Official Report search · Parliament Workbench

Committee

Health and Sport Committee 22 September 2010

22 Sep 2010 · S3 · Health and Sport Committee

Item of business

Alcohol etc (Scotland) Bill: Stage 2

Grahame, Christine SNP South of Scotland Watch on SPTV

Unusually, I will say something from the chair. The cabinet secretary might recall that, many moons ago, when I was in a shadow cabinet, I was completely opposed to minimum unit pricing, for the reasons that have been given about the effect on people on lower incomes. However—I say this sincerely—based on the evidence, I have become not only a convert, but that worst person of all, a proselytiser, on the issue.Everyone accepts that price is important for many products, and alcohol is no different. It is important to look at the evidence that the committee tested. I do not wish to criticise people who have subsequently sent evidence, but we have not cross-examined it, so it has a different status. Based on the evidence that is before the committee, I have come to the view that minimum unit pricing is part of the solution to Scotland’s alcohol problems. That is based not only on the Sheffield modelling—others have given that the status that it deserves as a proper way of trying to determine a prognosis for the effect of proposed measures—but on the evidence from health professionals to which my colleague Ian McKee referred. I defer to him on that matter.The argument that minimum unit pricing is regressive is rather illogical. As Michael Matheson said, any kind of duty—be it excise plus VAT or whatever—that is put on alcohol is regressive. Minimum unit pricing is less regressive, because it is targeted at very cheap products and is based on units of alcohol, which of course excise duty is not. Further, excise duty can be very political. When chancellors make announcements about putting excise duty on things, they tend to be careful about what they target for fear that it will affect voters. Minimum unit pricing is not political in that sense; it is a genuine attempt to tackle the problem.I am not persuaded by the cross-border arguments. Another illogicality in the evidence to the committee from Labour’s alcohol commission relates to the proposal to legislate on caffeinated drinks in Scotland. If we did so, would not people just take white vans over the border? If we are to argue that people would take white vans backwards and forwards over the border, we must accept that they would do that for caffeinated drinks, too. That is an inconsistency in the evidence.It is my understanding that minimum unit pricing would affect own brands such as vodka from the supermarkets. Helen Eadie rightly says that people trade down when prices are put up. That is right—they will trade down to the cheap brands unless we do something about those own brands. As I understand it, minimum unit pricing would not attack labelled whisky and wines with the same venom that it would attack the likes of White Lightning and supermarket-brand alcohol.As for the argument on profits, I find an illogicality in what has been said. If the profits are going to the supermarkets, why is only Tesco for minimum unit pricing while all the others are against it? If I thought that I was going to get super-duper profits out of something, I would support it. I fail to understand the argument that has been put forward. I am more persuaded by the line that alcohol is a loss-leader in supermarkets, which put a little bit more on the price of everything that we need to buy—the Whiskas, the margarine and the bread. That is how they sustain the subsidies on alcohol products. The proposed sunset clause is entirely sensible. This is a test, but it is a good test for Scotland against all the other issues that we must deal with regarding our culture, the social responsibility levy and licensing being enforced. I completely support Ross Finnie’s submission about the prospect of a European challenge. If the policy were to be carried through, either by the committee or at stage 3, that would be an excellent challenge to face. As Helen Eadie rightly said, we would then have to balance the health benefits against whether the policy was anti-competitive. Other nations have done that in different circumstances, and we should not be frightened to tackle such a challenge.I support the minister on the basis of the evidence that I have heard.

In the same item of business

The Convener (Christine Grahame) SNP

Good morning and welcome to the 26th meeting in 2010 of the Health and Sport Committee. I remind everyone to switch off mobile phones and other electronic eq...

Search Hansard contributions

Health and Sport Committee 22 September 2010

In the same item of business