Hansard

The title of this debate—“Scotland’s Relationship with Alcohol”—is central to tackling alcohol abuse. Many people are reluctant to discuss their relationship with alcohol at all; perhaps they are worried that if they admit they are drinking too much, they will be labelled an alcoholic. I use the word “labelled” deliberately because alcoholism still comes with a stigma. Terms such as “alkie” or “jakey” are used to describe people, and if it was another form of drug abuse the term would be “junkie”. We must move away from that type of unhelpful and stigmatising language, because it means that those who have significant problems are far less likely to come forward and ask for support.

Our relationship with alcohol is contradictory and perhaps best captured in the “Go on, take a drink. Nah, I’m aff it” sketch from “Chewin’ the Fat”. We stigmatise those who have significant problems with alcohol, but we are also suspicious of those who do not partake of a drink—just to be social, of course. That contradiction is a key part of the debate on Scotland’s relationship with, not addiction to, alcohol, and in that context I want to explore one or two themes this afternoon. We have heard already about alcohol brief interventions, and that should be viewed as part of this strategy. Consider some of the numbers—there have been 477,000 alcohol brief interventions, which exceeds targets set by the Government. That scheme has been successful and was targeted at over-16s who were suspected to be drinking hazardous and harmful levels, hoping to moderate their intake. Evidence shows that those who are targeted will reduce their intake for a short time at least. That leads to health benefits, even if people reduce their intake only for a short time, and it will have long-term benefits.

Of course we must do better. Those brief interventions have a short-term benefit, but we must consider how we can connect that to changing someone’s relationship with alcohol in the longer term. That comes down to education. We are always saying that more should be done in schools, but this is about education in the family and the workplace. It is about education before someone goes to a football match and after they come back, or when they go to a family wedding reception. It is about discussing our relationship with alcohol openly and honestly. Yes, we should do that in schools, but it cannot be done only in schools, and we all have our personal and community responsibilities.

Let me mention one group that does a wonderful job in fulfilling their community responsibilities. It is a while since I have done this, but one Friday night I walked the streets of Glasgow with the street pastors. They did an amazing and wonderful job, particularly in helping vulnerable young women in the city centre. They did not lecture them about their alcohol intake, but they were there to offer a pair of flip-flops rather than high heels to those who had had too much to drink. They did not stop people going on to the next bar, but they let them know that they were there if they needed a hand to get a taxi home or a wee half hour out. It was a bit of friendship. I want to put on record the amazing job that I saw the street pastors do when I was out with them.

We have made some progress, and I will mention one or two statistics in that regard. Alcohol-related hospital discharge rates have reduced by 20 per cent since 2007, but they are still 3.4 times higher than they were in 1981 and 1982. Unlike Jackson Carlaw, I will not relate that to the then Conservative Government.

My point is that we have to look at the trend over a significantly long period of time so that we can even out short-term but non-enduring impacts in assessing the success of policies. Alcohol-related mortality has fallen by 35 per cent since its peak in 2003. I will not list all our successes, because I think that we all admit that those successes must, as welcome as they are, endure long term.

One policy that I think will endure long term is the ban on buying alcohol in multipacks. The quantity discount ban led to a 2.6 per cent decrease in sales of that type, and of alcohol more generally. We were able to quality assure that by comparing areas in Scotland with similar areas in England where such a ban was not implemented, and the results still showed a 2.6 per cent drop in intake.

Access to alcohol is important, and we need to consider the view of alcohol as a cheap option or a bargain. I am guilty of that: if I am in the supermarket and I see a nice bottle of wine, I go, “Oh, that’s down to a fiver, I’ll have that.” If it is nine quid, I will not.

We looked in detail at price sensitivity across all income groups in relation to minimum prices. I will not give details of that, Presiding Officer, because we are not allowed to, but the information is on the record without my repeating it this afternoon.

Yesterday in the chamber, I asked Michael Matheson, the Cabinet Secretary for Justice, whether he would consider using cashback moneys to tackle health inequalities from 2017. He said that he would give that significant consideration. Looking at health inequalities, and at the effect of alcohol on communities, I cannot think of a better use for that money, and I hope that Scottish Government policy might develop in that area.