Alcohol Policy UK

Danger of 'white ciders': report calls for action

A report assessing white ciders and the impact on homeless drinkers has called for action to stop irresponsible profiteering from the high-alcohol low-cost drinks. 'White Ciders and street drinkers' was released by Alcohol Concern with backing from homeless charities St Mungo's and Thames Reach.   

The report states the drinks industry uses manufactured apple concentrate whilst benefiting from the tax breaks and low duty intended to boost the development of traditional craft cider production. Although recent changes means ciders must now contain a minimum 35% juice content, apple content is now being cheaply imported from Eastern Europe for white cider production. The report states this allows the industry to profit from a potent 7.5% ABV drink that is one of the cheapest ways to buy alcohol. Street drinkers interviewed on the effects of white cider reported extreme conditions ranging from panic attacks to vomiting blood.

The report's author, Tony Goodall, said "This research has allowed me to see some of the devastation that is caused by white cider, but also to understand that it is not easy to solve the problem." He urged more action from both the Government and the industry including further consideration of minimum pricing. Recommendations from the report include:

• To considerably increase tax on ciders above 5% in a bid to get manufacturers to decrease the alcohol levels in white ciders.
• To link cider duty rates to beer duty rates, especially super-strength lagers, and to look at minimum unit pricing.
• For the Licensing Act 2003 to be amended to include the protection of public health, and so to allow local authorities to ban the sale of super-strength drinks across their locality.
• An end to the practice of selling cider above 5% in two and three litre bottles and one litre cap to be introduced.

The Observer ran a feature 'White cider is becoming like heroin among alcoholics' and has previously reported 'Super-strength alcohol is killing more homeless people than crack or heroin'. See the Alcohol Concern press release.

In 2009 White Lightening was de-listed by its owners Heineken to 'reinforce its stance on responsible drinking', but the report highlighted brands such as White Ace, Carbon White and White Star sell for as little as 59p per can. One cider manufacturer in the report was quoted as saying that alcohol abuse and the white cider market was "a small percentage" which is a "social issue, not an economic issue".

Super-strength beer and white cider under fire

An Observer feature focusing on the damage done by super strength lagers and white ciders claims 'Super-strength alcohol is killing more homeless people than crack or heroin'.

The feature comes as a leading homeless charity continue to warn against the damage caused by such drinks. It follows an article by Thames Reach Chief Executive Jeremy Swain in the current Big Issue in which he writes:

"The rise of the super-strength drinks is a relatively recent phenomenon. When I was a street outreach worker in the 1980s, they were virtually unknown..."

"Of course, alcoholism among the homeless is hardly new. But what is different is the speed of the deterioration caused by the super-strength drinks. Consuming them is akin to pushing the fast forward on your life."

Thames Reach are calling for the government to act by introducing a minimum price for alcohol. A spokesperson noted the danger of drinks such as White Ace cider which is ‘cheaper than lemonade’, and congratulated the drinks company Heineken for withdrawing White Lightening cider from sale. The brand had reportedly been nick-named 'white frightening' for its claimed tendency to induce paranoia. 

The Observer feature also explores how white cider is made, usually with "dry apple pulp left behind when the juice has been pressed out of it and this is usually fed to animals or used for making pectin" a cider expert wrote. "Other large manufacturers use apple concentrate from abroad and get most of the alcohol from the addition of glucose or corn syrup."

See our report last year on What awaits the white cider market as White lightning de-listed and tax rises loom?

First Drinking Banning Order issued

The first Drinking Banning Order (DBO) was issued this month, banning a persistent troublemaker from entering licensed premises and off licenses in his home town.

The individual had been previously excluded from bars and pubs through the local Pubwatch scheme, but continued to enter premises and harass and intimidate staff, according to this press release and local press story. He has now been given a maximum 2 year DBO which, if breached, could result in a fine of up to £2,500. The length of the order may be reduced if an optional 'positive behaviour intervention' course is completed.

DBOs were introduced earlier this year as a measure to prevent known individuals who are causing alcohol-related disorder from entering specified licensed premises. They have been nicknamed 'drink ASBOs', though the Home Office points out they are intended as 'more of a short, sharp shock than ASBOs' and can not result in a custodial sentence. DBOs are currently only available on application to a local magistrates court - their effectiveness is being monitored by the Home Office who may then allow them to be more widely available as a post-conviction order.

See here for guidance on DBOs on application from the Home Office.

Services that manage the care needs of drunk and incapable people: a review of the literature

The Scottish Government have released a review of the literture on 'Services that Manage the Care Needs of Drunk and Incapable People'. From the summary page:

'The main focus of this report is on "sobering-up services" - services which provide an overnight place of safety for people who are identified as intoxicated (either with alcohol or drugs) in a public place, and who are incapable of looking after themselves because of their intoxication.

