The UK government has responded to the World Health Organisation's draft action plan on alcohol. The corrupt and incompetent WHO has shifted the goalposts with its Global Alcohol Strategy. It wants to move away from a target of reducing alcohol-related harm by ten per cent worldwide to reducing alcohol consumption by twenty per cent worldwide. This is not going to happen (it wants to do this by 2030!) and there is no economic or ethical justification for it.
It also wants member states to raise taxes on alcohol and give the money to the WHO. And it wants a Framework Convention on Alcohol Control modelled on the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (we tried to warn you this would happen).
The UK, quite rightly, is not having this. In some curt comments at the end of the UK's response (p. 490), HM Treasury tells the WHO where it can stick its FCAC and its global alcohol tax.
HM Treasury (HMT) are carrying out a review of alcohol duty. HMT is not in agreement to a direction of travel that seeks to put alcohol on the same footing as tobacco. Particularly the mooted suggestion of creating a FCTC-equivalent for alcohol, as this would be unviable.HMT further commented on the action points in section 6:
- Global target 6.1: 50% of countries have increased available resources for reducing the harmful use of alcohol and increasing coverage and quality of prevention and treatment interventions for disorders due to alcohol use and associated health conditions.
- Global target 6.2: An increased number of countries with earmarked funding from alcohol tax revenues for reducing the harmful use of alcohol and increasing coverage and quality of prevention and treatment interventions for disorders due to alcohol use and associated health conditions.
This would not be supported in any way. It’s antithetical to HMT to hypothecate taxes, and we would say that resourcing of alcohol prevention/treatment is a matter for member states in line with their national circumstances and not something to be determined by WHO targets.
That's them told. Maybe the WHO should spend a bit more time working on infectious diseases and a bit less time worrying about what people drink.
Note that the document says that hypothecated taxes as 'antithetical' to the Treasury. Bad news for anyone who believes that the revenues from Henry Dimbleby's proposed sugar and salt taxes would be earmarked for cuddly causes. Remember how campaigners said the revenue from the sugary drink tax would go towards school sports and breakfast clubs? It never happened.
No comments:
Post a Comment