Hansard

I started the process by acknowledging, along with all other members, that Scotland had a serious problem with alcohol—a problem that was growing. The Labour Party, along with our Liberal Democrat partners, began looking for change in 2001, with the Nicholson review. Arguably, that review of the licensing laws of Scotland, which resulted in the Licensing (Scotland) Act 2005, created many new approaches. The act was implemented in full only in September 2009, and it is generally agreed that we may yet see more beneficial effects. There are amendments that we will consider to strengthen that.In relation to the proposed sunset clause, I refer to the most recent annual report of the registrar general for Scotland, which shows a substantial and sustained downward trend in male alcohol-related deaths that has occurred against a background of little change in price or consumption. That welcome trend came alongside the evidence that was presented to the committee about price effects. We accept the World Health Organisation assertion that price and availability are important factors in determining alcohol consumption. The evidence also included the important literature review by the University of Sheffield that was the first part of that study. Particularly important were its references to the two meta-analyses and to a number of the 400 published papers that the authors reviewed and analysed in detail.The evidence that was reviewed separately by Labour’s alcohol commission also began from the premise that price matters. What became clear in that commission’s report and in the evidence that was presented to the committee is the fact that the issue of price is complex. There is no simple relationship between price and consumption, or between consumption and health harm. The strongest evidence that we received—on which, I believe, we can all agree—is that price reduction is followed by an increase in consumption. As Mary Scanlon has said, that was most strikingly demonstrated in Finland, which the committee visited. The big reduction in tax in Finland was followed by a substantial rise in consumption, especially in men aged between 45 and 55, with evident harmful results. When Finland increased the price, however, that was not accompanied by an equal and opposite reduction in consumption or harm. The French increased the tax on white spirits, but that did not produce the expected decrease in white spirit consumption. Indeed, white spirit consumption has increased. The French tax on wine, on the other hand, has remained stable but wine consumption in France continues to decline steadily.The complexity of the pricing issue does not end there. Twenty years ago, France had the greatest rate of harm and deaths from alcohol in the European Union. At that time, consumption was 18 litres of pure alcohol per capita annually. Today, the level of consumption in France is equal to ours at 12 litres per capita annually, yet the rate of alcohol-related deaths in France is half the rate in Scotland.A final point about price being a complex and not a simple issue—which is perhaps the most important point of all to us here in Scotland—is that although there is equality of pricing across the UK, consumption in Scotland is 25 per cent higher.Today, the Government has argued, as it has done over the past 14 months or so, that minimum unit pricing is evidence based, but if it examined the literature review, it would have to accept that there is only one study that supports such a policy. That study was conducted in an aboriginal culture that is totally different from ours and in a community where there were no supermarkets. Revealingly, Australia did not adopt MUP as its solution to its growing alcohol problem.If the Government is honest, it must accept that what it has claimed repeatedly in front of us and ad nauseam in the chamber to be evidence is the University of Sheffield’s econometric modelling study alone, which is untested, untried and not free from criticism of its assumptions. All the clamour of supporting voices, many of which represent overlapping groups, simply amounts to opinion and the expression of a hope and a belief that Sheffield is right. Not one new piece of evidence has emerged.However, there is no doubt that the Sheffield study has some merit; it has been peer reviewed. Nevertheless, it is still a model, and if the assumptions are changed, as we have seen in the revised version of the study, the outcomes can be very different. One would have expected the retrospective application of real data to the most recent model to have made its validity clearer, but that has not happened. The model has not predicted the decline in the number of alcohol-related deaths that we are now seeing.The main author was very straightforward and honest with the committee when she said that although Sheffield’s study was acknowledged to be the best of its kind, it was, in making its predictions, still like a weather forecast. The Labour alcohol commission was also very straightforward and honest in saying that although it had found no evidence for MUP other than the Sheffield model, it was uncertain that a floor price of duty plus VAT plus the cost of production—which is the alternative proposal that the Labour Party has been considering—would