Hansard

The bill seeks to deal with bigger issues than that. Our alcohol industry has a great deal to offer our country and its economy and it is in the industry’s interests as much as it is in the interests of the rest of us to deal with the overconsumption of alcohol. I guess that my central point is that our plans for minimum pricing and the other measures that we are taking and a thriving drinks industry are not mutually exclusive. We all stand to benefit from the reduction of alcohol-related harm.

The other contextual point that I want to make is one that I have again made many times in the past and will make many times in the future. There is no single or simple solution to the problems that we experience with alcohol. If we are to tackle the problem effectively, we need to have a broad package of measures. I remind members that our alcohol framework contains 41 separate initiatives.

It is also true that the Government cannot do it alone. Each and every one of us has a role to play by reflecting on our own drinking, how it affects our health and how it impacts on those around us—children, family, friends, colleagues and communities. This is a cultural issue, and price is a part of that. In recent discussions that I had with Jackson Carlaw and Ruth Davidson, they rightly chose to stress the issue of culture.

We are making good progress and we must continue to make good progress in implementing our framework for action. I say openly to Labour that we are open to considering any proposal that is made, including those that Labour published yesterday, some of which we have discussed before. I remain open-minded about anything that can contribute to dealing with the issue and I look forward to having discussions about some of the proposals.

My fundamental point is, however, that no strategy will be complete if it does not address price. The link between price and consumption and between consumption and harm is irrefutable. When prices go down, people drink more and when prices go up, people drink less. The more that people drink, the greater the associated harm. We need to act decisively to stem the flow of cheap, high-strength drink. It is worth noting that that view is shared by a range of interested parties, such as doctors, nurses, academics, the police, children’s charities, faith groups and, indeed, other political parties. As I have said before, minimum unit pricing is not some sort of magic bullet that will solve all our nation’s problems with alcohol, but if we are to make a significant contribution to reducing consumption, it is an essential measure.

To those who say that we should be using alcohol duty to raise prices, I say that my argument against that is not just that we do not have the power to do that in this Parliament; even if we did have the power, my view is that it would not be as effective as minimum unit pricing. Duty impacts on all drinks and all drinkers, so those drinks that are already responsibly priced would be affected, as would all moderate drinkers. We would see prices in pubs, nightclubs and restaurants go up as well as prices in the off-trade. Minimum unit pricing targets the cheap, high-strength alcohol that is more favoured by harmful drinkers, so it is a more targeted approach than that taken by increasing duty, hence it is more proportionate.

I turn now to the stage 1 report. I am pleased that the committee acknowledged the need for our relationship with alcohol to be challenged and I am pleased that it endorsed the wider package of measures that we are pursuing. I am also delighted that the majority of the committee supported the general principles of the bill and were persuaded that minimum unit pricing has a significant contribution to make.

The stage 1 report highlighted a number of things that I have been asked to consider. I say again that I am open-minded to anything that would either improve the bill or help to support its implementation, particularly in relation to the evaluation programme.

Let me begin by addressing the report’s points about the merits of a sunset clause. We inserted a sunset clause in the previous bill and, in my evidence to the committee, I said that I was open to being persuaded to do so again. Having given the issue further consideration, I have come to the conclusion that it is right and proper for Parliament to have the opportunity to review the policy after five years. I know that Jackson Carlaw intends to lodge an amendment to that effect at stage 2 and I can confirm that the Scottish Government will support it.

On the specific minimum unit price, I am happy to reaffirm my commitment to the committee to announce the price and, indeed, the rationale for it before the stage 3 vote. I hope to do so during the stage 2 proceedings. We are considering all the evidence in relation to a specific minimum price and are mindful of the need to ensure proportionality. In setting a price, we will be impacting on the market, so we need to ensure that the impact is justified by the level of societal benefits that we will achieve. When we clarify the price, we will also say what we intend to do about future reviews of it, to ensure that it remains at a level that delivers the desired benefits.

The report also addresses the question of notifying the bill under the terms of the European Union technical standards directive. As I said in my evidence to the committee—I am happy to reaffirm this today—we are confident that the bill’s provisions are capable of complying with EU law and that the bill itself does not need to be notified. However, as I informed the committee last week, I intend to notify the order that will set the minimum unit price.

One of the stage 1 report’s constant themes is the need for effective evaluation of the impact of minimum pricing on different groups of the population, on business and on unintended consequences, such as illicit internet or cross-border sales. I assure the chamber that our existing and proposed plans for assessing the impact of minimum pricing are both comprehensive and robust. They will examine how minimum pricing contributes to a reduction in alcohol-related harm in the population as a whole and in different groups, and the extent and impact of any unintended outcomes or displacement effects, particularly those that affect health inequalities.

The impact on business is, inevitably, much more difficult to assess, not least because of the sensitivities about sharing commercially confidential information. However, we are happy to work with business interests in that respect and will consider carefully all of the areas highlighted at stage 1 to ensure that they are taken into account in our evaluation programme.

I again thank the Health and Sport Committee for its positive stage 1 report. As members will know, I deeply regret that our previous attempts to introduce minimum pricing were voted down, but I have always firmly believed that it is better, wherever possible, for political parties to reach consensus on public health policies, particularly when they are as important as minimum pricing. Tackling alcohol misuse is one of the most important public health challenges facing Scotland today. The fact that we now have a broad consensus across Parliament shows how serious we all are in our bid to reduce alcohol-related harm.

I hope that those members who have yet to pledge their support will, even at this late stage, reflect on their position and decide to back minimum pricing. I have great pleasure in moving,

That the Parliament agrees to the general principles of the Alcohol (Minimum Pricing) (Scotland) Bill.

15:19