Ian McKee: Pupils' alcohol complaints leave a nasty hangover selling minimum age changes

Published on Monday 13 July 2009 19:03

ALCOHOL has been my problem this month and it has given me a serious hangover. Not, I hasten to add, because I have been imbibing the stuff, but because it has been the subject of two important meetings I attended within a few days of each other in the past few weeks.

The first was a conference of the combined sixth forms of four Edinburgh schools – 170 pupils all told. Can you imagine trying to sell to an audience of thirsty 18 year olds, the proposal to ban the sale of alcoholic drinks from off-licences to anyone under the age of 21? Not an easy task.

The fact that the bulk of seizures of alcohol from under 18s originates from off-licences and supermarkets; that the youngsters often purchase supplies from those who were slightly older and could legally buy beer, wine and spirits; and the sometime horrific consequences of under-age binge drinking counted for little. Instead, I was regaled with examples of the unfairness of students passing exams or fathering children yet not being legally able to buy a bottle of champagne to celebrate. The students had a point, in that alcohol is a problem for all of us, not just the young, but I was lucky to get away from the meeting with only my pride in tatters.

Next came the alcohol summit, at which the audience was kinder, but the hangover was caused by a realisation about the size of the problem, and the fact that we as a nation seem to be doing little about it.

Countries such as France and the Netherlands have taken heed of the health warnings and significantly decreased average alcohol consumption per head. Yet we press on, increasing our consumption, with the result that deaths due to liver failure and cancer have rocketed in recent years, and this trend is set to continue.

One of the main themes of the conference was the need to set a relatively high minimum price per unit of alcohol in order to deter heavy drinkers. Already the Scotch whisky industry is showing opposition to this, and only time will tell whether this proposal comes into effect.

One speaker estimated a minimum price of 50 pence per unit would decrease alcohol consumption by 2 per cent and save the UK 4.6 billion a year in health, social and work costs.

Turning away from drink, we come to the debate, held at Edinburgh's Royal College of Physicians, as to whether the country can continue to afford a comprehensive health service free at point of need.

Now, I am aware that quality healthcare is becoming increasingly costly, but what are the alternatives? If we insist everyone joins a health insurance scheme then we are simply substituting payment by progressive tax levy for payment by insurance premium. And as insurance companies have shareholders, not only will this be more expensive, the firms will refuse to accept those with chronic conditions who need healthcare the most.

Or is the plan to give quality healthcare to those who can afford it and save money by denying it to others? Or is it simply to remove some less effective procedures and treatments from the NHS scheme and suggest that those who still want them pay for them as extras?

I have no objection in principle to the last suggestion; as far as I am concerned we can scrap homeopathic treatment, many plastic surgery procedures and review critically a raft of services for which there is little evidence of benefit.

But I am certain that whatever is proposed will bring forth howls of protest from true believers. Until someone comes up with a better proposition, for me a health service paid for by taxes is the fairest and cheapest way of providing comprehensive healthcare.

&#149 Ian McKee is a Lothians MSP and a member of the Scottish Parliament's health and sport committee