Alcohol Misuse
We now come to the debate on motion S1M-1434, in the name of Malcolm Chisholm, on the development of a national alcohol misuse strategy. One amendment to the motion has been lodged.
I welcome this opportunity to engage the Parliament's support for our plans to develop a new alcohol misuse strategy, in the form of a national action plan. I know from the debate last month on Donald Gorrie's motion that there is considerable interest in this issue among members. I will start by examining some of the issues with which we must grapple and then outline how we propose to take things forward.
Drinks containing alcohol have been part of the social and cultural fabric of societies across the world since ancient times. Alcohol has long been associated with relaxation, individual enjoyment and community celebration. For most people in Scotland, it does not create problems, but there are worrying trends in excessive and irresponsible drinking, particularly among our young people but certainly not confined to that group. It creates problems not only for the individuals concerned but for society as a whole.
There is no doubt that if we are to look objectively at alcohol consumption and tackle alcohol misuse, we have first to acknowledge and accept its place in Scotland's social and cultural fabric. We then need to recognise the complexities of the issues involved. The response needs to be many faceted, as is the problem. There are no quick or simple solutions.
There is a positive side: in moderation and at the right time and place, alcohol can be included in healthy lifestyles. Moreover, the production and distribution of alcohol plays an important part in the Scottish economy. For example, the Scotch whisky industry provides direct employment for more than 11,000 people and indirect employment for a further 30,000.
On the negative side, excessive drinking carries a heavy toll in illness, accidents, anti-social behaviour and criminal acts of violence. From health complications to career and relationship breakdowns, alcohol has the potential to ruin lives. Its costs in personal, social and economic terms are great. Unfortunately, that is often hidden or unheeded. Alcohol is undeniably linked to road deaths, lower achievement, poor physical and mental health, family breakdown and poor employment prospects.
Sadly, 14—yes, 14—appears to be a milestone, with most teenagers having begun to drink by the age of 15. There is also evidence to suggest that youngsters who smoke and drink are more likely to experiment with illegal drugs.
Scottish health survey figures that were published this week suggest that 33 per cent of men and 15 per cent of women are exceeding the recommended weekly limits. Those figures suggest that we need to do far more to make people aware of the health and other consequences of regularly exceeding the recommended limits. Some studies suggest that there may be as many as 3,000 to 4,000 alcohol-related deaths each year. Alcohol misuse also contributes significantly to crime levels through offences such as being drunk and disorderly in public and through offences—especially violent offences—committed under the influence of alcohol.
Alcohol misuse is not, of course, a new phenomenon. Successive Governments have attempted to tackle the problem. Some measures have been successful—most notably in drinking and driving. There are already many initiatives to address alcohol misuse. The Scottish Advisory Committee on Alcohol Misuse, which brings together representatives from all key sectors—from the health sector, local authorities, the police, the drinks industry, the licensed trade and the voluntary sector—was set up last year to advise on the development of the new strategy. Among others, the committee has focused on two key issues: service provision for those with alcohol problems and an evidence-based approach to prevention and health promotion. As members who were present at the earlier debate will know, I have now taken over the chair of that committee to give its work added political impetus.
As I said during the earlier debate, work is continuing on the development of a nationally recognisable proof-of-age card, through pilots being conducted in Glasgow and Angus in co-operation with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and Young Scot. Moreover, the Executive is still supporting the work of alcohol misuse co-ordinating committees that were set up locally to ensure that measures and services are in place to tackle alcohol misuse. Those local partnerships involve representatives from all key interests—in health, local authorities, police and licensing. In addition, we are funding schemes such as server intervention programme Scotland, which provides training for licensees and their staff, and—in partnership with the Health Education Board for Scotland and the Scottish Council on Alcohol—Drinkwise. Overall, £2.5 million has been made available over three years to help support the development of a strategy.
Spending £2.5 million on the strategy for dealing with alcohol misuse is welcome, but measures for tackling drug misuse received £100 million from the Executive. That was obviously welcome, but does the minister agree that the proportion of money being spent on alcohol services is very small when we consider that the alcohol problem is much bigger?
One thing that the Scottish advisory committee is considering is the level of services that are provided locally. The £2.5 million is for strategic development. A lot of money is spent on that in health board, local authority and voluntary sector budgets. I am not being complacent; I want to point out that a lot more than £2.5 million is being spent. We want to have an overview of that and, clearly, the development of services will be a key part of the action plan.
