In this guest post, Jane Hughes, a researcher at the Sheffield Alcohol Research Group (SARG), explores the current position of MUP across the UK and elsewhere, and the key issues for policy debates.
A bit like Brexit, implementation of the minimum unit pricing (MUP) policy in Scotland has had its share of twists, turns, legal challenges and divided public opinion. In Scotland, the Scottish Parliament passed legislation to introduce the policy in 2012 and, after a five-year legal challenge led by the Scotch Whisky Association, it was eventually implemented on 1st May 2018.
Implementation was followed by media stories claiming, for example, that Scottish consumers were ‘crossing the border and filling up a white van with cider’ and, more than a year on, the policy continues to attract public debate and media speculation. This has been mirrored in England, Wales, Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland, where attempts to introduce a MUP are at different stages. In Wales, MUP was expected to be implemented in mid-2019 but a challenge at EU-level by Portugal has led to a delay until at least 2020. The Northern Ireland Executive and the Irish Government had planned to harmonise pricing interventions and introduce MUP simultaneously but, although the Irish Government has passed MUP legislation, progress towards joint implementation is stalled following the continuing suspension of the Northern Ireland Executive. In England, after a public consultation in 2012, the government announced in 2013 it would not be implementing MUP in the near future, citing ‘powerful arguments from both sides’.
If the UK and Ireland illustrate the difficulties and challenges facing the policy, what’s the picture globally? Some form of minimum pricing is in place in seven countries: Canada, certain states of the USA, Russia, Moldova, Ukraine, Uzbekistan and the Northern Territory of Australia. However only the Northern Territory of Australia has joined Scotland in implementing minimum unit pricing, with the policy coming into law on October 1st 2018. Meanwhile, evidence on the effectiveness of the Canadian policies has been used prominently to evidence MUP policy initiatives.
Despite evidence for its overall effectiveness, concerns remain among stakeholders about MUP around the potential for negative impacts on those who may have alcohol dependency or drink at harmful levels as those expected to be directly and substantially affected by a price rise. In particular, for those on low incomes who may have the most severe problems with dependence, there has been uncertainty around how people will manage, especially over the short-term.
Amongst those with alcohol dependency, cutting back on essentials, substituting drugs for alcohol and increased participation in crime have all been raised as possible negative outcomes and there is some limited evidence to support this from studies in Canada and New Zealand. The picture is mixed however, with many survey respondents saying they adopt positive strategies when alcohol becomes unaffordable, such as drinking less or seeking help for their alcohol problems. For policy-makers, this has meant careful evaluation is needed to ensure that these possible outcomes are monitored and mitigating action taken where appropriate. For Scotland, examining the impact of MUP on those with alcohol dependence or who drink at harmful levels is an important part of the wider evaluation of the policy, although results will not begin to emerge until 2020.
So, well over a year since the implementation in Scotland, how is MUP faring? The first official data on alcohol sales has been released, indicating a fall in consumption of around 3% in 2018 (which included eight months post-MUP data), to 'the lowest level seen' in Scotland since 1994 when data collection began. This has led to renewed calls for MUP implementation in the Republic of Ireland, Wales and Northern Ireland and further arguments for and against the policy from both sides of the debate in England. Mirroring public and media discourse around Brexit, reactions to the recent sales data highlights the division of opinion, with apparent the pro and anti-MUP camps both citing types of evidence in support of their side of the argument. A rise in recent drugs deaths in Scotland, for example, led to some unsubstantiated and attention-grabbing headlines speculating on a possible link to MUP.
The understandable tendency of both sides of the debate to frame emerging data, media reports and research to support their position presents a challenge for policy-makers trying to assess the available evidence and respond accordingly. For example, a recent report showing an increase in alcohol-related deaths in Scotland in 2018 highlights the need for a careful and considered assessment of the data and consideration of complex factors such as time lag effects. Although a clearer picture will emerge as formal evaluation analyses are published, it appears likely that vigorous debate and attempts to influence public perceptions will continue for many months to come.
Finally, the impending prospect of Brexit itself may also impact on MUP policy decision-making for the countries in the UK and the Republic of Ireland. A case in point being the recent announcement by the English treasury that in the event of a no-deal Brexit, alcohol and tobacco will be duty-free. This attracted widespread criticism including from health groups, although opportunities to reform complex and inconsistent alcohol duty regulations have also been recently called for. It is at least interesting times for alcohol and the questions of pricing policy.
Comments