|
|
|
|
Scotland raises minimum alcohol prices by almost one third
Scottish consumers will be unable to buy a bottle of red wine for less than £6.09 or a bottle of whisky for under £18.20 from October, after the minimum price for alcohol was raised by 30%.
Shona Robison, the deputy first minister, confirmed a Guardian story earlier this week that the minimum unit price (MUP) will increase from 50p a unit to 65p to keep pace with inflation and ensure prices are kept relatively high.
The new prices will come into force on 30 September. It means a basic bottle of whisky will rise from £14 to £18.20; a can of lager will cost at least £1.30; and a standard bottle of vodka £17.06.
“Alcohol harm remains a significant issue in Scotland,” Robison said. “It continues to contribute to worsening health outcomes.” She said this was particularly the case for men in deprived areas.
The Fraser of Allander Institute, at Strathclyde University, estimates retailers have earned a total of about £30m a year from MUP because they retain the difference between the higher price paid for drinks and the wholesale price of the product.
Scottish Labour and public health charities argue that the case for a levy is now even greater: a 65p minimum price means higher unearned profits. Labour said on Thursday the levy’s proceeds should be spent on alcohol treatment and recovery projects.
Robison dismissed Conservative arguments that the increase unjustly penalised ordinary consumers during a cost of living crisis. Expert analysis suggested minimum pricing had cut the number of deaths annually from alcohol misuse by 13.4% compared with the likely death rate had MUP not been in place, Robison said.
Source: The Guardian, 8 February 2024
See also: Wyper GMA, Mackay DF, Fraser C, Lewsey J, Robinson M, Beeston C, et al. Evaluating the impact of alcohol minimum unit pricing on deaths and hospitalisations in Scotland: a controlled interrupted time series study. The Lancet, 2023
|
|
Health and Social Care Committee - Oral evidence: Prevention in health and social care, Dr Javed Khan
On Monday, Dr Javed Khan OBE, author of the Khan review: making smoking obsolete, gave evidence to the Health and Social Care Committee inquiry on prevention. He was asked to reflect on the recommendations made in his 2022 report, comment on current regulatory plans and consider what further action would be needed to eliminate smoking in the UK.
One proposal given by Khan was tobacco licensing, which he argues would be a useful regulatory tool to ensure “cowboy operators” were prevented from trading. As part of this, Khan also urged the government to transfer more enforcement powers to local authorities, so that their trading standards teams had easy and effective ways to punish retailers breaking the law.
Khan also suggested that a “polluter pays” levy is an option the government should be considering, first because it would raise money to continue to fund smoking cessation activities but also because the tobacco industry only contributes £10 billion to our taxes but creates a £17 billion cost to our society, “surely that industry should take responsibility for the effect that it has.”
The committee also asked Khan about specific groups that need to be individually targeted to drive down smoking rates. Khan talked about those with mental health conditions as a priority group, but explained that this should be thought of as two separate groups - those with serious mental illness and those with mental health issues which are less severe. Khan felt more had been done to tackle smoking amongst those with serious mental illnesses but that more could be done to target those experiencing more general mental health issues. It is especially important, Khan argued, to catch people just as their mental illness is developed as smoking can worsen mental health and trap people in a cycle of dependence.
He also pointed out that those living in social housing are a group in need of targeted support, with the suggestion that social housing sites should be 70% smokefree to prevent non-smokers living in social housing from being exposed to second hand smoke.
Watch the full session here
Source: Parliament TV, 5 February 2024
See also: The Khan Review: Making Smoking Obsolete
|
|
Global Alliance for Tobacco Control – COP10 Daily Bulletin Day 5
The Global Alliance for Tobacco Control (GATC) is publishing a daily bulletin for each day of the tenth Session of the Conference of the Parties (COP10) to the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC) taking place in Panama. Below are some highlights from today:
-
Influencing policy discussions at COP: A newly-published brief from STOP shows how the tobacco industry has exploited tobacco harm reduction to influence policy discussions, including at COP. Tobacco Tactics also published a new resource on recent industry interference activity around COP & MOP: Industry Influence on COP10 & MOP3.
-
Exposing the Tobacco Industry’s Tactic: The Alarming Rise of Electronic Smoking Devices: The tobacco industry’s foray into electronic smoking devices (ESDs), which include electronic cigarettes and heated tobacco products, has sparked concern and alarm among public health advocates. These companies, known for their track record of manipulating scientific research and policies to their advantage, have extended their influence into the rapidly growing market of e-cigarettes, employing various tactics to maintain and expand their hold on the nicotine business.
-
Harnessing the power of Article 19 of the WHO FCTC to increase resources for tobacco control and hold Big Tobacco accountable: The tobacco industry has long used legal threats to intimidate governments into weak implementation of the treaty’s most effective measures. It is time to shift the burden of tobacco use onto the industry, compel it to respect the rule of law and make it pay for the harms caused by its deadly products.