In the members' business debate on alcohol misuse, the minister addressed that point and said that £2.5 million was earmarked for strategic development. He also said:
"However, much more money than that is being used."—[Official Report, 9 November 2000; Vol 8, c 1623.]
That was a month ago. Given the imbalance in the amount of money that is spent on other drug issues—bad as those are—will the minister be more specific about how much money is being spent on alcohol misuse?
As I said, that is something the advisory committee is considering. I will ensure that we get some figures on that in the near future.
I recently attended my first meeting as chairman of the advisory committee at which, to inform prevention efforts, members took evidence from a range of experts on the factors that might encourage alcohol misuse and those that might protect against it. It gave us a fascinating insight. There is no doubt that marketing and the media influence behaviour, particularly among young people.
Where do we go from here? When considering national action, we are not starting with a blank sheet of paper, but we need to build upon, develop and reinforce all the good work that is going on. The Executive plans to bring all the various strands together into a comprehensive plan for action, which will act as a framework for action for all concerned at national and local levels.
We also wish to consult much more widely. I am pleased to announce that, early next year, we will begin an inclusive consultation process to take place over six months leading to the production—by the end of next year—of a comprehensive action plan on alcohol misuse. It will emphasise the partnership nature of policy development on alcohol misuse and help us to shape the shared action plan.
Will the member give way?
I will give way in a moment. I must make some progress first.
We must all bear in mind that we are dealing with complex social policy issues. There are many influences that impact on our drinking patterns. If we are to make progress in reducing the harm caused by alcohol, it is vital that we ensure ownership of the strategy and that the views of all with an interest are taken into account in its development. Action is not for the Executive alone, but for many groups—individuals, parents, all those who work with children and young people, industry, the retail and licensed trade, employers, the national health service, local authorities, voluntary organisations, the police and last, but by no means least, the Scottish Parliament.
Could the minister clarify a comment that he made in the debate on alcohol misuse that was secured by Donald Gorrie? He said that the Executive was
"still considering the question whether we should develop a joint strategy"—[Official Report, 9 November 2000; Vol 8, c 1623.]
on alcohol and drug misuse. If he is going to develop a strategy with SACAM, will that committee interact with the Scottish Advisory Committee on Drug Misuse to ensure that there is a joint strategy on alcohol and drug misuse? The Executive's thinking seems far from clear.
You have one minute left, Mr Chisholm.
I was told that I had 15 minutes to speak.
I am sorry, but you have only 10 minutes.
That is a major problem. There has clearly been a breakdown in communication. I will make two brief announcements.
There is strong support for an overhaul of current licensing law. Licensing laws have generally stood the test of time and are not systematically failing. Nevertheless, we have looked carefully at all the arguments. I am pleased to announce that we have decided that the time has come for a comprehensive review of licensing laws. An independent committee with a fairly wide-ranging remit will conduct the review. Full details of the membership of the committee and how the review will be conducted will be announced in due course.
I am also pleased to announce that the Executive will launch a new television commercial set in a hospital casualty department on a busy Friday night. The commercial graphically illustrates the strong links between alcohol and the results of alcohol-induced violence. It does so by locating a bar behind the accident and emergency reception desk, which continues to serve drinks as injured patients move around it. The aim of the commercial is to demonstrate the cost to us all of inappropriate drinking and to encourage us to see that type of behaviour as socially unacceptable.
I hope that members will recognise that we have listened to what has been said before. We wish to engage with the Parliament, the alcohol misuse field and the public in general, in reaching the final shape of our action plan. The Executive is committed to act and trusts that others will play their part also.
I move,
That the Parliament endorses the Executive's plans to work towards the publication of a national action plan to tackle alcohol misuse.
I should explain that the time limit for opening and closing speeches depends on the length of the debate. As a strict rule, in a debate of this length, the opening speaker has 10 minutes. I am sorry if the minister thought otherwise.
On a point of order. How much time do we get?
I would have told you before you spoke, but for your information you get five minutes.
On a point of order. The minister finished his remarks so quickly that it was not clear whether he was accepting the Conservative amendment, but I take it that he is.
The minister will address that at the close of the debate.
I call Mr Keith Harding. You have seven minutes.
Seven minutes?
So there will be at least five minutes to spare then. [Laughter.]
That leaves two minutes then.
I lodged a motion last year calling on the Executive to review the terms of the Licensing (Scotland) Act 1976. Our amendment to the motion reaffirms that call to bring Scottish licensing practice up to date. I welcome the Executive's announcement that an independent review of the licensing laws is to take place.
