Alcohol (Minimum Pricing) (Scotland) Bill: Stage 2
Good morning and welcome to the 14th meeting of the Health and Sport Committee in 2012. I remind everyone present to turn off their mobile phones and BlackBerrys as they can interfere with the sound system.
Agenda item 1 is stage 2 consideration of the Alcohol (Minimum Pricing) (Scotland) Bill. I welcome to the meeting Nicola Sturgeon, the Cabinet Secretary for Health, Wellbeing and Cities Strategy, and her Scottish Government colleagues: Marjorie Marshall, economic adviser, public health; Donald Henderson, head of public health division; Edythe Murie, principal legal officer, health and community care; and Matthew Lynch, assistant Scottish parliamentary counsel.
We move to the first group of amendments. Amendment—[Interruption.] I apologise—that was a good start. Much of what I am about to say was covered in our pre-meeting briefing, but apparently I should also put it on record.
For stage 2 proceedings, members should have the bill, the marshalled list and the groupings. Our task is to consider all the amendments and agree to each provision in the bill. I will call the member with the lead amendment in each group to open the debate on the group by moving the lead amendment and speaking to all the amendments in the group. I will then call any members who have lodged amendments in the group to speak to all the amendments in it and, after that, I will call any other members who wish to speak on the group, taking the cabinet secretary last if she has not lodged an amendment. Finally, I will invite the member who opened the debate on the group to wind up and to indicate whether they wish to press or withdraw the lead amendment.
Any member present may object to the withdrawal of an amendment. In the event of such an objection, we will proceed straight to the question on the amendment. In other words, there will be no division on the question whether an amendment may be withdrawn. If a decision is required, we will follow the normal procedure.
When we reach amendments on the marshalled list that have already been debated, I will ask the member to move or not to move the amendment. If the member who lodged the amendment does not move it, any other member present may do so.
Finally, I remind the officials accompanying the cabinet secretary that they may not speak during the proceedings.
Section 1—Minimum price of alcohol
The first group of amendments is on calculation of minimum price. Amendment 3, in the name of Richard Simpson, is grouped with amendments 4 to 10.
Despite the number of amendments in this group, my proposal is relatively simple and is designed to simplify the formula MPU x S x V x 100, set out in new paragraph 6A(3) of schedule 3 to the Licensing (Scotland) Act 2005, as inserted by section 1(2) of the bill. Under that formula, the minimum price per unit is multiplied by the strength of the alcohol and volume in litres times 100. My amendments seek to simplify that by putting in place a formula that focuses on units alone and multiplies the minimum price per unit by the number of units.
It is current Scottish and United Kingdom Government policy that the public should be educated on the number of units that they drink and be made aware of whether their drinking is within safe limits. Interestingly, those limits vary enormously across Europe. I feel that the bill’s more complex approach will not help public education. Moreover, for trading standards to be able to monitor any of this, there will need to be a relatively complex calculation on every container and bottle displayed on every shelf in every shop in Scotland.
In evidence, Professor Timothy Stockwell told us that, with its 5,500 products and monopoly system, Canada was finding it difficult to manage minimum unit pricing. I acknowledge that, in that country, minimum unit pricing is not set at one level but varies and that, in that respect, the system proposed for Scotland is simpler, but it is not as clear as it should be.
Although the bill refers to units, it contains no definition of what a unit constitutes. That anomaly would be addressed by including in the bill the standard definition of a unit—used by, among others, the chief medical officer—as 10ml of pure alcohol. That would set an exact standard for all information about units on a label and will be essential if we are to prevent retailers or manufacturers from introducing their own idea of a unit, which might differ from the standard unit and would simply confuse consumers.
By the end of 2012, 81 per cent of bottles or containers containing alcohol will include information on the number of units, under a voluntary measure introduced by the alcohol industry. I have suggested that we should encourage the inclusion of information on bottle labels about the units of alcohol to give consumers more knowledge about the number of units in what they drink. If we changed the formula in the bill to the one suggested in amendment 3, that would encourage people to take note of the number of units in the drink that they are consuming. That would sit well with the aims of health organisations and the Scottish Government’s current approach. Moreover, as the cabinet secretary knows, considerable research shows that consumers are unaware of the amount of alcohol in a product. Setting out the number of units of alcohol on the label will address that lack of knowledge.
In conclusion, the amendments seek to set out the definition of a unit and a simpler formula. They should be agreed to, as they would deliver minimum unit pricing in a straightforward manner that would help not only consumers but regulatory enforcers.
I move amendment 3.