The aims of this review were:

• To identify services that exist in other countries (outside of Scotland) to manage the needs of drunk and incapable people and;
• To identify good practice in providing these services.'

The review may be relevant to those commissioning or providing services that respond to street drinkers, homeless or older people with alcohol problems.

Councils may use bye-laws for 'no alcohol zones'

A Daily Mail story has claimed that councils may use forthcoming bye-law legislation to create 'alcohol-free zones'. Councils will reportedly be able to pass bye-laws through the Local Government and Public Involvement and Health Act, likely to come into force next year. Nottingham City Council is reportedly planning such a ban to address problems associated with the night time economy. Council leader Jon Collins said: 'People understand clear messages. There's no confusion in alcohol-free zones. I do not think it's a civil liberties issue. It's about saying we do not want people drinking in the street.'

Currently councils can implement DPPOs often known as 'controlled drinking zones' (CDZs) which allow police to confiscate alcohol at their discretion; these were intended to replace former alcohol bye-laws. CDZs do not ban alcohol consumption, though are often misinterpreted as doing so and have raised some concerns about indiscriminate use. Recently a report from the Manifesto club claimed CDZ powers were being used excessively by police and Community Support Officers. A BBC story on Nottingham's proposed ban says the exsiting CDZs cause displacement.

Over 700 CDZs have been introduced since 2003, generally being described by police and councils as a 'useful tool' to help address alcohol-related anti-social behaviour. However they appear to have been most effectively used in relation to problematic street-drinking areas rather than rowdy town centres or night-time economy issues. A range of other powers are also available to police and councils such as Dispersal Zones and Penalty Notices for Disorder, outlined in this Home Office guidance. Drinking Banning Orders (DBOs) also recently became available on application.

Personally I wouldn't expect to see a significant difference in what is achieved whether 'no alcohol zones' or 'controlled alcohol zones' are in place. Whilst the message is different, the capacity to enforce these orders will remain the same. At least with the existing controlled zones there is a premise that alcohol should only be removed where 'an individual is causing a problem', and less risk of unrealistic expectations that public drinking would be eradicated.

Further information and guidance includes:

• The Home Office's 'The practical guide for preventing and dealing with alcohol related problems'
• 'Restricted drinking in public places' North West Alcohol Information fact sheet 4
• 'Street drinking: enforcement Vs support' AERC Alcohol Academy briefing paper
• 'Nightlife and Crime: Social Order and Governance in International Perspective'; a collection of studies by Phil Hadfield exploring alcohol-related disorder issues and approaches in the UK and Europe

Update 05/10/09:

According to the LGU, a spokesman for the Department for Communities & Local Government has since stated a ban would not be legal:

“Government legislation has already given councils, and the police, a range of powers to control drinking behaviour in their communities and it is taking steps to strengthen them further,” he said. “As such councils would not need to, or be able, to pursue a byelaw in this instance as they are specifically for local issues not covered by national legislation.”

Drinking Banning Orders soon available

According to the Home Office the Government has taken the decision to implement Drinking Banning Orders on application. These orders will come into force on 31st August 2009 and will be available to practitioners from this date.

Drinking Banning Orders (DBOs) are modelled on Anti-Social Behaviour Orders as a way of preventing known trouble-makers entering licensed premises.

The Home Office site says DBOs will be available "either on application to the courts by the police or local authority, or on conviction of an alcohol related offence. We are currently only implementing DBOs on application. This will mean that the police and local authorities will be able to apply to the magistrates' court (and county court) for the imposition of a DBO on an individual."

For full information see the Home Office site here.

Currently legislation dating back over a century can be used to ban 'habitual drunkards' from purchasing alcohol. Though rarely used, we recently reported on known drinker subjected to the measures. 

No Alcohol Disorder Zones set up

Councils have not implemented any 'Alcohol Disorder Zones' (ADZs), a measure that allows local authorities to impose charges on licensed premises to pay for the costs of addressing alcohol-related problems. The 'polluter pays' type power has not been up taken by any councils since they were made statute over 12 months ago, as part of the Violent Crime Reduction Act 2006.

The Daily Telegraph reported this as a failing of government to address alcohol-related disorder, but a Home Office spokesman said:

"The fact that there are not any Alcohol Disorder Zones does not suggest that they are not working. Alcohol disorder zones are one of many important tools available to local authorities and police but we have always stressed that they should be used as a last resort."

The Home Office guidance 'A Practical Guide for Dealing with Alcohol Related Problems: What You Need to Know' advises on the use of ADZs and states 'the potential for a zone being declared may be a useful tool to cause licence holders to review their own promotion of the licensing objectives to improve the area before a statutory action plan or order is imposed upon them.'