Alcohol misuse affects many individuals, families and communities. To change things for the better, we must change the cultural approach to alcohol in Scotland. That needs a licensing system that is in line with modern attitudes and today's social outlook.
One major issue that must be addressed—my colleagues will address others—is under-age drinking. Many people find their local public places vandalised and blighted by gangs of anti-social youths involved in illicit drinking. The automatic reaction is to call for additional legislative powers and direct Government action. That is wrong, and a legal crackdown on drinking would have a detrimental effect, as prohibition did in America. The alternative is nothing less than a wholesale change in the culture of drinking in Scotland, to bring our attitudes more into line with our neighbours in southern Europe.
Since the Licensing (Scotland) Act 1976 was introduced, society and social patterns have changed considerably. One of the issues that must now be addressed is whether there is a case for reducing the age at which a young person can legally drink in a public house. We already have the anomaly that a 16-year-old can have a glass of wine with a meal, but not drink beer or spirits.
In Greece, the legal age at which drink can be purchased and consumed is 13, and in Spain it is 14. Those countries do not have under-age drinking problems like ours. In those countries, there is a social stigma in getting drunk, and drinking is seen as a social occasion. Here, young people go out not just to socialise, but specifically to get drunk.
The cultural difference is marked. The anti-social behaviour associated with illicit under-age drinking that we see in this country is not nearly so widespread in southern Europe. The European Commission has only just released findings showing that
"more than half of 15 year old boys and girls reported having been drunk two times or more"
in their lifetime
"in Denmark, Finland, England, Scotland and Wales, whereas the corresponding percentages were below 30% for boys and girls in France and Greece. The clear geographical pattern, with students from South European countries reporting low levels of drunkenness in sharp contrast to certain Northern European countries, persists in 15-year-olds reporting having been drunk 10 times or more."
That is no accident; it is based on attitudes formed by northern European licensing systems that encourage teenagers to see alcohol as an illicit substance to treasure as a forbidden fruit and make part of a rights-of-passage rebellion. Against that background, I would like to see a full investigation to determine the best age limit for alcohol consumption in a modern society. I emphasise that I am not calling for a reduction in the drinking age. We simply wish to investigate the matter to determine why such material differences arise.
Drinking in pubs, when properly enforced, is socially inclusive and controlled. Drinking illicitly in public places causes vandalism, nuisance and violence, and excludes our youth from responsible attitudes to drink that are found in our wider society. Any change to promote sensible drinking must involve parents. Their role does not appear to be emphasised enough in the Executive's approach, but it should be included in education programmes that are delivered in schools to inform young people about sensible drinking.
The Portman Group, in response to recent changes to licensing in England, has said:
"small quantities of alcohol consumed at home under parental supervision can provide a training ground for sensible and moderate drinking later in life . . . It does not make sense to have one rule for home and another rule for the pub/restaurant; the key issue is parental responsibility."
That logical argument was used for a change to the laws on alcohol with food, but it needs investigation in a wider context.
If we can encourage sensible legal drinking in a controlled environment, we can cut the cost of illicit drinking to our communities and reduce the burden on police resources. I asked the Executive to consider the need for a fresh look at licensing; I am delighted to hear that that will happen. Combined with continued, realistic education programmes and the involvement of parents, the attitudes of young people could be transformed. If we do that, we will change the future culture of drinking in Scotland and produce lasting benefits.
I move amendment S1M-1343.1, to leave out from "endorses" to end and insert:
"notes the Executive's plans to work towards the publication of a national action plan to tackle alcohol misuse and calls upon the Executive to review the terms of the Licensing (Scotland) Act 1976 in order that licensing practices are brought into line with modern attitudes and social outlooks."
On behalf of the SNP, I welcome the debate on the national alcohol misuse strategy. The debate is well overdue, as it is more than a year since the Executive first promised to hold it. Furthermore, we will not see the strategy until October next year, which means that it will take the Executive two and a half years to come up with an alcohol strategy for Scotland. That is not good enough.
We are all comfortable discussing and condemning drug use, but we are less comfortable with alcohol for the simple reason that it is something that we all—or most of us—drink, and most of us enjoy, particularly at this time of year. However, it is not all joy and merriment when one in five people in Scotland worries about their own or someone else's drinking. Statistically speaking, at least 25 members of the Parliament have a drink problem or know someone who does.
Let us be clear. Alcohol is a major public health issue in Scotland. Scotland has a drinking culture and the definition of a good time is often based on how paralytic someone got the night before. Alcohol costs us dearly, socially and economically. Alcohol misuse is an important cause of social exclusion, and the despair caused by poverty and unemployment often leads people to alcohol for comfort.