I contend that these amendments would have the opposite effect to that stated by Richard Simpson. He said that their purpose was to simplify the proposal in the bill; however, given that they would result in the bill having more than one calculation for the minimum price, they might well be a recipe for confusion for the public and retailers and have the unintended consequence of increasing the burden of regulation, particularly on small businesses. Any regulatory process should be clear and consistent. The bill achieves that clarity and consistency and these amendments do not and, for that reason, I oppose them.
I think that I understand what Dr Simpson is trying to achieve with these amendments; as he said himself, he wants to simplify the process of calculating the minimum price where the number of units of alcohol is marked or labelled. At the outset, I must agree with him that we have a job to do in educating the public further on units of alcohol and the amount of alcohol that they are drinking. Indeed, I think that there is consensus on that point. However, as Jim Eadie suggested, I do not believe that these amendments would achieve the simplification that Dr Simpson wishes to see.
First, there is no statutory requirement to mark or label the number of units in a product. Normally, it is the declared strength of alcohol that is marked or labelled in accordance with the law. That is why the formula in the bill includes strength in the calculation and why there is a power that enables the Scottish ministers to make an order that allows declared strength to be relied upon. For alcohol that does not have its declared strength marked or labelled, the actual strength is to be used in the formula.
Another reason why I do not believe that the amendments would succeed in simplifying the system is exactly the point that Jim Eadie made: the amendments do not delete the existing formula in the bill; they simply add an alternative formula. That means that we would end up with two formulae in the bill—the one that is already prescribed and the one that the amendment would insert. I contend that that would make the basis on which the minimum price is calculated more complicated and more, not less, difficult for retailers and the public to understand.
Although it is important and necessary to include the formula in the bill—I believe that we have come up with the most robust formula possible—to an extent, the issue of calculating the minimum price for any particular product is one of implementation. We have already said, and I repeat today, that we will work with the industry on the implementation of minimum pricing and will help to produce whatever will assist those who sell alcohol to calculate the minimum price and, in so doing, assist those whose job it is to ensure that the minimum pricing provisions are being adhered to.
I consider the formula in the bill to be as robust as it can be and my strong preference is for that method to remain the method in the bill of calculating the minimum price. Therefore, I urge the committee to reject amendments 3 to 10.
The cabinet secretary and Jim Eadie have raised an issue that is of interest. Nevertheless, it is important that there be a clear definition of a unit, and that is not the case at the moment. There is still potential for units to be different for different manufacturers—that is a possibility and that issue was not addressed sufficiently in the rebuttal.
Moving towards a system that is simple to enforce, as a generality, is another point that was not addressed in the rebuttal. For those reasons, I will press my amendment.
The question is, that amendment 3 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
McNeil, Duncan (Greenock and Inverclyde) (Lab)
Simpson, Dr Richard (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Smith, Drew (Glasgow) (Lab)
Against
Doris, Bob (Glasgow) (SNP)
Eadie, Jim (Edinburgh Southern) (SNP)
Lyle, Richard (Central Scotland) (SNP)
McLeod, Fiona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Paterson, Gil (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Abstentions
Carlaw, Jackson (West Scotland) (Con)
The result of the division is: For 3, Against 5, Abstentions 1.
Amendment 3 disagreed to.
Amendments 4 to 10 not moved.
Section 1 agreed to.
After Section 1
Amendment 11, in the name of Richard Simpson, is in a group on its own.
As the cabinet secretary knows, the Labour Party remains doubtful of the likelihood of minimum unit pricing delivering the levels of change that we all want to see in Scottish society’s approach to the consumption of alcohol. Amendment 11 seeks to ensure that, as far as possible, the effect is measured and distinguished from existing trends and from any changes that arise from United Kingdom policies and general societal changes, so that the effect of minimum unit pricing is singled out.
We will come back to that in due course, but Labour’s red line on the issue, as was indicated at stage 1, relates to the windfall to the industry that will arise from minimum unit pricing. The University of Sheffield modelling is clear that the windfall is likely to be substantial, with around £140 million accruing to the industry as a whole annually in Scotland from a minimum unit price of 50p, the largest proportion of which will accrue to the supermarkets. Unfortunately, the Government has not asked anyone to examine the likely industry response. Indeed, in evidence to us, the University of Sheffield came close to expressing regret that that important question had not been posed.
