Hansard

I apologise again for the length of my remarks; I will speak to all the amendments in the group. Several amendments have been lodged to section 4, which deals with the location of drinks promotions that relate to off-sales of alcohol. The Government amendments arise from helpful discussions with the alcohol industry and the Law Society of Scotland’s licensing law sub-committee. The amendments seek to respond in a commonsense way to points that retailers have made, while maintaining our policy position.Our broad policy intention is that any drinks promotions on the premises that relate to alcohol that is for sale for consumption off the premises should take place in the alcohol display areas or in any tasting rooms. That is a logical extension of the licence condition that is in place to require alcohol that is displayed for sale for consumption off the premises to be confined to designated parts of the premises.Mary Scanlon’s amendment 45 seeks to remove section 4, and her amendments 38, 42 and 43 seek to remove the restrictions on drinks promotions on the premises and the ban on drinks promotions in the vicinity of the premises. I cannot support those amendments, as I consider that drinks promotions for off-sales of alcohol should be confined to alcohol display areas or to a tasting room, for specialist retailers that have them, as that will help to emphasise that alcohol is not an ordinary commodity and should not be promoted as such. It will also help to deter impulse purchasing of alcohol, which can result in people purchasing alcohol when they had not intended to.Since the requirement to display off-sales of alcohol in alcohol display areas was imposed, there has been an increase in other activities that encourage impulse buying, such as banners draped across car park entrances and piles of wine carriers inside shop doorways promoting quantity discounts. We note that Labour’s alcohol commission made recommendations on the issue, too. Although we do not propose a shop within a shop for alcohol sales, we think that it is perfectly reasonable that drinks promotions on premises should take place only in an alcohol display area or a tasting room, rather than in other parts of the store, and that drinks promotions in connection with the premises should not take place in the vicinity of the premises. Therefore I do not agree with amendments 38, 42, 43 and 45.When we introduced the bill, the alcohol industry came to us with certain concerns, some of which Mary Scanlon seeks to address in her amendments. Amendment 39 would provide an exemption for mid-size stores that would allow them to promote alcohol by displaying printed materials in any part of the premises provided that those materials also promoted other non-alcoholic products for sale. I do not consider it appropriate to exempt retailers of such stores from the restrictions on drinks promotions. Promotional material on premises is aimed at encouraging impulse buying of alcohol. That is the case whether it is in a small retailer or a 24-hour supermarket.I accept that Mary Scanlon’s amendments stem from discussions with the Scottish Grocers Federation, which represents SPAR stores, Somerfield and other convenience store retailers. I am not convinced that there is a special case that warrants an exemption from the restriction on drinks promotions on premises. Her amendment 39 would also benefit many Tesco Express stores, which I am sure is not her intention.Amendment 40 would remove the ban on drinks promotions taking place in the vicinity of the premises. Again, I cannot support that, as it would allow promotional material to be placed right outside the door to premises. As stated in the policy memorandum, promotions outside shop doorways are specifically intended to encourage the impulse buying of alcohol.The Government has provided some comfort for licence holders and the further clarification of the policy that retailers requested on drinks promotions in the vicinity of premises. That comes in the form of amendment 10, which provides that the restriction on drinks promotions in the vicinity of the premises applies only to drinks promotions “in connection with the premises”. That means that a promotion that is carried out by somebody other than the licence holder and which is not otherwise connected to the premises will not breach the condition. So an alcohol producer who places an advert on a bus shelter that happens to be outside a convenience store would not be captured by the provisions. I consider that to be a commonsense approach, as long as the convenience store and the licence holder have no involvement in that promotion.Amendment 11 responds to a request from the Law Society of Scotland and others that we further define the term “vicinity”. The bill as introduced would prevent drinks promotions from taking place in the vicinity of premises, which led to a discussion as to what is meant by “vicinity”. Amendment 11 provides that “‘vicinity’ means the area extending 200 metres from the boundary of the premises (as shown on the layout plan).”In effect, that means that, generally, retailers will not be able to promote alcohol that is available for off-sales on the street near the store or in their car parks. We believe that that additional clarity will be helpful to retailers, LSOs and licensing boards.On amendment 41, I am happy to say that I agree with Mary Scanlon’s intention. A concern was raised with us that the restriction on drinks promotions could have unintended consequences for pubs that have alcohol-branded furniture in their beer garden, because in some cases that could be considered to be a drinks promotion. We did not set out to change the look of the Scottish pub and we have no intention of doing so. We were therefore happy to lodge amendment 9, which provides that the restrictions on drinks promotions on or in the vicinity of premises apply only to premises that sell alcohol wholly or primarily for consumption off the premises, which will mainly be shops and supermarkets.As drafted, amendment 41 would not disapply the restriction on drinks promotions in the vicinity of the premises where a licence holder sets up tables and chairs on the pavement outside the premises and allows alcohol to be consumed there as that area is not wholly within the control of the premises manager. I consider that amendment 9 captures that scenario. It is more comprehensive than amendment 41 and it achieves the objective that Mary Scanlon is attempting to achieve.I hope that Mary Scanlon has been able to consider my amendments 9 to 11, which address the same issues as her amendments 40 and 41.Mary Scanlon’s amendment 44 amends the definition of “drinks promotion” to include“the advertisement of any product in the media.”Certain matters related to advertising are reserved to Westminster. However, I presume—and Mary Scanlon confirmed—that the amendment is intended not to relate to reserved matters but to address the display of magazines, newspapers and other publications that might contain alcohol promotional material. If that is the case, I consider that the Government’s amendments 12 to 15 deal with those concerns.Amendments 12 to 15 respond to a point that we discussed with retailers, who were understandably concerned that the display of newspapers and magazines, which invariably contain alcohol advertising, could in some cases fall within the definition of drinks promotion. We agree that it would be nonsense to require paid-for newspapers and magazines to be confined to alcohol display areas. Accordingly, amendments 12 to 15 make it clear that the display of newspapers and magazines that are sold on the premises should not be considered to be drinks promotions and thus do not need to be confined to alcohol display areas, although I note that retailers might choose to put specialist wine or whisky magazines in their display areas.However, the display of free leaflets, flyers, newspapers and magazines might constitute drinks promotions, in which case they will be required to be displayed in the alcohol display areas. I return to Mary Scanlon’s example of the Asda magazine. If it really is about healthy living, it will presumably not be full of alcohol adverts and promotions, and in those circumstances there will be no restrictions on where it can be displayed in the store.I ask the committee to agree to the Government amendments in the group and reject the non-Government amendments. I disagree with some of those in principle, and in other cases I am sympathetic to them but consider that the Government amendments cover the situation more comprehensively.