At least 85,000 children in Scotland live with a problem drinker. The problem remains largely hidden, yet we know that drink is a common factor in family break-ups and has clear links to domestic violence. Many children suffer psychological and physical abuse or neglect because of alcohol misuse.
Crime and violence are linked to alcohol misuse. Drink is involved in 65 per cent of murders, 75 per cent of stabbings and 41 per cent of assaults and muggings. It is interesting to note that one in five of all violent crimes takes place in and around licensed premises. Therefore, the review of liquor licensing law is to be welcomed.
The economic impact of alcohol is huge. Each year 14 million working days are lost because of alcohol-related problems and 25 per cent of accidents at work involve workers who misuse alcohol. Alcohol misuse puts a strain on our health service. The estimated annual cost of hospital treatment for alcohol-related illnesses in Scotland amounts to £180 million. One in seven acute hospital admissions relates to the misuse of alcohol.
The number of alcohol-related deaths in Scotland is increasing. A conservative estimate puts the number at about 3,000 a year, which is 10 times the number who die from taking illicit drugs. Despite that, the resources that are dedicated to alcohol misuse are small compared with those dedicated to tackling drugs. As I said to the minister, the £100 million of new Executive money that will be invested in drug-related services in the next three years is welcome, but there is no matching commitment for alcohol services and initiatives. In the light of the evidence of the harm that is caused to society by alcohol misuse compared with drug misuse, that decision seems hard to justify.
How do we begin to tackle our drinking culture?
Shona Robison rightly welcomed the extra money for tackling drug misuse. Does she agree that to tackle the patchy treatment and after-care for drug misuse throughout the country, even that amount of money is inadequate?
I agree. However, the amount for drug-related services is significantly more than that for alcohol-related services.
I will return to how we tackle our drinking culture. Gone are the days of prohibitionist candidates such as Neddy Scrymgeour, who ousted Churchill from Dundee in 1922 with a landslide victory on the back of doing away with the demon drink. A platform of such candidates in next year's general election would not work in quite the same way. Instead, we need a strategy that is suited to Scotland in the 21st century.
The proposed strategy provides us with an opportunity to consider new ways of tackling alcohol misuse. If we are to have a fresh look at the problem, the collection of information about what works and what does not is important. We need to know what the problems are before we can tackle them and we must define what we are talking about when we discuss alcohol misuse. We must have different strategies to deal with the binge drinker, who tends to be younger and who may become involved in associated violence and criminal activity because of their drinking.
We must also address under-age drinking. The SNP supports the use of proof-of-age card schemes as one way of reducing access to alcohol. We should be concerned about under-age drinking when we consider that 40 per cent of 13 to 14-year-olds were drunk when they first had sexual intercourse, leading to unsafe sex and unplanned pregnancies. We must examine the role played by alcohol as the gateway drug to illicit drug use by young people, as there appears to be evidence that alcohol plays an important role.
The strategy for under-age drinkers will be different from the strategy that targets consistently heavy drinkers, who could be described as alcoholics and tend to be older. Some people in that group will not stop drinking and will require support to enable them to stay at home, which would prevent their admission to acute hospital beds. That strategy will include having an adequate number of beds available in rehabilitation units, such as Castle Craig in West Linton, although that will have implications for community care budgets, which have always struggled to cope with that difficult client group. I hope that the minister will confirm that he will consider that issue.
The development of a more coherent prevention strategy is crucial. We must put an end to the confusing mixed messages about alcohol consumption. We must evaluate how helpful it is to talk about the number of units that are good, or bad, for people, rather than trying to help people to identify whether alcohol is becoming a problem for them and whether it affects their health, relationships or ability to hold down a job.
Any strategy needs to be backed up with adequate resources. Although the £2.5 million that has been earmarked for the development of the strategy is welcome, there is no indication of whether there will be a significant injection of resources for preventive work and service provision. I hope that the minister will give us an indication as to whether significant additional resources for the strategy will be forthcoming. Is there an argument for the hypothecation of some of the massive £660 million that is generated through the Scottish alcohol revenues that are due to be collected this year alone? Perhaps the minister will tell us what he thinks of that.
The Scottish Council on Alcohol, which has 30 years of experience in the field, struggles financially. Local councils on alcohol are integral to the strategic delivery of special alcohol services, yet they are funded on a shoestring, often through charitable donations, and they do not know from year to year where their funding will come from. The Scottish Council on Alcohol must be funded adequately. I hope that the minister will address that point.
