods have had little to no effect upon the UK's smokers. We now see many more illegal imports of Tobacco, many no doubt orchestrated by criminal gangs, as you are aware there are already counterfeit spirits on sale in the UK. Pricing alcohol beyond a reasonable threshold will only serve to increase this, and eventually will lead to a collapse of the legal alcohol market, whilst the illegal markets thrive.
Prohibition was practised in the United States of America, and lead to the rise of organised crime, an issue which troubles them still. Many will argue that a tax rise does not constitute prohibition, but it is a step towards it. The Government may not be banning alcohol outright, but will by raising the duty deny access to a great many people. As the news story linked above claims "the price of all alcohol in shops has barely changed since the mid-1990s - with some wines and lagers becoming cheaper." This statement completely disregards the fact that as a nation we now pay more of our moeny towards tax than before, the cost of living has raised, and therefore for most alcohol is likely to be as expensive as it has ever been. The fact that the price of alcohol has not risen with inflation does not necessarily mean it is any cheaper for the average person than it was ten years ago.
I was admitted to hospital with alcohol poisoning when I was thirteen, it's not an experience I would wish to repeat but I did learn a good many things from it. Firstly I could not afford the alcohol that put me into hospital, but I still managed to lay my hands on it, rising the price of alcohol will affect only those who are responsible with it.
As a Personal License Holder, I am very tough on the minors that attempt to purchase alcohol from me, I recognise that I was very lucky when I was thirteen. Had I not been found, or had I drunk that little bit more, I may not be sitting here to write this. I would not wish anybody to go through the experience that I did, and it is for this reason I recognise that something must be done, but the proposed means will do nothing to protect children, or adults.
As you may recall, the duty on so-called 'super lagers' rose earlier this year. Now based on my shops sales, the government will see a drop in the sales of these products. However what the governments figures will not show is the spike in theft that we have had since the price rose, many of those who are perhaps dependant on alcohol cannot (or are not willing to) afford the new prices. Instead of fulfilling the stated aim and drinking less, many of these people now simply steal the product. Due to the tax rise, many of the drinkers who were doing no harm to anybody but themselves (something that has in fact been brought into question of late) are now being permitted to cause harm to others. The welfare of the business has been severely hampered by the increase in theft, and it is very difficult to do much about it. We have now placed our 'super-lagers' behind the counter, but the habit of stealing has now become rooted so the next strongest item gets stolen.
Anti-social drinking can be very dangerous, but the Government and society as a whole needs to recognise what exaclty constitutes Anti-social drinking. An alcoholic sat on a park bench drinking his Tennents Super may not be the prettiest sight, but so long as he is not actively causing harm to those around him, he is not drinking anti-socially. He may be causing harm to himself, but as long as he has legally obtained the alcohol, and is not causing damage to anything around him (including other people) then his habit is not anti-social. Anti-social drinkers are those who actively cause harm, this may be minors who have obtained alcohol through a proxy purchase or even directly through a retailer, this could be the group of lads staggering home from the pubs and clubs. It could even be the drunk behind the wheel of his car, but in none of these situations will a tax rise show any benefit. The minors more often than not, steal alcohol from their parents (or as we have seen on several occasions from shops) and so will not be affected in any way by a tax rise. The lads staggering home from the pubs and clubs would probably change to drinking before they go out, if they buy smuggled spirits then they evade your tax measures completely, and the Drink Driver is going to drink and drive no matter how much his drinks cost.
A Tax raise may even worsen the issue of Anti-social drinking. Take the aobve example of two lads staggering home from the Pub or Club, if the price rises then alcohol becomes more of a luxury. If these two lads do not have a means to purchase illicit alcohol, then in all likelihood they will drink more infrequently. On the face of it, this has acheived the Governments aim, but looking at the whole picture reveals more. Quite aside from the impact on retailers revenue streams, the lads themselves pose more of a danger. If they are drinking less frequently, then it is likely to be because they cannot afford to drink as regularly as they used to. However when they can afford to go out, they are likely to drink far more than they used to, if Drinking becomes a luxury then people will enjoy it whilst they can afford it. Because of this, our two lads could find themselves driven to hospital, driven home ina police car or even dead in a doorway. None of these are any sort of improvement over the original scenario of staggering home. It is a situation that I would like to avoid, and I am certain that many of the population would agree that the status quo is far better.
I spend much of my week requesting Identification, and yet many who may be old enough do not carry it. If you as the government are looking to protect children from harm (It is one of the licensing objectives after all) then perhaps encouraging people to carry a cheap form of I.D. is a good place to start. The National I.D. is not the place to start however, purely because of the cost to the taxpayer, Government sponsorship of one of the PASS approved I.D schemes could make a difference however. As a Government responsible for our wellbeing, you need to do everything you can to make people of all ages realise that they do need to carry I.D. Protect the retailers who are left to enforce the rules you set, make the public aware of all the punishments that we risk by serving anyone. Make them aware that there does not need to be a policeman in the shop for us to be prosecuted for selling to underage.
That way you will counter many of the arguments I hear on a weekly basis, there is a rather niave belief that as soon as someone turns 18 we should know they are old enough. Encourage a culture that will allow retailers to set a rule of No ID, No Sale without putting underpaid staff into the firing line.
These people put our livelihoods at risk every time they try to purchase alcohol, some of them may be of age, but the large proportion probably are not. It is time the product and the trade were commended for the hard work that we do, and those who try to subvert the law by using deception are targetted.
The Government has recently launched a campaign against proxy purchasers, but it does not go far enough. The Government needs to start levying the available sanctions against minors themselves. Why have we not seen undercover policeman (Or licensing Authority staff) placed into shops to levy fines upon those who attempt to purchase alcohol without I.D.? It would be a simple scheme to run, "Here is your statutory fine, you have seven days to provide a valid I.D. at your local police station, or to pay the fine."
There are a great many things that the Government can do to reduce the harm, yet the failed methods of duty hikes and targetting retailers still constitute the larger part of the Governments arsenal.
There are issues linked with drinking, though I do feel that many are either exaggerated or not based on scientific fact, whatever the case, these issues need to be dealt with effectively and without undue waste of the taxpayers money.
There are unscrupulous retailers out there, but the greater proportion are not. Despite this we all live in fear that we may fall for Trading Standards next trick, the methods being used are becoming more and more deceptive. You may recall that there were calls for test purchasers to be permitted to use fake I.D's, this kind of practice is counterproductive.
The onus should not be on the retailer to enforce all of licensing law, we should be supported along the way by both the Police and the Local Authority, but for whatever reason the Government appears to be set on vilifying alcohol. It is time that this stopped, the majority should not be held responsible for the minority who act irresponsibly with alcohol.
Many retailers will be able to honestly say that they have been involved in at least one potentially dangerous incident as a result of asking for Identification. Some, like myself, may even have been involved in a incident where the suspected minor was armed. Whatever the nature of the incident, they should not be allowed to continue, it is time the Government acted in good faith to educate the masses of the risks posed to retailers, both legal and otherwise.
If the Government truly wishes to reduce the 'harm' caused by alcohol, they need to create a society that recognises the risks, knows to carry I.D. and to drink responsibly. A Tax raise will not foster any of these essential qualities, and may in fact worsen the situation.
Yours sincerely
Ben Tasker
