Minimum Unit Alcohol Price Illegal, says European Court of Justice

[mjw]

Brilliant, subsidize alcohol IMO

Yours already is.

Six cans of lager a week won't empty the public purse though.

[Poet of the Macabre]

If someone wants to get pissed on a tenner with no regard for their own health then I don't think the SNP should be stopping them tbh. I don't really agree that Scotland has a problem with alcohol. Getting pissed and going out is fun

You're an idiot or a shite troll.

[Granny Danger]

You're an idiot and a shite troll.

FTFY

[ICTChris]

We clearly fucking can't.

The number of Scottish people drinking above government guidelines (which are pretty conservative anyway) has fallen over the last decade. The number of Scots who completely abstain from alcohol has increased in that time. Also, problem drinking is higher among richer Scots (this is the same in other countries as well) than poorer so increasing the price of gut rot cans of tramp juice won't impact on that.

Do you write for the Scotsman?

Daily Star mate.

The court ruled that the proposals would be breach EU law if tax rises could be used instead. Also, it's not an attack on the SNP - various other governments are looking to introduce minimum pricing (David Cameron used to support it) and i'm pretty sure every party in the Scottish Parliament either voted for the measure or abstained. Interesting that this case shows the value of governments being held to standards by supranational bodies.

I'm not sure about wanting to reduce alcohol consumption through government action but if you do want to do that then I don't think minimum unit pricing is the best way to do it.

[Ad Lib]

The court ruled that the proposals would be breach EU law if tax rises could be used instead. Also, it's not an attack on the SNP - various other governments are looking to introduce minimum pricing (David Cameron used to support it) and i'm pretty sure every party in the Scottish Parliament either voted for the measure or abstained. Interesting that this case shows the value of governments being held to standards by supranational bodies.

I'm not sure about wanting to reduce alcohol consumption through government action but if you do want to do that then I don't think minimum unit pricing is the best way to do it.

Not quite.

The court ruled that it would be disproportionate and therefore unlawful if it could be shown that a tax measure would achieve at least as greatly the objective of the legislation in relation to public health whilst interfering to a lesser extent in the free movement of goods in the common market.

Whether tax measures are in fact capable of achieving that ends, regardless of who has the power to implement those tax measures, is still a question for the domestic courts to determine.

[strichener]

Not quite.

The court ruled that it would be disproportionate and therefore unlawful if it could be shown that a tax measure would achieve at least as greatly the objective of the legislation in relation to public health whilst interfering to a lesser extent in the free movement of goods in the common market.

Whether tax measures are in fact capable of achieving that ends, regardless of who has the power to implement those tax measures, is still a question for the domestic courts to determine.

It would actually be nearly impossible for the drinks lobby to argue that there were alternatives given the studies that have shown that minimum unit pricing is th best method to achieve the policy objective. I think the drinks industry are pissing in the wind here as a duty increase will reduce their profit levels against what MUP would have done. Their only hope is that the UK government do not raise, nor give the SG control over, duty.

[invergowrie arab]

Ad lib you seem up on this.

What's the story where Holyrood could legislate to put the minimum price in place and the revenue could fund local services?

[Ad Lib]

It would actually be nearly impossible for the drinks lobby to argue that there were alternatives given the studies that have shown that minimum unit pricing is th best method to achieve the policy objective. I think the drinks industry are pissing in the wind here as a duty increase will reduce their profit levels against what MUP would have done. Their only hope is that the UK government do not raise, nor give the SG control over, duty.

It's not a question of what is the "best" method of achieving the policy objective. They have to show that the interference is of sufficient importance to justify the extent of the interference. If the objective can be achieved without as grave an interference the policy is disproportionate. As the ECJ pointed out, it's not sufficient to show that there are ancillary benefits to one or another policy. Unless they can specifically show that MUP can achieve ends that any available tax measure can't (not simply that the existing or historic tax measures don't) then you hit problems for disproportionality.

Ad lib you seem up on this.

What's the story where Holyrood could legislate to put the minimum price in place and the revenue could fund local services?