Will the member give way?
I am sorry, but I am running out of time.
The strategy must be ambitious, but such ambition is not reflected in the targets that are set in "Towards a Healthier Scotland" for reducing the incidence of adults who exceed weekly alcohol limits. The target for men is a mammoth 2 per cent decrease between 1995 and 2005 and, for women, a 1 per cent decrease for the same period. The Executive must raise its ambitions somewhat.
We must have a national alcohol strategy that is modelled specifically on Scottish needs but is of an international standard.
Please wind up.
We must remember that the vast majority of Scottish people who consume alcohol use it sensibly and responsibly. However, alcohol is a problem for a sizeable proportion of the population who are affected either directly or indirectly by alcohol misuse.
I will conclude with the Scottish Council on Alcohol's comments.
Very briefly, please.
The Scottish Council on Alcohol says:
"Scotland requires an alcohol strategy which will have a positive impact on our drinking behaviour and which will adequately fund services to those who need them."
We hope that the strategy that is to be produced next October will achieve that aim.
I call Keith Raffan. As I said, Mr Raffan, you have five minutes.
I am sorry to see that the minister appears to be leaving. I hope that he will return to the chamber shortly, because it is traditional for ministers to sit through the whole debate, particularly if the debate is on a subject as serious as alcohol misuse.
I have been involved in drug misuse issues since the mid-1980s, when I took the Controlled Drugs (Penalties) Act 1985 through the House of Commons at Westminster. I have been involved even more intensively in the Scottish Parliament as a member of the Social Inclusion, Housing and Voluntary Sector Committee, which instigated the inquiry into drug misuse and deprived communities, and as convener of the cross-party group on drug misuse.
I am increasingly concerned that drug misuse is overshadowing and grabbing the headlines from an equally serious problem that affects even more people in Scotland—alcohol misuse. Today, the Social Inclusion, Housing and Voluntary Sector Committee published its report on drug misuse in deprived communities. It estimates, conservatively, that there are 30,000 drug injectors in Scotland. I think that the more likely figure—the one that the cross-party group came up with—is probably more than 40,000. At least five times as many people in Scotland—200,000—are problem drinkers.
My next statistic is slightly at variance with Shona Robison's, but it is still dramatic. More than 10 times as many deaths are alcohol related as are drug related. We had 136 drug-related deaths in 1998, but there were at least 1,800 deaths in the same year as a result of alcohol misuse, which represents a doubling over a 20-year period.
I do not want to deluge the chamber with statistics, but I shall do so very briefly. Sixty-five per cent of murders, 56 per cent of fire fatalities, 52 per cent of wife-battering cases, 50 per cent of rapes and 25 per cent of road deaths are alcohol related. I am indebted to the British Medical Journal for most of those statistics. The cost to industry is at least £2 billion and the cost to the NHS in Scotland is estimated at around £180 million, but I suspect that the true figure is much higher.
I am sorry that Malcolm Chisholm is not in the chamber. I am really quite put out by that, because I feel that he should have stayed for the entire debate, particularly for the opening speeches.
Earlier today, I criticised the Scottish Executive's funding of drug misuse treatment and rehabilitation as "woefully inadequate". The service is far too patchy over Scotland as a whole. As Shona Robison said, the figure for 1999-2000 was £143.5 million for tackling drug misuse. That did not cover only treatment, rehabilitation and aftercare; it also covered enforcement, education and other matters—I do not want to be unfair to the Executive. In the same period, however, the Executive and the Health Education Board for Scotland spent directly £1.3 million on alcohol misuse.
In Donald Gorrie's debate and again today, Christine Grahame criticised the minister about the £2.5 million—a different figure—and he said that it is for "strategic development". In winding up Donald Gorrie's debate, Malcolm Chisholm said that
"much more money than that is being used. There are services in each health board area to help with alcohol problems, while health education programmes are in place and there has been action on the criminal justice side to address public disorder issues."
I am glad to see that he has now come back into the chamber. Will the minister who is winding up today tell us exactly how much more money is being spent, or will we have to submit detailed written questions, which will no doubt take weeks to answer, as they normally do? My being ill made no difference; it took the Executive longer than the period I was away to answer a written question. We need a breakdown of that spending so that we are not in the dark. I very much doubt if the money being spent by the Executive on tackling alcohol misuse comes remotely close to what is being spent on drug misuse.
