Hansard

I apologise in advance for my relatively lengthy opening remarks as I attempt to address all the amendments in the group.Amendments 3 and 5 are technical amendments that address a point raised with us by the Scottish Government alcohol industry partnership. The Food Labelling Regulations 1996, which implement European Union law, require certain prepackaged alcoholic drinks to be labelled with what is referred to as the declared alcohol by volume. The declared ABV of a product is the strength shown on the label, which may be slightly different from the actual strength of the product. For example, a declared ABV of 12 per cent on a bottle of wine means that the actual strength of the wine lies between 11 and 13 per cent, as positive and negative tolerances of plus and minus 1 per cent are permitted for wine.The amendments have the effect that in calculating the minimum price of alcohol to which regulation 30 of the 1996 regulations applies, the strength of alcohol is to be the declared ABV. The amendments do not change the policy intention or the substance of the bill; they simply respond to a request from the industry that we put it beyond doubt that the declared ABV required by the regulations must be used as the strength of alcohol when calculating the minimum price.Most drinks have the ABV shown on the container, so determining the strength of alcohol will be straightforward. For drinks with a number of alcoholic elements, such as cocktails, the strength of each alcoholic drink and the minimum price of each alcoholic drink will have to be calculated in order to calculate the minimum price of the whole drink.I invite the committee to agree to amendments 3 and 5, which are straightforward points of clarification.Amendments 2 and 4 respond directly to the recommendation in the committee’s stage 1 report that a price should be included in the bill.During stage 1, the committee had before it detailed modelling that showed the likely effect of a range of minimum prices. On 2 September I advised the committee by letter that I would lodge an amendment to include a price of 45p per unit in the bill. That letter, and the document that accompanied it, set out the likely impact of a 45p per unit minimum price and the reasoning behind our view that that price complies with European law.A minimum price of 45p per unit is likely to achieve significant benefits when compared with other interventions, including lower minimum prices. For example, the health benefits that would likely arise from a 45p minimum price are in many cases double those for a 40p minimum price. In the first year, a 45p minimum price would likely see benefits of 50 fewer deaths from alcohol-related harm; 1,200 fewer hospital admissions; 400 fewer violent crimes; 23,000 fewer days’ absence from work; a £5.5 million reduction in health care costs; and a £52 million reduction in total harm in terms of health, crime and employment. After 10 years, those benefits would be expected to increase significantly.The group most likely to be affected by a 45p minimum price is the harmful drinker category, whose consumption is estimated to reduce by 7.9 per cent, with an additional cost of £116 per year. By contrast, moderate drinkers are estimated to reduce their consumption by 2 per cent, with an additional cost of only £8 per year. I know that the committee has shown interest in the potential effect of minimum pricing on those on low incomes. I want to reiterate that analysis of Scottish health survey data shows that those on low incomes are most likely to drink nothing, very little or very heavily. In the first two instances, they will either not be affected at all or will be affected in only a very small way, and in the last instance, they will be affected, but that is because they are drinking heavily.On the issue of legality, I consider that a minimum price of 45p per unit complies with European law and I have already set out details of that in my letter.I am aware that some members have sought to highlight in a negative way that minimum pricing would raise extra revenue for the alcohol industry. Some have referred to a figure of “£140 million for supermarkets.” That is a complete misrepresentation of the modelling. The modelling shows a potential increase of £67 million for the entire off-sales sector, including supermarkets, convenience stores and corner shops, and £37 million for pubs. Those who use those figures to help to justify their opposition must also accept the figures for the lives saved and harm reduced, because they come from the same model. With such modelling, it is completely illogical to accept some figures but reject others.Some members have expressed the perfectly valid view that modelling is not evidence. That is true, but we should be careful not to diminish or doubt the value of econometric modelling in policy development. The Sheffield modelling is well respected internationally, has been peer reviewed and is accepted as a tried and tested way of assessing the likely impact of a new policy.It is worth repeating that the international evidence shows that one of the most effective measures of reducing alcohol consumption and harm is taking action on affordability, and that is what a minimum price does. The Scottish Parliament can implement a 45p minimum price and put in place now the provisions required to help tackle our alcohol problem.Of course, minimum pricing is only one part of a package