I'm not following you.

[invergowrie arab]

I'm led to believe an alcohol tax could be levied as a local tax and Holyrood has the power to legislate for that.

Units of alcohol could be the basis of the tax.

I don't really have a full understanding of the mechanics or implications of such an instrument though.

[Ad Lib]

I'm led to believe an alcohol tax could be levied as a local tax and Holyrood has the power to legislate for that.

Units of alcohol could be the basis of the tax.

I don't really have a full understanding of the mechanics or implications of such an instrument though.

I would be surprised if it could be levied as a local tax. The authority to tax has to be pretty explicit in UK law. Local authorities in particular struggle even to implement congestion charges without specific statutory authority. Where are you getting this from?

[strichener]

It's not a question of what is the "best" method of achieving the policy objective. They have to show that the interference is of sufficient importance to justify the extent of the interference. If the objective can be achieved without as grave an interference the policy is disproportionate. As the ECJ pointed out, it's not sufficient to show that there are ancillary benefits to one or another policy. Unless they can specifically show that MUP can achieve ends that any available tax measure can't (not simply that the existing or historic tax measures don't) then you hit problems for disproportionality.

In their press release the EU make the following statement:

According to the Court, a fiscal measure that increases the taxation of alcoholic drinks is liable to be less restrictive than a measure imposing an MPU since, unlike where there is a minimum price; traders retain the freedom to determine their selling prices.

Which is absolutely nuts. There are already EU countries (including the UK) with laws preventing below cost selling and therefore the trade already have a floor for pricing.

[Ad Lib]

In their press release the EU make the following statement:

Which is absolutely nuts. There are already EU countries (including the UK) with laws preventing below cost selling and therefore the trade already have a floor for pricing.

But those restrictions have to be shown, on the evidence, in each specific instance, to be the least restrictive means capable of achieving the legitimate aim.

[strichener]

But those restrictions have to be shown, on the evidence, in each specific instance, to be the least restrictive means capable of achieving the legitimate aim.

Yes but the assertion that traders have the freedom to set their selling prices is factually incorrect.

[Ad Lib]

Yes but the assertion that traders have the freedom to set their selling prices is factually incorrect.

They have greater freedom to do so than if the MUP provision comes into place.

[strichener]

They have greater freedom to do so than if the MUP provision comes into place.

I never stated "greater freedom", just retain the freedom which is something that the do not currently have.

Even setting this rephrasing aside, minimum pricing will not affect the price that can be charged only set the floor which is what is already in place. In terms of spirits, the duty is already set in the same manner as minimum unit pricing and is currently 27.66p

[invergowrie arab]

I would be surprised if it could be levied as a local tax. The authority to tax has to be pretty explicit in UK law. Local authorities in particular struggle even to implement congestion charges without specific statutory authority. Where are you getting this from?

Check Andy wightmans twitter

[Ad Lib]

I never stated "greater freedom", just retain the freedom which is something that the do not currently have.

Even setting this rephrasing aside, minimum pricing will not affect the price that can be charged only set the floor which is what is already in place. In terms of spirits, the duty is already set in the same manner as minimum unit pricing and is currently 27.66p

I didn't say you did say that. I'm explaining what the ECJ meant about that. They were not inferring that there would be unrestricted freedom to set price.

MUP does "affect the price that can be charged". Specifically, it prevents you from setting a price below the prescribed minimum. Which is a specific number. That's definitionally what it does.

At the moment, as I understand it, the rules prohibit selling alcohol below the price of the taxes levied on it (alcohol duty plus VAT). Is that what your 27.66p refers to? This restriction doesn't mean that the proposed MUP measures are legal, because they are more intrusive in the single market than simply raising alcohol duty to increase that effective limit would be. The difference is that using duty rather than MUP, asides where the excess revenues go, is that you can distinguish between different types of beverage and therefore target higher prices at specific drinks rather than cheap booze in the industry as a whole. I imagine that one of the arguments those in the industry against MUP will be making.