09:45
The Institute for Fiscal Studies, in an important report, was clear that one possible outcome is that the industry will redesign its price structures, using the windfall to reduce the price of premium brands or other types of alcohol that are sold above the minimum price. I agree that that is a possible scenario, but I add two further ones. The overwhelming majority of the increase in consumption in the period up to 2005, when consumption began to flatline or reduce, was in relation to wine. There has been a 23 per cent increase in wine consumption and wine prices have risen substantially. From the most recent analysis, we know that minimum unit pricing will have little effect on wine. The first scenario is that that significant culture shift in Scotland might be encouraged further if wine prices above the minimum unit price are reduced using the windfall. The second scenario is a substantial increase in advertising using the windfall, which is a significant possibility.
In passing the Alcohol etc (Scotland) Act 2010, the Parliament decided to amend the then minority Government’s approach to a social responsibility levy, from a polluter-pays approach in which the levy was to be on pubs and clubs to a more general levy on sales. The Government proposes a partial alternative through its public health levy, but that applies only to shops whose rateable value is over a certain amount and which sell tobacco and alcohol.
My amendment 11 does not prescribe exactly how the windfall is to be recouped to the public purse; it sets out only that it should be recouped. Given that budgeted expenditure on alcohol is flatlining in cash terms in the next few years—and therefore reducing in real terms—I strongly urge the Government and colleagues on the committee to agree to amendment 11 and to use the funds to further tackle alcohol problems. If the Government does that and comes up with a credible assessment of whether a minimum unit price achieves its modelled objectives, as we said in moving our reasoned amendment at stage 1, it will have our support for the entire bill at stage 3.
I move amendment 11.
I will say a few words about why I cannot support Richard Simpson’s amendment 11.
The first reason is that powers are already available should any Government or Parliament wish to recoup money from supermarkets or whoever.
In the previous session, the Scottish Government proposed a large retailer supplement, with the aim of recouping some of those profits in financially difficult times. That involved not primary legislation, but a statutory instrument. Unfortunately, the measure was opposed by the Labour Party.
In April, the public health supplement was implemented, which will raise £95 million across 240 of the largest stores that sell alcohol and tobacco in Scotland. That amount will be recouped over the next few years. A Labour member of the Local Government and Regeneration Committee, John Pentland, said that he “reluctantly” supported the measure, so that was hardly enthusiastic. The Government has taken a consistent approach to recouping profits appropriately.
Also, the power to implement a social responsibility levy is still in force should the Government and Parliament choose to use it. That is perhaps a debate for another day.
Therefore, I have given three examples of current legislation, outwith the bill, that could be used should the Government or Parliament choose to recoup potential profits.
The University of Sheffield says that the profits will accrue not only to supermarkets or the off-sales sector, but to the entire sector, so that potentially includes further business for the on-trade.
Because the power to recoup money already exists in legislation should the Parliament decide to do so, and because of the other comments that I have made, I believe that Labour’s approach is riddled with inconsistencies every step of the way. For those reasons, I cannot support Mr Simpson’s amendment 11.
I will give an example and pose some questions that I hope Richard Simpson will answer when he sums up.
I am interested to know how Richard Simpson would define profit. The normal process is to consider the cost of an item and what it is sold for and to build into that any overheads. A company such as Morrisons has the capacity to run a big campaign and headline it for seven days. If it goes to Tennent’s in Glasgow, just up the road, and buys a container of beer, it might get 25 per cent off the base rate because of the quantity. If it runs out near the end of the promotion, it might go back and get a pallet load in order to keep faith with its customers, in which case it will pay 25 per cent over the base rate because the extra quantity was not in the contract and it is merely a pallet load.
Meanwhile, Joe Bloggs, who runs a corner shop nearby, goes to the wholesaler to buy exactly the same product and he sells it at double the price that Morrisons charged. I wonder how the profit would be measured. Would it be calculated on the price at which the product is sold or would it be the real-world profit—the bit that the retailer is left with? How could we segregate the profit on one or 100 drink lines on the shelves from the profit on 1,000 other lines, and how could we identify the costs in relation to the alcohol? How would we establish the profit if the manufacturer or wholesaler puts the price up and the retailer, because of market forces, absorbs that price rise? How would the proposed measure impact on profit?
I have been in business for a long time—too long, to be honest—and I do not think that the proposal is physically possible or workable. I am not in the business of protecting supermarkets—-I would like to do the opposite—but I find the proposal utterly and completely unworkable.
I have some sympathy with the principle that underpins Dr Simpson’s amendment 11. I believe that there is widespread public support for a more convincing and determined approach to alcohol and the problems that it creates and, by virtue of that, for the bill. Nonetheless, there is considerable disquiet among members of the public that one consequence of the bill might be a significant windfall profit for retailers.
I sympathise with the points that Gil Paterson made, and I note the points that Bob Doris made, although I have mixed feelings about some of the measures that have already been put in place and how they apply.
