Does minimum pricing work?

The PM will indicate support for the measure to reduce problem drinking. But does it make sense?

Anyone who's ever come home from a night out with an empty wallet will groan at the thought, but David Cameron is to indicate support for putting a minimum price on alcohol today. During a visit to a hospital in the north-east, he will say that excess consumption of alcohol is costing the NHS £2.7bn a year. This comes ahead of a government strategy on alcohol, due to be published soon after nearly a year of consultation with health professionals and the drinks industry.

If minimum prices are endorsed, it will mark a change in the government's policy. Cameron is instinctively opposed to further regulation, while the public health minister, Ann Milton, has queried whether it would be legal under European free trade legislation. Scotland, which has gone furthest on prices, is still testing the legality.

Of course, minimum prices will have the greatest impact on supermarkets and shops, where discount selling is more common than in pubs or bars. But is it an effective way to reduce dangerous drinking and alcohol-related problems?

Minimum prices would have most effect on the cheapest, strongest end of the spectrum, substantially upping the price of budget ciders (like the notorious, discontinued White Lightning). Some of these could more than double in price. For this reason, it has gained the support of a wide range of health campaigners: upping the prices of these drinks could target the most problematic drinkers.

Over at the BBC, Branwen Jeffreys explains some of the evidence cited by those in favour of the move:

Those who support a minimum price say there is strong evidence internationally that price is linked to consumption, and higher consumption is linked to higher harm. They point to Finland where in 2004 a dramatic cut in prices via taxes led within a year to an increase of 9% in consumption, according to official figures.

Most alcohol in Finland is sold through tightly controlled government-run shops. By 2005 alcohol-related problems were the most common cause of death among Finns of working age.

A 2008 model by the University of Sheffield suggested that a high enough minimum price could significantly reduce the impact and cost of alcohol to society. It found that problem drinkers seek out the cheapest ways to get drunk as they tend to be either young or those who drink a lot, and therefore would change their behaviour in response to price increases more than moderate drinkers would. (It has been strongly challenged by the drinks industry).

While the international examples may be compelling, it is worth pointing out that minimum prices have not yet been introduced in a country with a history of few limitations on the sale of alcohol. States in Canada which have used minimum pricing have a history of prohibition, and the Nordic countries have a tradition of selling alcohol through government-owned shops. That's why the example of Scotland will be watched closely.

On the other hand, some question the efficacy of minimum pricing on economic grounds. Tim Harford points out that it would up the profit margins of supermarkets -- and that in fact, if they decided a minimum price amongst themselves (rather than having one imposed by the government), they would be in breach of competition laws. He recommends increasing taxation further instead, as this would ensure that prices rise in proportion and would put the extra revenue in the hands of government rather than supermarkets. Rather paradoxically, minimum prices could make cheap alcohol a very lucrative product for supermarkets (because of the mark up).

Although the long-term benefits to society are difficult to prove conclusively, most people would agree that less cheap alcohol would have a positive effect. The evidence that alcohol consumption goes down when prices goes up is fairly strong. The best economic method of doing this remains to be seen.

Samira Shackle is a freelance journalist, who tweets @samirashackle. She was formerly a staff writer for the New Statesman.

Getty
Show Hide image

Women's bodies should not be bargaining chips for the Tories and the DUP

Women in Northern Ireland have been told for too long that the Good Friday Agreement is too fragile to withstand debates about their reproductive rights

When Members of Parliament are asked to pass laws relating to when and whether women can terminate their pregnancies, women’s rights are rarely the focus of that decision-making process. You need only look at the way in which these votes are traditionally presented by party leaders and chief whips as “a matter of conscience” - the ultimate get-out for any MP who thinks their own value or belief system should get priority over women’s ability to have control over their bodies.

Today’s vote is no different. The excellent amendment that Labour MP Stella Creasy has put before the house reveals not just the inequalities experienced by women in different parts of the UK when it comes to being able to make decisions about their health, but also the latest layers of subterfuge and politicking around abortion. 

Creasy’s amendment seeks access to the NHS for women who travel to England and Wales from Northern Ireland seeking abortion. Right now women in Northern Ireland are pretty much denied abortion by legislative criteria that limits it to cases that will "preserve the life of the mother" - (that’s preserving, not prioritising) - and pregnancies under nine weeks and four days. Rape, incest or fatal foetal abnormality are not included as grounds for termination. The thousands of women who thus travel to England are refused free abortions on the NHS - confirmed by a recent Supreme Court ruling - on the grounds that this is a devolved matter for Northern Ireland. 

The idea behind devolution is that power should be more evenly and fairly distributed. It is not intended to deprive people of rights but to ensure rights. In refusing to exercise the powers available to him, Health secretary Jeremy Hunt is rightly acknowledging a difficult history of power imbalance between Westminster and Stormont, but he is also ignoring a wider imbalance of power, between men and women.  

There is so very much wrong with this arrangement. But a further wrong could be done if, as reports suggest, the Conservative Party whips its MPs to vote the amendment down in order to protect the regressive alliance with the anti-abortion Democratic Unionist Party (DUP) that is keeping their fragile minority government in power.

Instead of taking this opportunity to respond to the demands of women of Northern Ireland, this government is setting out the parameters of its complicity in refusing to listen to them. 

It is not the first time. In 2008 it was reported that the Labour party struck a deal with the DUP to leave Northern Ireland’s abortion laws intact, in exchange for their support over detaining terror suspects without charge for 42 days. Labour said at the time that it was concerned about the impact on existing UK abortion laws if the debate was opened.

But not one woman has equality until all women have equality. Women’s bodies are not chips to be bargained and we should not be bargaining for one group of women’s rights by surrendering the rights of another group. The UK parliament has responsibility for ensuring human rights in every part of the UK. Those include the rights of Northern Irish women.

It’s time to wake up. It’s time to stop playing politics with women’s lives. Women in Northern Ireland have been told for too long that the Good Friday Agreement is too fragile to withstand debates about their reproductive rights – a fragility that was dismissed by the Conservatives as they drew up a deal with one side of the power-sharing arrangement.

It’s time to confront the fact that nowhere in the United Kingdom – taking Northern Ireland as a starting point rather than an end in itself – do women enjoy free and legal access to abortion. Even the UK’s 1967 act is only a loophole that allows women to seek the approval of two doctors to circumvent an older law criminalising any woman who goes ahead with an abortion.

As long as our rights are subject to the approval of doctors, to technological developments, to decisions made in a parliament where men outnumber women by two to one, to public opinion polls, to peace agreements that prioritise one set of human rights over another – well, then they are not rights at all.

The Women’s Equality Party considers any attempt to curtail women’s reproductive rights an act of violence against them. This week in Northern Ireland we are meeting and listening to women’s organisations, led by our Belfast branch, to agree strategy for the first part of a much wider battle. It is time to write reproductive rights into the laws of every country. We have to be uncompromising in our demands for full rights and access to abortion in every part of the UK; for the choice of every woman to be realised.

Sophie Walker is leader of the Women's Equality Party.

0800 7318496