have much effect without an increase in taxation. However, the commission was clear that the main merit of floor pricing was that it would address some of the main criticisms of MUP.For MUP to be credible, it must be effective across all income groups; it must be fair; it must be effective across all age groups but especially younger drinkers; it should not have any harmful or unintended effects; it should have the greatest effect on harmful drinkers and the least effect on moderate drinkers; any profit from it should accrue to the community, not to the producers or the retailers; and it must have the certainty of being legal. Does MUP meet all those criteria in the theoretical untested model that we are being asked to sign up to?Let us deal first with income groups. We have a problem in our community in that the more income we have, the greater the proportion of us who will be hazardous drinkers, so if we are to change our consumption patterns, we need to change them for all hazardous drinkers, not just some.An MUP of 45p would have the greatest effect on the lowest 30 per cent, by income, of households. Anne Ludbrook’s histogram of purchasing patterns by income decile—that is, each 10 per cent of the population, by income—shows that the poorest 30 per cent of the population would purchase cheap alcohol the most at an MUP of 30p, would purchase it less at an MUP of 40p and would purchase it the least at an MUP of 50p, whereas the richest 30 per cent of the population would purchase cheap alcohol the most at an MUP of 50p, would purchase it less at an MUP of 40p and would purchase considerably less of it at an MUP of 30p. The proportion of hazardous drinkers increases as we rise up the income groups, but people in higher income groups would be much less affected by MUP because the better-off are much more likely to substitute or switch. That deals with the first criterion.The second criterion is whether the proposal will be fair. A pensioner couple who consume between them one standard bottle of own-brand vodka a week—that is 26 units between them—are well within the moderate range and under the maximum of 35 units a week. That couple, who might live on an income of less than £200 a week between them, would face an MUP tax of £200 per annum. For them, a reduction in consumption might be an unfair economic necessity imposed by the provision.It is common sense that, the better-off one is, the less likely one is to be affected by a minimum unit price. Whether to switch products will be a matter of choice.A view that has been expressed repeatedly to me, although it was not expressed in evidence, is that, even if the proposal hits the poorest much harder, that will not matter as long as it works, because many more alcohol-related deaths occur in the lowest two socioeconomic groups—groups 6 and 7. That is true and, indeed, the number of deaths has increased more in those groups in the past decade than it has in groups 1 to 4.However, in my experience as an addiction psychiatrist, I have rarely seen an alcoholic death in which the individual did not start drinking when they were in a higher socioeconomic group than the group that they were in when they died. Such people lose their jobs, their families and their homes. They drift steadily downwards into the socioeconomic group in which they die.Therefore, whereas any price rise would be regressive, minimum unit pricing is highly regressive. To be frank, it is unfair.Which age groups have the greatest proportion of hazardous drinkers? The evidence is clear: the 18-to-24 age group has the most hazardous drinkers and the numbers decline steadily with each age group, until the eldest group, which has the fewest drinkers and the fewest hazardous drinkers. Will minimum unit pricing have its greatest effect on the 18-to-24 age group, which has the most hazardous drinkers, as we want it to? Sheffield says that it will not—at an MUP of 40p, the average reduction in consumption in the whole population will be 2.3 per cent, but the reduction among 18 to 24-year-olds will be only 0.6 per cent. That is another test failed.What about harmful effects? The Labour alcohol commission heard that criminal gangs would be likely to exploit a price difference between Scotland and England if they regarded that as worth their while. A price difference between Scotland and England could have the consequence of increased criminal activity.What about unintended effects? The committee received evidence that home brewing increased after price hikes were imposed in Canada and Sweden. Creating a significant price difference across borders has effects, as we have seen between Northern Ireland and Eire, between Finland and Estonia and at times—it depends on the euro rate—between the south of England and France.A price difference between Scotland and England could have an effect across the Scottish border. White van man could perfectly legally take orders for vodka from purchasers in Scotland and go to England to purchase that vodka. The price per bottle of own-brand vodka will increase by £3.80 in Scotland. White van man could share the windfall with the purchaser by keeping £2 to himself and giving the purchaser a £2 discount on their perfectly legally purchased alcohol. He would not be selling the alcohol to