In moving his earlier amendment, Dr Simpson acknowledged that it is impossible for us to know how industry will react to the legislation—that was clear from the evidence; nonetheless, he seeks to make an amendment to the bill that anticipates that it will react in a particular way. It might react in that way, or it might not.
As Gil Paterson identified, the proposed measure might be difficult or impossible to implement, and in any event it might fall short of what would subsequently be required in the face of a particular industry response. We should acknowledge that. In addition, everybody anticipates that there will be a declining level of profitability if the bill works.
My preference is that we seek to work positively with industry, which I hope will rise to and meet the challenge, which goes beyond the Scottish Parliament’s bill, by working in partnership to tackle the broader cultural issues to do with alcohol in Scotland. I hope that the industry, in partnership, will be prepared and willing to set an example by assisting in abstinence or rehabilitation programmes that might be of benefit to people who suffer the consequences of alcohol use.
Therefore, although I understand the sentiment behind amendment 11, as we said in the debate at stage 1, the Conservatives’ view is that, for practical reasons, the matter is probably best addressed in the light of what happens and in a voluntary way with industry.
We oppose amendment 11.
As we heard, amendment 11 attempts to deal with additional money from which the alcohol industry might benefit due to the introduction of minimum pricing. Like Jackson Carlaw, I have a degree of sympathy with the sentiment behind the amendment. I certainly agree with what he said about the need to work with the industry to achieve a change in the culture around alcohol, with all that that entails. However, I cannot support amendment 11, because it is technically flawed, unworkable and, as Bob Doris and Gil Paterson said, unnecessary.
The Sheffield modelling estimated that the alcohol industry as a whole would benefit from additional revenue. Additional revenue does not necessarily result in increased profit—that is my first point. A point that Jackson Carlaw made is important in that context. Minimum pricing is designed to reduce consumption of alcohol over time, so we cannot assume that additional revenue will forever be an inevitable consequence of the policy.
Secondly, we do not know exactly where additional revenue that might accrue will end up. It could end up anywhere along the supply chain. People who characterise the additional revenue as a windfall profit for supermarkets are oversimplifying the issue to a great extent. Additional revenue might accrue to the small corner shop. It might accrue to the producer of alcohol as well as to the retailer.
Thirdly, I make a practical point, which Gil Paterson made well. It is not clear to me—even after some study of amendment 11—how owners of licensed premises would be able to isolate additional revenue from minimum pricing, given that there will always be a raft of measures in place to generate revenue for any particular business, and given that there will always be a range of factors that determine the eventual profit of any particular business. It is not clear how people would isolate additional profit that accrued from minimum pricing.
Even if we could get over such hurdles, some of the data that would be required to calculate the additional profit are likely to be considered commercially confidential and might not be disclosed or accessible to Government.
On a technical point, amendment 11 would require sums to be recovered from “owners of licensed premises”. Often, the owner of licensed premises and the person who holds the licence to sell alcohol are not the same person. A tenant of a shop, for example, will be the licence holder and therefore any additional benefit will accrue to the tenant, not the owner of the premises. On that practical point, amendment 11 is technically flawed.
Amendment 11 is also unnecessary. As Bob Doris said, we have implemented the public health supplement, which will raise around £25 million this year to help to address health and social problems. We also have powers in the Alcohol etc (Scotland) Act 2010 to introduce a social responsibility levy on retailers of alcohol. Amendment 11 is therefore not just technically flawed and unworkable but unnecessary, because adequate measures are in place to enable us to work together to address the issue in the way that we see fit.
Amendment 11 is something of a fig-leaf for members who have found themselves on the wrong side of the argument for political rather than health reasons. For all those reasons, I urge the committee to reject amendment 11.
10:00
I accept that there may be a problem with the word “owners”, which may need to be amended at stage 3 if amendment 11 is agreed to. Apart from that technical point, two major points have been made in respect of the amendment. The first is that there are measures in place that could be used. The purpose of amendment 11 is to ensure that those measures are used. It does not say how that should be done; it says that it should be done. The problem is that the Sheffield modelling estimates the additional revenue to be substantial and there is major public disquiet about the fact that that is not being recouped. The amendment requires it to be recouped.
The second issue is how we calculate the sum involved. I accept Gil Paterson’s point that calculating it is not that easy, but that is why subsection (3) of my amendment says that the estimates
“are to be based on such research and modelling as the Scottish ministers consider appropriate.”
The Scottish ministers have accepted the Sheffield modelling, which, as I have been careful to say, talks about profits of £140 million not to supermarkets but to the industry as a whole. It would be up to the Government, in discussions with the industry, to reach a conclusion on what the additional revenue is likely to be.
