Hansard

Thank you, Presiding Officer. I apologise to you and the cabinet secretary for missing her opening remarks. There was a bit of confusion.

The eyes of the world are upon us. Several witnesses said as much during our stage 1 consideration of the bill. The Washington Post, RTE, the Chicago Tribune, Fox News and, would you believe, even The Guardian have been reporting on minimum pricing. The international scrutiny is welcome, but it is as much to do with our renowned affinity with alcohol as with the policy that has been proposed.

From the glasses that are raised at Burns suppers and the biggest hogmanay party in the world to the mischief of “Whisky Galore” and the lyrics of Gerry Rafferty’s music as he wound his way down Baker Street, drink plays a starring role in Scottish life. It is centre stage in so much of our culture, our sense of identity and our popular imagination, and hence in the image that we project to others. Whisky is one of the symbols most commonly associated with us. It is part of our identity, along with tartan and golf.

That is a gift in terms of global marketing, export sales and the strength of our economy. What country would not wish for such a calling card? However, increasingly we face the sobering reality that alcohol can be a destructive force for many people. I was shocked—like others, I am sure—to learn that at least 900 children in Scotland were damaged by alcohol before they were born, that thousands more children live with a drink-dependent adult, and that one Scot dies every three hours from an alcohol-related cause.

Children 1st told the Health and Sport Committee:

“Scotland needs to shift its attitude and behaviour towards and relationship with alcohol.”—[Official Report, Health and Sport Committee, 17 January 2012; c 878.]

We recognise that that will not be an easy change to bring about. Professor Tim Stockwell, a respected academic in the field, said:

“minimum pricing is felt to be an attack on individual freedoms; the right to drink is very dear to many people”.—[Official Report, Health and Sport Committee, 10 January 2012; c 786.]

Other witnesses spoke of the link between social deprivation and the incidence of drink and indeed substance abuse, which is a further complication.

The committee heard a good deal about the impact of alcohol misuse, not just on individuals but beyond that, on our health and social services, our justice system and the family members who bear the burden and are left to pick up the pieces. Alcohol Focus Scotland told us:

“It is very easy to point at young people and say how antisocial and irresponsible their drinking behaviour is, but all they are doing is reflecting the adult society that they see ... an environment that promotes access and excess and which saturates them in images of alcohol”.—[Official Report, Health and Sport Committee, 10 January 2012; c 760.]

That Scotland’s relationship with alcohol can rightly be described as unhealthy, damaging, problematic and dysfunctional is beyond question. The Health and Sport Committee is not alone in that conviction. Along with the Scottish Government, the medical profession, academia, the police, children’s charities, the drinks industry, retailers, civic society, media commentators and others, the committee believes that we must act to counter the generational harm that is caused by drink, for our misuse and abuse of alcohol are problems that not just merit our attention but demand our remedy.

Some people consider minimum pricing to be an integral part of that remedial action, while others are not so readily persuaded. The committee agrees that a range of initiatives must be pursued, from awareness-raising campaigns for young people and parents to interventions with individuals and packages of intense support. We believe that such a multifaceted approach is essential if we are to challenge and overcome Scotland’s booze culture.

A majority of the committee—boosted by one since last Thursday, or so it would appear—is persuaded by the assertion that the bill will help to reduce alcohol consumption. The members in that majority considered the evidence we heard to be overwhelming and compelling. In their view, minimum pricing can cut alcohol consumption by harmful drinkers and reduce the impact of alcohol misuse on public health, crime, productivity and the economy. Professor Stockwell told the committee:

“You will be doing something that—from the scientific point of view—will without a shred of doubt save lives, reduce healthcare costs, prevent death and injury on the roads, prevent birth defects, and reduce public violence”.—[Official Report, Health and Sport Committee, 10 January 2012; c 786.]

That majority believes the bill to be a significant contribution to the package of measures that is necessary to curtail Scotland’s dangerous affinity with alcohol.

A minority of the committee remains sceptical but is hopeful that the health and social benefits suggested by the Scottish Government may transpire. Some are still unconvinced by the ability of minimum pricing to produce the desired result, and they believe that a universal approach could have an unfair impact on moderate drinkers and those on lower incomes.

Among other concerns is the market response—“the big unknown”, as the Institute for Fiscal Studies puts it. It was not covered by either the Sheffield modelling or the evidence from Canada. We simply do not know how producers or retailers will react to minimum pricing, nor do we know the extent to which profits will be accrued from the policy by some businesses. As the Centre for Economics and Business Research told us:

“The retailers stand to make windfall profits at the expense of poor consumers”.—[Official Report, Health and Sport Committee, 10 January 2012; c 742.]

The question of legality in a European context is also an issue in the minority view. Much depends on the level at which the cabinet secretary decides to set the price and on the balance struck between market intervention and health benefits. I welcome her letter to me last week stating that she intends to notify the order setting a minimum price to the European Union. I shall file the correspondence under “P” for progress. The cabinet secretary’s recent pronouncement on the merits of a sunset clause was similarly encouraging, and the committee will no doubt consider that matter at stage 2.