Official Report search · Parliament Workbench

Chamber

Meeting of the Parliament 24 May 2012

24 May 2012 · S4 · Meeting of the Parliament

Item of business

Alcohol (Minimum Pricing) (Scotland) Bill

Carlaw, Jackson Con West Scotland Watch on SPTV

Today is a significant day. Alcohol minimum unit pricing has been the centre of debate in the current session and the previous session of Parliament, almost to the detraction of the wider discussion that the Parliament needs to have about Scotland’s relationship with alcohol. I do not want to detract from what the cabinet secretary said a few moments ago about the bill being one of a raft of measures that are already in place, but it has undoubtedly preoccupied the debate in the chamber.

We Scottish Conservatives have changed our position. In the previous session of Parliament, we felt that the legislation that was implemented by the previous Labour-Liberal Democrat Administration had not had time to prove itself, and that the evidence base was not sufficiently balanced to allow us to support alcohol minimum unit pricing at that time.

In one of my first speeches to Parliament, I said that I personally did not rule out alcohol minimum unit pricing, and in supporting it today, I very much hope that it will work. I fear that the measure cannot achieve all that some have hoped for it as the bill has progressed through committee, but I believe that it will make a contribution. The Parliament must hope in passing the legislation that it succeeds.

I am pleased that, where Scottish Conservatives have led, London Conservatives have chosen to follow. That is a perfect example of Scotland and Scottish Conservatives showing our colleagues in the south the way forward in tackling major policy issues in public health.

We are concerned that some of what has been claimed for the bill may not be achieved, and we respect the views of those who, throughout the progress of the legislation, have argued that it cannot succeed. We understand that there is a degree of scepticism, even while we think that the balance of evidence has now tipped very much in favour of allowing the policy its moment to shine.

That is why we proposed the inclusion of a sunset clause, and we were grateful for the support of other parties in that regard. The cabinet secretary’s point is worth emphasising: for those who are sceptical about the policy, the sunset clause is their opportunity to know that, in the event that the policy demonstrably does not have the effect that is claimed for it, the legislation will fall.

On that basis, there is really no good reason for the Parliament not to unite tonight around the policy, and to give it the authority that would enhance it by having all-party support in the chamber so that the people of Scotland can see that we are all robustly in support of it and behind its every prospect of success.

We are keen that the legal position be established, and we are grateful that the Government will allow the legislation to be the subject of a voluntary notification. I hope that that process will be completed at the earliest possible date, because we want to know that—in proposing pioneering legislation that the rest of the world will be looking at—we did everything we could to establish the legal position in advance. I heard what the cabinet secretary said about legality. We very much hope that that is the case, and that the legislation can be implemented and take effect to the timetable that the cabinet secretary has identified.

Dr Simpson, for whom I have considerable respect, talked about the windfall tax being Labour’s red line. During the committee stages, I understood his reservations about the legislation—[Interruption.] I am sorry, but until stage 2, I never heard the Labour Party say that it would vote for the bill if agreement was reached on that one aspect. In that regard, regrettably—I have no wish for a party-political debate—I have sympathy with the cabinet secretary’s argument that we are divided at this final stage for political reasons.

I have something to say to Jackie Baillie, to Richard Simpson, and to Drew Smith—clearly the front runner for the future leadership of his party. Does he want to have this stain on his character in future years when people come to look at what this Parliament did? They are lost in the detail of Dr Simpson’s experience and prejudices, to the extent that Labour has lost sight of the bigger picture. I do not think that Labour members sit behind him comfortable in what they are doing, and even now, I appeal to them to allow the chamber to unite and give the policy the authority that it commands.

Search Hansard contributions

Meeting of the Parliament 24 May 2012

In the same item of business