Hansard

I commend Richard Simpson for the tenacity that he has shown over almost four years since he lodged a draft proposal for a member’s bill to prevent and tackle various aspects of alcohol misuse, which is a matter that has concerned him for many years and which he is keen to address without further delay in order to reduce the negative impact of the harmful drinking that is still a problem in Scotland today.

Following consultation on and refinement of the draft proposal, the bill was introduced in Parliament on 1 April last year. As we know, it makes 10 broad proposals, on which the Health and Sport Committee took evidence from a wide range of witnesses. The evidence that we received was mixed on most of the proposals, except on the proposed requirement in section 31 for courts to notify an offender’s GP when alcohol was a factor in the offending behaviour. That provision was widely opposed by witnesses, so I am pleased that Dr Simpson has offered to remove it from the bill.

Although I would like to go into detail on the bill’s other proposals, I am afraid that that will be impossible in the five minutes that I have been allocated in this regrettably short debate, which cannot possibly do justice to Dr Simpson’s painstaking work over many months. However, after detailed review of all our evidence, I am bound to say that I have not been convinced that the bill is the best way to tackle alcohol misuse at this time, and I believe that the Government’s forthcoming updated alcohol strategy is likely to be more effective.

On minimum pricing of packages that contain more than one alcoholic product, there is still a concern that such a provision would not have the desired effect of reducing alcohol consumption, because the ban on bulk-buying discounts could still be circumvented by retailers selling only large multipacks. Until minimum unit pricing can be introduced, I feel that the Government’s commitment to give further consideration to volume discounting during its review of the alcohol framework should be supported.

On pre-mixed alcohol and caffeine drinks, it is clear that there are differing views on whether there is a link between alcoholic drinks with a high caffeine content and dangerous behaviour, and I think that further research is needed before a ban can be justified as a public health measure.

I do not agree with section 53 of the bill, which would remove the power that licensing boards currently have to impose an age requirement on alcohol sales, because that can occasionally be useful to deal with problems in particular premises, and it is a power that licensing boards have indicated they wish to retain.

I see the merit in targeted use of container marking schemes, but their usefulness is limited, because finding marked bottles in the possession of underage drinkers will not rule out proxy purchasing by adults.

The Newcastle scheme works well on a voluntary and partnership basis, and it could be rolled out to other areas, but I am not persuaded that such schemes need to be legislated for.

Likewise, I do not think that primary legislation is necessary in order to provide alcohol awareness training, which can be addressed within the alcohol framework, nor am I persuaded of the need to legislate for an annual report to be provided to Parliament on alcohol education and information programmes, so I welcome Dr Simpson’s intention to withdraw that proposal.

I agree that regulation of alcohol advertising and sponsorship need to be looked into further, but that should be done in the context of the alcohol framework and informed by work that is already under way.

I do not see the need for drinking banning orders when there is evidence that local authorities have been using antisocial behaviour orders to ban individuals from licensed premises for antisocial conduct while they are under the influence of alcohol. In my city of Aberdeen, ASBOs have been used to ban individuals from the city centre and, therefore, from all on-sales or off-sales premises in that locality. Moreover, ASBOs can be made for an indefinite period, whereas the proposed drinking banning orders would have a maximum duration of two years.

In conclusion, I agree with the policy intention of much of the bill, but I believe that further statutory provision is not necessary in many areas, and that the aims of the bill can best be served within the Government's alcohol framework, which is currently being revised. I welcome the Government's commitment—made in its response to the stage 1 report—that it will, as it develops the next stage of the framework, explore the merits of all the proposals in the bill, taking into account evidence that was obtained by the committee and wider evidence in order to inform further progress.

It is important to say that I have paid regard to the frequently raised concerns that the bill would add further complexity to the already cluttered legislative landscape of alcohol licensing law. Aberdeenshire Council went so far as to say that

“the whole system has become so piecemeal that it probably needs total reappraisal through a single act”.—[Official Report, Health and Sport Committee, 27 October 2015; c 22.]

I hope that the next Government considers taking that forward.

My sincere opinion is that adding further “piecemeal” legislation to an already complex and confusing set of laws is not desirable. Therefore, although I warmly commend Richard Simpson's work and accept the policy intention, I cannot accept most of the bill’s provisions, and therefore do not feel able to support it at stage 1. However, we are minded to abstain at decision time.