On the expectation that the additional revenue would reduce over time, that would be the case if the volume of alcohol that is consumed reduces, which is the purpose of the minimum unit price. However, we know that the industry as a whole is already committed to reducing alcohol content by 1 billion units by 2015, so the profitability of that alcohol will increase rather than decrease. To suggest that the revenue will go down is a false element of the rebuttal.
My other concern is about the fact that the public health levy, which is the only measure that is being fully implemented at present, applies to alcohol and tobacco. I shall provide an illustration. Our big problem with tobacco at the moment is the huge variation in its consumption, which ranges from 43 per cent among the most deprived members of our community to 10 per cent among the least deprived.
In a supermarket in an area in which there is almost no deprivation—which does occur—the sales of tobacco are likely to be small. The effect of the public health levy, along with the display ban and policies that may be introduced on packaging, may be that supermarkets stop selling tobacco in areas of lower deprivation, which would mean that the public health levy would apply only in areas of greater deprivation. As an alcohol measure, the levy is substantially flawed.
However, I reiterate that we have not stated in amendment 11 precisely which measures should be used—whether it should be some form of the public health levy, the social responsibility levy or other measures. That would be up to the Government. The amount involved would be a matter for negotiation between the Government and the industry. Failure to take action to recoup the windfall more substantially than has been proposed until now is a failure that the public will not fully understand.
The question is, that amendment 11 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
McNeil, Duncan (Greenock and Inverclyde) (Lab)
Simpson, Dr Richard (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Smith, Drew (Glasgow) (Lab)
Against
Carlaw, Jackson (West Scotland) (Con)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow) (SNP)
Eadie, Jim (Edinburgh Southern) (SNP)
Lyle, Richard (Central Scotland) (SNP)
McLeod, Fiona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Paterson, Gil (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
The result of the division is: For 3, Against 6, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 11 disagreed to.
Amendment 1, in the name of Jackson Carlaw, is grouped with amendments 2 and 12.
To aficionados of the minimum pricing of alcohol, amendment 1 will look startlingly familiar, as it bears a close resemblance to an amendment that was moved by the cabinet secretary in respect of previous legislation. It is important that I clarify why I am moving the amendment and the way in which it underpins a change, in heart and policy terms, in the approach of the Conservatives to the legislation.
When the minimum pricing of alcohol was first promoted by the Cabinet Secretary for Justice at the beginning of the previous session of Parliament—when responsibility for alcohol measures rested with him—I was careful to say in my speech in that debate that I did not think that the measure should be ruled out but that it should be left to be considered at an appropriate time. My view and that of the Conservatives was that a considerable amount of legislation had already been passed and was still to come into effect. There was considerable concentration on the age at which young people should be allowed to acquire alcohol. At that stage, on balance, as we moved towards the culmination of that legislation, we were still unpersuaded by the evidence that underpinned the proposal.
A degree of scepticism has remained as the current bill has progressed. However, I do not think that the policy now is an act of faith—as it was then—because it is now underpinned by some empirical evidence from Canada, which has moved the debate forward even though that evidence does not involve exactly the measure that is being proposed.
I am also conscious that there has been a national election, during which the proposal, which was a cornerstone of the Scottish National Party manifesto, was widely supported by the public. Indeed, having explored the matter, it is clear to me that there is widespread support for the measure among clinicians, those working in accident and emergency departments and people in a variety of fields. Everybody who has an interest in tackling the problems of alcohol in Scotland will wish the measure to succeed.
Various claims are made for the measure. Some are beyond the likelihood of being translated into reality; others are more modest. As we have heard this morning there are people who are deeply sceptical, and there are people in the wider community who are concerned about the potential effects of the legislation. I am therefore moving an amendment that I hope will not ultimately change the direction of the policy but which will require the Parliament to examine again the measure that we are passing in the light of the experience of its effect, in order that we can be assured of the benefits that have accrued from it and can thereafter renew it on the basis of a proven track record of success. As was stated during stage 1, the legislation should be based on evidence, and in the absence of such evidence of success, evidence to the contrary would be the basis on which policy would be formed, and there would be no place for the measure.
I believe that my proposal will reassure those people who retain a degree of scepticism, as well as those who will be looking to Scotland’s implementation of what is a bold measure in order to determine their practice in the future, that, in embarking on the implementation of the legislation, we are confident that it will make a contribution to the reduction of the consumption of alcohol and are determined to ensure that Parliament will reaffirm its commitment to it in the light of the experience.
I move amendment 1.