-
Tobacco harm reduction is about population health, not industry profits: ‘Harm reduction’ is an established public health strategy, referred to in the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (WHO FCTC) in the context of a range of strategies that “aim to improve the health of a population.” The general obligations of the WHO FCTC require Parties to adopt and implement effective measures for preventing and reducing tobacco consumption and nicotine addiction. In other words, harm reduction is at the heart of the treaty. Yet in recent years, amid falling global cigarette sales, the term ‘harm reduction’ has been co-opted by the tobacco industry.
|
|
Health and Social Care Committee: Oral evidence, Prevention in Health and Social care
On Tuesday the 6th of February, the Health and Social Care Select Committee heard evidence from Hazel Cheeseman, Deputy Chief Executive, Action Against Smoking; Asma Khalil, Vice President for Academia and Strategy, The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (RCOG); Professor Peter Hajek, Director of Health and Lifestyle Research Unit, Wolfson Institute of Population Health Barts and The London School of Medicine and Dentistry Queen Mary University of London about preventing the harms caused by tobacco. During the session the following points were made:
-
Responding to a question about whether the smokefree generation legislation being “nanny state”, Hazel said that tobacco smoking is an addiction that is often taken up as a child and is a uniquely lethal consumer product and therefore requires a unique regulatory approach.
-
Responding to a question about whether it would be difficult to enforce, Hazel pointed to previous smokefree legislation which saw high levels of compliance as a result of investment in enforcement and education around the policy. She added that the Smokefree Generation legislation would ideally make up part of a package of measures which would reduce smoking prevalence among all age groups.
-
Smokefree legislation has broad public support with the majority of the public backing the smokefree generation.
-
The success of regional programmes such as Fresh who operate in the North East at driving down historically high rates of smoking should be learnt from and replicated in other regions across the nation.
-
The success of public health interventions aimed at reducing smoking rates were successful because the tobacco industry were kept at arm’s length, and this should be replicated with other harm causing industries such as alcohol and the unhealth food and drink industry.
You can watch the full session here.
Source: Parliament TV, 6 February 2024
|
|
Health Foundation: updated analysis of the public health grant
The Health Foundation has updated their analysis of the public health grant following the publication of new funding allocations for local authorities. Key points:
-
The allocation for the public health grant in 2024/25 is £3.6bn (£3.9bn including additional drug and alcohol treatment funding).
-
The public health grant has been cut by 27% on a real-terms per person basis since 2015/16. Taking account of the additional spend for drug and alcohol treatment and smoking services and support leaves broader public health funding 20% lower on a real-terms per person basis since 2015/16.
-
Additional time-limited funding has been allocated to local authorities for drug and alcohol treatment and smoking services and support. The drug and alcohol funding has been allocated for 2022/23 to 2024/25, the smoking services and support funding will be allocated for 2024/25 to 2028/29.
-
We estimate that some of the largest reductions in spend over this period will be for sexual health services (39%), public health advice (34%) and drug and alcohol services for young people (31%).
-
Poor health is strongly associated with living in socioeconomically deprived areas. A girl born today in the most deprived 10% of local areas is expected to live 20 fewer years in good health than a girl born in the least deprived.
-
However, real-terms per person cuts to the grant have tended to be greater in more deprived areas. In Blackpool, ranked as the most deprived upper tier local authority in England, the cut to the grant (including new drug and alcohol treatment and smoking services and support funding) has been one of the largest – at £30 in real terms per person since 2015/16.
-
Local authority public health interventions funded by the grant provide excellent value for money, with each additional year of good health achieved in the population by public health interventions costing £3,800. This is three to four times lower than the cost resulting from NHS interventions of £13,500.
|
|
Health Foundation: Entrenched financial strain on councils continues to impact health and exacerbate inequalities
Commenting on the publication of the final local government finance settlement, Katherine Merrifield, Assistant Director in the Healthy Lives team at the Health Foundation, said:
'Today’s announcement confirms that local authorities will see a 7.5% cash terms increase in core spending power next year. This includes a guaranteed increase in core spending power of 4% before decisions on council tax, alongside a £500m boost in social care grants announced in January. However, it will do little to stabilise councils' increasingly precarious financial situations.
'This settlement will leave council budgets with an estimated £1bn deficit, with core spending power around 12% lower in real terms than in 2010/11. This shortfall – against a backdrop of long-term underfunding – means councils must make near-impossible decisions to cut service. This will impact local people’s health as they may no longer be able to access many of the services they rely on, such as decent housing, good education, leisure facilities, libraries, community centres and public transport.
'Public health teams will also face financial strain. Despite a 2.1% cash uplift on 2023/24 provided in the public health grant, public health funding per person remains 27% lower in real terms in 2024/25 than in 2015/16, requiring some preventative services to be cut – particularly in more deprived areas where reductions in public health allocations tend to be largest – which will detrimentally impact population health and health inequalities.
'To improve the nation's health, local government funding must be sufficient, sustainable, and proportionate to need. This requires urgent attention from the next government.'
|
|
LGA on public health grant allocations
Commenting on the publication of the 2024/25 public health grant allocations, Cllr David Fothergill, Chairman of the Local Government Association’s Community Wellbeing Board said:
“Although any real terms increase is positive news, this settlement continues to leave local public health teams with limited resources to maintain essential services such as sexual health services and specialist community public health nursing for the next year.
“Public health teams have faced an unprecedented period of pressures, with funding levels not keeping pace with demand. Sufficient ongoing funding is needed to ensure all local authorities can continue to meet their statutory public health responsibilities.
“An increased focus on prevention through an uplift to the public health grant is urgently needed, as well as a wider review of the adequacy of public health funding. This will support the Government’s wider aims by improving health outcomes, reducing health spending and putting social care and the NHS on a better footing for the long term.”
|
|
Have you been forwarded this email? Subscribe to ASH Daily News here.
For more information email [email protected] or visit www.ash.org.uk
@ASHorguk
ASH Daily News is a digest of published news on smoking-related topics. ASH is not responsible for the content of external websites. ASH does not necessarily endorse the material contained in this bulletin.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