them—they would purchase it in advance. Fifty cases could make white van man a profit of £1,200 per trip—all perfectly legally.As Mary Scanlon said, the Government has given us no information about the likely effect on internet sales. It would be perfectly legal to order a delivery from England, and such sales are growing fast.Sheffield says—rightly—that it could not take into account any of those elements in its modelling and it called for more work on them and on profits, to which I will come shortly.What about those who will be affected? We have seen that the effect will vary with income and with age. Some published studies contain evidence that suggests that harmful drinkers—the main group whom doctors all want to tackle and whom we as a society most want to tackle—are less price sensitive.10:00 Even the children’s organisations, which have given qualified support to minimum unit pricing, have qualified their support with concerns about the effect on children in households with harmful drinkers. We received a late submission from the grandparents’ organisation, saying exactly that in its opposition to minimum unit pricing.Public health doctors want a minimum unit price of 60p, not 45p, as 60p is most likely to have the effects that they seek. Other doctors have suggested 50p. Will 45p be effective, considering that those eminent opinion formers wanted a higher level?There is also the matter of profits to retailers, to which the cabinet secretary has referred. There is no doubt that minimum unit pricing will produce financial gain for the industry, producers and retailers. The division of that gain might be a matter for discussion, but the majority of it will go to off-sales retailers. Some of it will arise as a result of ending discounting—and some of it can be recouped should the bill contain social responsibility levy provisions that we can actually understand and make work. However, tens of millions of pounds will not go to the community. The Sheffield report is silent on the issue. The researchers indicate that they have not been able to do market studies. The only thing they say is that market response has not been examined.Turning to the issue of legality, the imposition of minimum unit pricing will undoubtedly be challenged in the European Court of Justice, and that challenge might be successful. I do not propose to go into the whole debate or all the evidence that we have received on that, but it has been substantial. We will see.I regret that we have concentrated almost all our efforts and energy on discussions about the minimum unit price. On a number of occasions in the chamber, I have contrasted the Scottish Government’s approach on drugs with its approach on alcohol. On drugs, the Government consulted before the publication of its proposals, and it achieved a rare degree of cross-party consensus. On alcohol, the Government produced a flagship policy of minimum unit pricing without prior consultation, and it has pretty well ordered us to take it or leave it, attacking us—certainly the Labour Party—for not deciding immediately, when we wanted time to consider the issue.After six months we rejected minimum unit pricing, following our consideration, which included some of the best-attended private briefings that I have seen since first being elected to the Parliament. Following that, however, there was no debate—there was simply an attack on us for being party political. Cabinet Secretary, that is not an acceptable debating point.I ask the committee to support Mary Scanlon’s amendment 1, to delete section 1. If that is successful, I call on the Government to discuss alternative pricing approaches to tackling Scotland’s problem with alcohol.I turn to the sunset clause. In 2009, the most significant change in the annual report of the registrar general for Scotland was a continuing and dramatic decline in alcohol-related deaths among men. That has received very little publicity, yet, along with a stabilisation in the number of deaths of women, following a rising trend for many years, that reduction of 20 per cent among men, which is almost 200 fewer deaths, demonstrates that something is already happening.The combination of the new licensing laws and the continuing debate that we have been having since 2001 might have been assisting with those changes. They are real, they have continued for a number of years and the decline is dramatic. The question that concerns the sunset clause is how we could ever assess the impact of the differing variables, including the minimum unit price. In year 1, it is expected that 50 fewer lives would be lost. That figure would be lost in the background noise if the current trend continues. If the UK Government raises duty, as I believe it should and must, that will make interpretation even more difficult.We already know that there will be an increase in VAT in January next year. We also know that reduced income resulting from unemployment, and the impending benefit cuts that are to be imposed by the coalition, along with tax rises, will all have to be factored in, because they are likely to produce reductions in consumption.I am against minimum unit pricing and will not vote for the sunset clause. I apologise for taking so long—I have never before made a speech of this length at stage 2.