I invite the cabinet secretary to speak to amendment 2 and the other amendments in the group.
Convener, is it appropriate for me to speak to amendments 1 and 2 now and to respond to Richard Simpson on amendment 12 later in the debate, or do you want me to do that now?
It appears that you can, if you wish.
I said at stage 1 that I had given the matter of a sunset clause further consideration, and I confirm that I think that it is right for the Parliament to have the opportunity to review the policy after five years, so I support amendment 1.
As Jackson Carlaw said, the proposed insertion in the bill of a sunset clause is a response to the concerns of some members that minimum pricing has not been tried elsewhere, which is a perfectly reasonable and legitimate position to take. Amendment 1 will mean that minimum pricing will cease to have effect six years after it comes into force, unless the Scottish ministers and the Parliament agree that it should continue.
Given the robust nature of the modelling and the evidence of the link between price and consumption and harm, as well as the evidence in support of a minimum pricing measure itself, I am confident that the evidence will be that minimum pricing in Scotland is effective and efficient.
Pricing interventions are supported by evidence. Our proposal is supported by robust modelling and a wide range of evidence. I think that it is likely that we will start to see benefits in the first year of the policy, but they will become more evident over time. We therefore support the inclusion of a sunset clause to reassure those who remain unconvinced. Quite simply, if we are wrong, minimum pricing will end. If we are right, as I believe we will be, it can continue.
Amendment 2, which is in my name, is complementary to the sunset clause amendment, as it will require the Scottish ministers to evaluate the effect of minimum pricing five years after it comes into force and to report on that to Parliament. That ought to provide sufficient time for the impact of the policy to be demonstrated.
The committee will know that the Sheffield modelling estimated the likely impact of minimum pricing after one year and after 10 years, but my judgment is that 10 years is too long a timeframe for us to wait before reporting to Parliament, which is why we think that five years is the appropriate period.
The report must include information about the effect of minimum pricing on the licensing objectives of protecting and improving public health and reducing crime and disorder; the effect on premises licence holders such as those in the pub trade, the retail sector and the wider licensed trade; and the impact on alcohol producers.
In preparing the report, ministers will be required to consult persons who have functions that relate to health, crime prevention, children and young people, education and social work, and those who represent premises licence holders and alcohol producers.
I think that what is proposed represents a fair and reasonable way to introduce a new policy and I hope that it will overcome what appears to be a stumbling block for some members, which is that such a measure has not been tried elsewhere, so we cannot be certain of its effects. My suggestion is quite simple. We should let the policy run for six years and, after five years, ministers should come back with evidence of the impact that it has had. At that point, the Parliament can take a decision on whether it should continue.
In the interests of time, I will go on to deal with amendment 12, although I am conscious that Richard Simpson has not yet spoken to it. Amendment 12 seeks to set out an evaluation package on the operation and effect of minimum pricing. As I hope will be clear from my comments on amendment 2, I absolutely agree that such evaluation is necessary.
However, I do not support amendment 12, because I do not believe that it is necessary. A comprehensive evaluation of the operation and effect of minimum pricing is already provided for in our monitoring and evaluating Scotland’s alcohol strategy—MESAS—programme. That work, which is led by NHS Health Scotland, will ensure that the impact of minimum pricing on consumption and harm is closely monitored over time and that any differential impacts on or between different groups of the population or, indeed, any unintended consequences are identified and explored. That will include determining whether there have been any changes in drinking patterns or consumption and whether such changes differ according to age, deprivation, gender or any other relevant factors.
10:15
The MESAS portfolio includes studies to assess the impact of our minimum pricing proposals on individuals, communities and the country as a whole. We are currently working with Health Scotland and academic partners to consider what further research is required, and I will be happy to keep members updated as those discussions progress.
A study that is primarily funded by the Government and led by Queen Margaret University is already in place to determine the impact of minimum pricing on heavy drinkers. It will also look at whether there are any possible displacement or substitution effects. It will use a longitudinal design to determine whether minimum pricing results in changes in consumption, type of beverage or price paid, or in the substitution of industrial or illicitly produced alcohol or drugs by those drinkers, and whether any changes are differentially patterned—for example, by deprivation. A Newcastle study arm will enable the researchers to determine whether any observed change in behaviours in Scotland is particularly attributable to minimum pricing.
The report that amendment 2 proposes must include information about the effect of minimum pricing on the various issues that I have covered. For all those reasons, I urge the committee to accept amendments 1 and 2, and I ask Dr Simpson, in light of my comments, not to move amendment 12.
I welcome Jackson Carlaw’s reiteration of the sunset clause, which I will support.