Drinking Banning Orders (DBOs), brought in under the same legislation, will soon be available as a measure to stop drink-related offenders entering premises. Guidance is due to be released, advising how police or local authorities will need to make applications for DBOs.  Recently one local authority used legislation dating back over a century to prevent a 'habitual' problem drinker from purchasing alcohol (story here). 

Please get in touch if you know of any cases of ADZs or DBOs being used or planned.

However whilst ADZs and Drinking Banning Orders may not yet prove popular, other alcohol-related legislation has been widely used, particularly  'Controlled Drinking Zones', formally known as 'Designated Public Place Orders' (DPPOs). These allow police to confiscate alcohol within the identified area, though are often misinterpreted as a ban on public drinking. Over 600 zones have been introduced since 2003, with some covering whole towns or boroughs.

Hartlepool drinker banned from purchasing alcohol

A woman has been labelled a 'habitual drunkard' and banned from attempting to purchase alcohol anywhere in the country. According to the local paper, Angela Wrightson is the first person in the last decade to be legally labelled a "drunkard" and banned from purchasing alcohol. Hartlepool council used section 6 of the 1902 Licensing Act, the 'Prohibition of sale of liquor to persons declared to be habitual drunkard', which can only be applied to someone previously convicted of an offence contained within the 1898 Inebriates Act.

The Safer Hartlepool Anti-Social Behaviour Unit took the measures due persistent offending and public order offences linked to her drinking, and the failure to engage in services or comply with an Anti-Social Behaviour Order (ASBO). Wrightson will be fined £200 if she is caught trying to buy alcohol, while licensed premises will be fined £500 if they serve her or anyone on her behalf.

In 2007 a Police Inspector in Cornwall said he would encourage his officers to use the same measures after claiming that 'Fixed Penalty Notices were not stiff enough' (story here).

However taking higher-end enforcement measures can be controversial, particularly when used on individuals with complex needs such as alcohol dependency and mental health problems. In 2007 a detailed report examined 'The impact of enforcement on street users in England' and found that whilst enforcement measures were effective, a range of other issues needed to be considered. An AERC Alcohol Academy briefing was recently produced examining Street drinking: enforcement Vs support - finding the balance.

Earlier this year the Home Office announced that Drinking Banning Orders would soon be available to allow police and local authorities to stop a person entering premises following the 2006 Violent Crime Reduction Act. No news as yet.

Whose cider you on?

We have highlighted concerns about white cider before in connection with its impact on homeless people.  At our seminar, Housing Continuing Drinkers on Friday, the issue came up again when St Mungo's services users talked about trying to prevent the off-license next to their hostel from sellling the stuff, saying "it kills people" and is highly addictive. 

Who, apart from alcohol dependent drinkers, buys white cider?  Impoverished students perhaps.  Should it be banned, or is there a legitimate place in the market for it?  Is white cider worse than (stronger) super-strength lagers; if so why?

An article in Health Service Journal on health and homlessness earlier this month quoted community nurse and alcohol worker Jackie Conarty:

"It's 7.5% alcohol and it's never seen an apple in its life. You can buy a two litre flagon for under £2 and that would knock most people out.  It should be banned.  Strong white cider is cheap because it is taxed at a much lower rate than other alcoholic drinks.

The drinks industry cannot justify creating a drink whose sole market is addicts. We did liver toxicity tests on people who drank white ciders and people who drank beers like Tennents Super, which is strong, but is basically malt, water and hops. White ciders are just chemicals. The liver functions were worse in those who drank white ciders."

Anecdotally people often say to us that white cider kills people and that it rots the stomach but where is the evidence?  We would like more information; please send us what you know so we can put the facts to policy makers and the manufacturers of white cider.

Cheap, super-strength lager and cider killing homeless drinkers

Peter Mansfield-Clark, who runs the Three Bridges homeless hostel Crawley Open House, has spoken out against super-strength lagers and ciders and their effect upon sections of the town's homeless community. He told Crawley News

These drinks are gut-rot. They are lethal. The worst thing is that they are so incredibly cheap.

He is calling for shops to act more responsibly and stop selling super-strength drinks to the homeless.  According to Mr Mansfield-Clark, around one in three of his homeless clients have problems related to alcohol, and he wants to see prices raised sharply so homeless people cannot buy so much alcohol with so little money.  

Crawley News investigated prices of super-strength lagers and ciders at a selection of town shops and found the cheapest deals were:

• a four pack of 440ml Tennent's Super cans for £5.00 (9% abv, ie 32p per unit)
• White Ace cider in 500ml cans for just 69p each (7.5% abv, 18p per unit)

See also homeless charity ThamesRreach's One can is all it takes 2005 briefing paper on cheap super-strength drinks, and this real-cider fan's view of white cider. 

Interesting to contrast this with the furore over JD Wetherspoon's 99p pint (which is 50p per unit) promotion.