Scotland's green light to implement minimum unit pricing (MUP), due to come into effect in May this year, already appears to be increasing policy attention to the issue south of the border as MPs heard from stakeholders at a session on MUP held by the Health and Home Affairs Committees.
The committee sought to assess the case for introducing MUP on alcohol in England, in particular:
the potential impact a MUP could have on health, healthcare and the criminal justice system
- any cross border implications posed by decisions of the UK, Scottish and Welsh governments.
The sessions are available to watch here. Below we attempt to capture some of the key points discussed.
MUP: old questions, new review?
The first session saw MPs quiz health experts and advocates of MUP, including Professor Ian Gilmore, Professor Nick Sheron, Public Health England's Rosanna O'Connor and police Sgt Mick Urwin. A subsequent session heard from the heads of two alcohol industry bodies, the Wine and Spirits Trade Association (WTSA) and the British Beer and Pub Association (BPPA) as well as the Institute of Fiscal Studies.
The Committee though were clearly not in unison on the issue and the evidence presented; whilst the session was chaired by Sarah Wollaston, a supporter of MUP and further policy action to address alcohol harms, MPs such as Ben Bradshaw and Tim Loughton were evidently far from convinced, at times seemingly trying to catch out the first session's panellists and the validity of their evidence. Whilst the panel argued the MUP was indeed an 'exquisitely' targetted measure owing to the extent to which it would target heavier drinkers, they faced repeated questions over the Sheffield modelling, it's technicalities and the often raised counter-arguments.
Re-iterating the rationale for MUP, Rosanna O'Conner highlighted evidence from PHE's evidence review that nearly one third of alcohol is drunk by 4.4% of the population, prompting national media coverage. Discussion subsequently returned to the well known counter-arguments; was the evidence sufficient, and would it penalise 'responsible' drinkers and the poor. Once again, Sheffield's modelling and the lessons from Canada's pricing policies were wrestled over, as were the exact speculated costs to moderate drinkers and questions over the alcohol harm paradox.
Evidence against MUP?
During the following session, Bridget Simmonds of the BBPA stated she did not believe MUP would affect the heaviest drinkers, instead suggesting that partnerships and education had been responsible for declines in consumption. Simmonds refuted the argument made earlier by Nick Sheron that the introduction of the alcohol duty escalator had prompted a decline in consumption, but when pressed by the Chair MP Sarah Wollaston to give specific evidence of this she appeared unable to.
Miles Beale spoke on behalf of the WSTA, an organisation that actively campaigns for duty cuts and against MUP as a measure that it's website says would 'penalise all consumers' and is without 'real world evidence'. Beale highlighted that whilst the WSTA had previously taken the position that they thought MUP wasn't legal, whilst this is now not the case as a point of law, they didn't believe this meant MUP would work or would be fair. Beale later cited the impact on businesses such as the costs to retailers for implementing price changes as ASDA recently highlighted. On whether England should follow Scotland's lead - amid recent warnings that delaying implementation could cost thousands of lives - Beale responded to the committee asking 'why wouldn't you wait five years to see what happens [with MUP in Scotland]?'.
In responding to a direct question on whether the country drinks too much alcohol, Beale stated he did not agree, except for a very small population. Pressed on whether then they would like to see people drink more, he stated he would like to see people spend the same amount or more, whilst drinking the same amount or less. Asked directly about the 4.4% of the population drinking almost a third of the the alcohol, Beale suggested support should be offered to this group. But when asked specifically if he would support a preventative measure to target this group, Beale replied 'not necessarily a preventative measure, but a measure', following on to argue that whilst hypothetically taxation could be used, 'we are incredibly highly taxed in the UK'. He highlighted the former Responsibility Deal, Best Bar None, Community Alcohol Partnerships and proof of ages schemes, all of which 'have definitely had an impact in driving down drinking by 18%'.
IFS: in favour of taxation
On many occasions the argument returned to the Sheffield MUP modelling, though the IFS have consistently argued for changes to taxation as a preferred measure and again in a recently released report. IFS economist Kate Smith however would not state the MUP modelling was was wrong per se, but agreed that there could be no certainties and highlighted other potential considerations and 'costs', including how money is transferred to retailers under MUP, rather than the Government as per taxation.
However Colin Angus of the Sheffield team had tweeted following the release of the IFS report that although ostensibly quite critical of MUP, that was 'because the IFS, as economists, take an exchequer perspective and see tax as better because more of the revenue goes back to the treasury. In fact, 'many of their findings support MUP.' Indeed advocates of MUP, including members of the Sheffield team have often suggested both taxation and MUP should be used together as they have fundamentally different mechanisms.
Indeed Kate Smith attempted to examine many of the issues as more complex in reality, and appeared less clearly against MUP compared to her panel counterparts. Interestingly, Smith suggested that focusing on the income gradient was a 'little bit of a red herring' in this context, and that 'no perfect policy exists'. Heavy drinkers she acknowledged might be less price responsive, but this does not mean they are not price responsive. Keen to return to the arguments for taxation levers, Smith pointed out that a pint of cider is taxed a third of the amount of beer, stating 'there is no rationale for that' and could be dealt with in the tax system. There is scope, 'even within the current system to bring things more in line' also highlighting opportunities offered by Brexit for future domestic alcohol duty reform.
MUP: where next for Westminster?
Few would confidently predict the Government's precise future course of action on MUP, or indeed how smoothly Wale's and Ireland's MUP intentions will play out. In 2013 the former coalition Government infamously u-turned on MUP, since when there have been no clear policy statements beyond 'keeping it under review', although more recently acknowledging the findings of PHE's evidence review.
Observers of the recent session though may feel that any forthcoming scrutiny sessions would be wise to include members of the Sheffield alcohol group (as the was seen at the recent Welsh committee) given the amount of discussion focused on their predictions. Health advocates though may hope that the introduction of MUP in Scotland later year will soon begin to show clear evidence of its effect, notably since positive effects reportedly began to be seen not long after pricing policy changes in Canada. Watch this space.
Comments