The cabinet secretary’s amendment 2 and my amendment 12 are trying to achieve, in slightly different ways, a similar end. It has been accepted that the policy is untested and untried. The only practical application of a minimum rather than a general pricing policy has taken place in Canada. The differences that exist there, including the national monopoly and the huge variety of different minimum unit prices—which vary not only between but within states and between different types of alcohol—make comparisons with a single universally applicable minimum unit price doubtful, to say the least.
It is therefore imperative, as I think we all agree, that there is a robust examination of the possible effects—or lack of effects—of minimum unit pricing. The detail in my amendment reflects the need for a substantial body of high-quality data and research to be produced. There must be a serious attempt to tease out the possible effects of minimum unit pricing from those of other variables.
Despite attempts by some to obscure the facts, the trend in alcohol-related deaths in Scotland has been downwards over the past five years, with an average drop in deaths per annum that exceeds the drop that was predicted by Sheffield in year 1.
We must take into account the flatlining of—or even reduction in—consumption, which may be accelerating if the effect of discounting that the Sheffield researchers reported to the committee as occurring in the first two months after introduction is borne out over time. It is a matter of regret that an amendment in my name to tighten the discount ban further has been ruled out of consideration by the narrowness of the bill. The discount ban appears to be quite effective, and the bill could have been further strengthened in that regard.
The statistics on alcohol-related admissions show a massive increase over the past few years, but that statistical analysis has been savaged in the British Medical Journal as yet another example of game playing. We need to be clear about the validity of the data that is to be collected.
The research must cover all areas of concern. I accept the cabinet secretary’s point that the Queen Margaret University proposal, which has been accepted, now includes a control group; that is very welcome. However, it deals with very seriously harmed drinkers, who consume 197 units per week. Those are not typical Scottish drinkers who are at risk, but drinkers who are already suffering very serious harm. To prove that the policy is effective, it will not be sufficient simply to demonstrate that it has an effect on that group of seriously harmed drinkers.
I have said repeatedly on the record that I expect that minimum unit pricing will have some effect on some of that group. However, it does not address—and I am not convinced the MESAS programme yet addresses—the cohort of harmful drinkers with an average consumption of 57 units per week that the Sheffield model reflects.
The Sheffield study predicts that, with a minimum unit price of 40p, there will be a reduction in drinking among that group of only five units per week. We need to understand whether that is significant or not. It will be statistically significant, but will it be clinically significant? Will it shift the culture of drinking in Scotland?
Even more important than the position of those harmful drinkers who are already teetering on the brink of alcohol dependency is that of the hazardous drinkers—males in that category consume regularly in excess of 35 units a week—and, in particular, hazardous binge drinkers. Those are mainly younger drinkers aged 18 to 24, about whom the public have the greatest concerns: the most visible on our streets, they present the quite unacceptable face of the night economy. Some of them will undoubtedly progress to states of alcohol dependency.
Then there is the policy’s unintended effect on low-income drinkers. I have repeatedly said that the evidence is that the consumption of cheap alcohol, after discounting is removed, is substantially greater in the lowest 30 per cent of the community by income. After we take out the seriously harmful drinkers and the non-drinkers, low-income moderate drinkers in that group could be significantly affected as an unintended consequence of the policy. There must therefore be very clear research in that area.
All those elements must be researched in control groups, if possible, using areas in the United Kingdom Government’s jurisdiction where minimum unit pricing is not happening. They need to be studied carefully so that a rational conclusion as to the effectiveness or otherwise of what is a novel policy can be rigorously tested.
However, if the cabinet secretary is willing not to move her amendment 2, I am willing not to move my amendment 12, so that we can sit down and work out a rational and agreed approach to ensure that the public will be satisfied that minimum unit pricing is an effective policy that we can be proud of selling to other countries. Without that clarity, I am really concerned that we are supporting a policy that does not do what it says on the tin. As the cabinet secretary knows, despite her painting of me and my party as adopting a purely party-political position, from the outset I have had—and, after examining all the evidence, continue to have—very serious concerns about that.
The bill is clearly evidence-based legislation, as shown by the Sheffield work and Tim Stockwell’s work in Canada. However, I will be happy to support amendments 1 and 2 because, as Jackson Carlaw said, the measure is bold and deserves our support. We had a similar bold measure in evidence-based legislation in 2006 with the smoking ban and, as we have seen since, that was absolutely the right thing to do.