of measures in our alcohol framework that we have introduced to tackle alcohol misuse. However, we must acknowledge that the low price of high-strength alcohol is now part of our culture that has to be changed, and that cannot be tackled without addressing price.The price that we have brought forward in an amendment to the bill would reduce consumption and harm; affect mostly high-strength, low-price drinks, not premium brands; and impact mostly on harmful and hazardous drinkers, not moderate drinkers. It is proportionate, efficient, effective and deliverable and it complies with European law.Some members have said previously that they cannot take a view on minimum pricing without knowing the price. I hope that amendment 2 helps, alongside amendments 6 and 7, which I will come on to, which provide for a sunset clause.The sunset clause responds to concerns from some members that minimum pricing has not been tried anywhere else, which means that there can be no specific evaluation of the impact of minimum pricing as proposed. I find it disheartening that some colleagues feel that we cannot be the first to try a new approach and that we must stand back and wait for someone else to pursue an action before doing something ourselves. The scale of our problem means that we need to take action now that will address the affordability of alcohol and lead to reductions in consumption and harm.However, I recognise the concerns that were expressed by some members of the committee and I am therefore happy to propose a robust and comprehensive sunset provision. Amendment 6 will mean that minimum pricing ceases to have effect six years after it comes into force unless the Scottish ministers and Parliament agree that it should continue. Amendment 7 will require the Scottish ministers to evaluate the effect of minimum pricing five years after it comes into force and to report that to Parliament. Given the robust nature of the modelling and the unequivocal evidence of the link between price and consumption and harm, I am confident that the evidence will prove to be that minimum pricing is effective and efficient.The committee will be aware that the Sheffield modelling estimated the likely impact of minimum pricing after one year and after 10 years. Ideally, amendment 6 would allow for a 10-year period in order to be consistent with the modelling. However, I appreciate that that may be too long a timeframe for some and I therefore propose that minimum pricing will expire after six years of being in force, by which time ministers and Parliament will be able to take a decision on whether it should continue.Amendment 7 will require ministers to present to Parliament a report on the operation and impact of minimum pricing. The report will consider five years of minimum pricing being in place, which will provide sufficient time for the impact of the policy to be seen. The report will have to include information on the effect on the licensing objectives, for example protecting and improving public health and reducing crime and disorder; the effect on premises licence holders, such as the pub trade, retail sector and wider licensed trade; and the impact on alcohol producers.I consider this to be a fair and reasonable way in which to introduce a new policy and, hopefully, overcome what appears to be a stumbling block for some members. My suggestion to the committee is simple: let the policy run for six years, let ministers come back after five years with evidence of what impact it has had, and then take a decision on whether it should continue or be scrapped.I turn to amendment 1, in the name of Mary Scanlon. Against the backdrop of robust international evidence, detailed modelling, a specific price in the bill and the amendments on a sunset clause, amendment 1 represents a disregard for the health and wellbeing of the people of Scotland. Mary Scanlon is asking the committee to put aside the potential benefits of a minimum pricing policy without presenting any credible alternative. She fails to accept that minimum pricing would be effective, efficient, targeted and proportionate, and that it would make a real impact on consumption and harm.We have heard arguments that minimum pricing would be a blanket approach that would hit moderate drinkers. That is not the case. Various reasons have been suggested for not trying minimum pricing, including cross-border purchasing. Will people travel to England to buy cheaper alcohol? The saving on alcohol needs to be balanced with the time and money spent on getting to places such as Carlisle.From the start of this process, we have said that we are open minded to other suggestions about how we can address the pricing issue and reduce consumption and harm. However, we are considering the bill at stage 2 and no other credible and workable alternatives have been proposed. If amendment 1 is agreed to, the committee will send a clear message to the people of Scotland that party politics are more important than public health.Pricing interventions are supported by clear evidence. Our proposal is supported by comprehensive, robust modelling. It is likely that we would start to see the benefits of the policy in year 1. We have offered a sunset clause to reassure those who remain sceptical. If we are wrong, minimum pricing would end. If our opponents are wrong, it would continue.I ask the committee to support the amendments in my name and to reject amendment 1.I move amendment 2.