Check Andy wightmans twitter

Just taken a look. There's an arguable case but I think he'd struggle to prove that the relevant provisions of the Scotland Act intended to permit councils to levy alcohol taxes. It almost certainly wasn't Parliament's actual intention when they passed the Scotland Act.

[lichtgilphead]

The difference is that using duty rather than MUP, asides where the excess revenues go, is that you can distinguish between different types of beverage and therefore target higher prices at specific drinks rather than cheap booze in the industry as a whole. I imagine that one of the arguments those in the industry against MUP will be making.

Unfortunately Libby, you appear to be arguing in circles. The reason that some booze (ie cider) appears cheap is that it is already subject to a lower rate of duty than other alcoholic drinks of similar strength.

For example, using the tables here: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/rates-and-allowance-excise-duty-alcohol-duty/alcohol-duty-rates-from-24-march-2014 you can calculate that the duty on a litre of 4,8% ABV sparkling cider is 58.75 pence.

On a beer of the same strength, the duty is 88.176 pence.

Now, if we look at Stella Artois' current prices at Tesco, a 4-pack of Stella Artois Cidre costs £2.28/litre. The equivalent 4-pack of lager costs £2.02/litre.

The beer is cheaper, even though the duty is 30 pence per litre higher.

Without taking these factors into account, you cannot say which product is cheaper to produce.

Similar comparisons can be made between "cheap" cider & other alcoholic products subject to higher rates of duty.

If someone was a total cynic, they might even suggest that the low rate applied to cider was a protectionist measure aimed at assisting apple growers & cider manufacturers from competition from distillers & brewers. Westminster wouldn't stoop to tactics like that though, would they?

[invergowrie arab]

I didn't say you did say that. I'm explaining what the ECJ meant about that. They were not inferring that there would be unrestricted freedom to set price.

MUP does "affect the price that can be charged". Specifically, it prevents you from setting a price below the prescribed minimum. Which is a specific number. That's definitionally what it does.

At the moment, as I understand it, the rules prohibit selling alcohol below the price of the taxes levied on it (alcohol duty plus VAT). Is that what your 27.66p refers to? This restriction doesn't mean that the proposed MUP measures are legal, because they are more intrusive in the single market than simply raising alcohol duty to increase that effective limit would be. The difference is that using duty rather than MUP, asides where the excess revenues go, is that you can distinguish between different types of beverage and therefore target higher prices at specific drinks rather than cheap booze in the industry as a whole. I imagine that one of the arguments those in the industry against MUP will be making.

Just taken a look. There's an arguable case but I think he'd struggle to prove that the relevant provisions of the Scotland Act intended to permit councils to levy alcohol taxes. It almost certainly wasn't Parliament's actual intention when they passed the Scotland Act.

Cheers for looking. Wasn't sure if it was an elegant solution not explored because of the SNPs apparent preference for centralism or just some thing that is plain unworkable.

[Ad Lib]

Unfortunately Libby, you appear to be arguing in circles. The reason that some booze (ie cider) appears cheap is that it is already subject to a lower rate of duty than other alcoholic drinks of similar strength.

For example, using the tables here: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/rates-and-allowance-excise-duty-alcohol-duty/alcohol-duty-rates-from-24-march-2014 you can calculate that the duty on a litre of 4,8% ABV sparkling cider is 58.75 pence.

On a beer of the same strength, the duty is 88.176 pence.

Now, if we look at Stella Artois' current prices at Tesco, a 4-pack of Stella Artois Cidre costs £2.28/litre. The equivalent 4-pack of lager costs £2.02/litre.

The beer is cheaper, even though the duty is 30 pence per litre higher.

Without taking these factors into account, you cannot say which product is cheaper to produce.

Similar comparisons can be made between "cheap" cider & other alcoholic products subject to higher rates of duty.

If someone was a total cynic, they might even suggest that the low rate applied to cider was a protectionist measure aimed at assisting apple growers & cider manufacturers from competition from distillers & brewers. Westminster wouldn't stoop to tactics like that though, would they?

I didn't say that differential rates of alcohol duty were used in that way. I simply said that they could be.