I have a couple of points on each of the amendments. On amendment 1, the proposed five-year and six-year timetables are right for evaluating what happens after the bill is passed. On the cabinet secretary’s amendment 2, which relates to the Licensing (Scotland) Act 2005, I particularly like the provision in subsection (3) of the proposed new section on the various bodies that will have to be consulted when reports are produced on how the legislation is working. Subsection (3)(b)(v) of the proposed new section refers to
“such persons as”
ministers
“consider appropriate having functions in relation to ... children and young people”.
It is important that that is included in the bill.
As I said, the bill is evidence-based legislation, but the prescription that Dr Simpson proposes in amendment 12 about what evaluation should happen would, I think, hamstring the research commissioning project that will look at how the bill works in practice. The timetables in subsection (1) of the proposed new section that amendment 12 would insert are far too short to allow us to see real, practicable effects. I also understand that all the information that Dr Simpson seeks under subsection (7) is already available and is usually published by the Government annually.
There has been talk of wanting to reach rational conclusions, but I think that the bill is clearly a rational conclusion from the evidence that we saw in the Sheffield study and in Canada. For the Official Report, at this point I want to knock on the head a suggestion by Dr Simpson. He continually refers to the evidence from Canada as if it would not apply in Scotland because there is a national monopoly in Canada, but it is important that we all remember that Dr Stockwell made it absolutely clear to us that although there used to be a national monopoly in Canada, there no longer is. I understand that less than 50 per cent of alcohol retail outlets there are controlled by the national monopoly.
Again, I refer the committee back to the 2006 smoking ban, which was introduced on the back of evidence-based legislation that has proven its worth. I believe that this evidence-based bill will do the same again.
My concern about the bill relates to the windfall, on which we have not yet reached agreement. That said, I think that we are close to agreement on the issue of evaluation. As a result of the committee’s scrutiny of the bill, there has been major movement on the matter; indeed, we have heard very good evidence on the need for robust and comprehensive evaluation of the proposals in the bill. Therefore, I think that at this stage it would be reasonable to ask whether amendments 2 and 12 might be reconsidered at stage 3 to allow us to reach an agreement on evaluation. I make that suggestion simply because the provisions in Dr Simpson’s amendment 12, which I support, and the response of the industry should form a key part of the evaluation.
I do not wish to take up any more time, convener, except to say that, given that we are so close to agreement, it would be a shame if we were unable to reach it today.
Having listened carefully to the debate, I think that there is an opportunity to try to bridge the gap between us on evaluation; indeed, I do not think that there is any gap between us in what we are trying to achieve. After all, it is not in the interests of those of us who propose minimum pricing not to get over time a full understanding of the policy’s impact and ensure that it is meeting our objectives.
I am minded to move amendment 2. Given that, as I expect, the proposed sunset clause will be agreed to, I think it important to include in the bill arrangements for reporting. However, I am happy to have further discussions ahead of stage 3 on whether there are amendments on which Dr Simpson and I can agree and which incorporate into the bill some of what he is trying to achieve in amendment 12. That is a genuine and sincere offer to him. If we can reach agreement in that respect, we will be able to lodge stage 3 amendments that build on the provisions that amendment 2 seeks to place in the bill.
Do you wish to sum up, Mr Carlaw?
I have nothing further to add, convener.
Amendment 1 agreed to.
Amendment 2 moved—[Nicola Sturgeon].
The question is, that amendment 2 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Carlaw, Jackson (West Scotland) (Con)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow) (SNP)
Eadie, Jim (Edinburgh Southern) (SNP)
Lyle, Richard (Central Scotland) (SNP)
McLeod, Fiona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Paterson, Gil (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Abstentions
McNeil, Duncan (Greenock and Inverclyde) (Lab)
Simpson, Dr Richard (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Smith, Drew (Glasgow) (Lab)
The result of the division is: For 6, Against 0, Abstentions 3.
Amendment 2 agreed to.
Amendment 12 moved—[Dr Simpson].
The question is, that amendment 12 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
McNeil, Duncan (Greenock and Inverclyde) (Lab)
Simpson, Dr Richard (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Smith, Drew (Glasgow) (Lab)
Against
Doris, Bob (Glasgow) (SNP)
Eadie, Jim (Edinburgh Southern) (SNP)
Lyle, Richard (Central Scotland) (SNP)
McLeod, Fiona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Paterson, Gil (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Abstentions
Carlaw, Jackson (West Scotland) (Con)
The result of the division is: For 3, Against 5, Abstentions 1.
Amendment 12 disagreed to.
Sections 2 to 4 agreed to.
Long title agreed to.
That ends stage 2 consideration of the bill. I thank the cabinet secretary and her colleagues for attending.
10:30
Meeting suspended.
10:35
On resuming—