Treatment facilities have been mentioned. According to the Carstairs index, 17 times as many people from deprived areas as from affluent ones are being admitted to hospital for drug-related problems. For alcohol problems, the figure is 10 times higher. The resources allocated to health boards do not seem to reflect that. There are woefully few residential beds: 120 for drug misuse in Scotland as a whole and, I think, just short of 300 for drug and alcohol misuse. Earlier today, I said, perhaps rather unkindly, that Florence Nightingale had more beds at her disposal during the Crimean war than we have for tackling the very serious problem of drug and alcohol misuse.
The motion says that
"the Parliament endorses the Executive's plans to work towards"
a strategy. God! I have never seen anything so tentative in my life. It does not exactly have the smack of firm government or a sense of urgency about it. The minister's predecessor, Iain Gray, who is sitting next to him, told me on 1 June that the Executive will take "18 months or so" to draw up a strategy. It is going to consult, then give us a draft strategy, then consult again.
I know that ministers have set targets, which I welcome, in "Towards a Healthier Scotland", but we need a strategy and so far it seems to be in an embryonic state. I raised that question with the minister before. I know that he was short of time, but perhaps he can give us an answer this afternoon. Are ministers still considering a joint alcohol and drug misuse strategy, or not? Malcolm Chisholm is right to say that there is a relationship between drugs and alcohol. There is cross-addiction and alcohol is seen as a gateway drug to the use of hard drugs. He is also right to say that several drug action teams deal with alcohol within their remit. However, during Donald Gorrie's debate, he said, somewhat mystifyingly, that
"we should recognise the value of addressing drugs and alcohol misuse jointly at local level in some parts of the country."—[Official Report, 9 November 2000; Vol 8, c 1623.]
What is the value of addressing the problems jointly, and why should we do it in some parts of the country and not others? Those are elementary questions, dear Chisholm, elementary. Let us have some elementary answers.
I said earlier today that the Social Inclusion, Housing and Voluntary Sector Committee report into drug misuse and deprived communities, which has been published today, is a wake-up call to the Executive. I hope that the same is true of this debate.
We move now to the open part of the debate. A large number of members have indicated that they wish to speak, so I ask members to keep their contributions to four minutes.
I am concerned that we give out mixed messages on this issue. As adults, we often say that it is okay to have the odd drink, as long as it is in moderation. However, we do not define what we mean by moderation. One day we might think that it is quite amusing if someone has had a bit too much to drink and is playing around. However, the next day we might be irritated and appalled by the fact that somebody—perhaps a young person who is not as used to alcohol as an older person—has had too much to drink.
We are inconsistent in our attitudes. Headlines such as "Snifter makes brains brighter", which appeared in The Herald this morning, do not help. The headline suggested that people who drink are brainier than those who do not. A fuller explanation was given in the report, which indicated that moderate drinking has been shown to help brain cells. However, even the term "moderate drinking" is ambiguous. Moderate drinking is not the same to one person as it is to another. For physiological and other reasons, tolerance of alcohol differs from one individual to the next.
I know that advertising is not one of Parliament's responsibilities, but we are also inconsistent in that regard because we give out mixed messages. A high percentage of TV adverts, particularly at this time of year, relate to alcohol. Many people find that in sport there are too many references to alcohol. Far too many of our sports teams are sponsored by drinks companies, which indicates to young people that it is okay to drink. How do we stop that message going out to people who get caught up in drinking too much?
Despite recent price increases, alcohol is still very available. Gone are the days when it was available only in a pub or off-licence that had restricted opening hours. I am a little worried that the Conservative amendment might suggest that we remove all restrictions. One has only to walk into a supermarket or local corner shop to see that alcohol is readily available. That is fine if a person is what is termed a social drinker. However, if a person is not mature enough to handle the effects of alcohol, or if they have dependency problems, the pressures of being faced with that on a daily basis, when they are in a shop buying their bread and milk, can be huge. As legislators, we have just as much responsibility for protecting such people as we have for making alcohol more available.
A recent example of availability going too far comes from my area, which is West Lothian. An application was made to the licensing board for alcohol to be sold in the shop at a petrol station. The council turned it down, but there might be an appeal. We are all clear about the fact that alcohol and driving do not mix. For those who can take alcohol in reasonable measures, that may not be an issue, but if we put alcohol in a place where it is available to people who are driving, that might prove too great a temptation to some. We should not put people in that position. One alcohol-related accident, particularly one in which there are serious injuries or fatalities, is one too many.
There is a role in this for education. Children and young people should be taught how to use alcohol and they should be given all the information that is available on its effects. Recently, I visited the West Lothian Drug and Alcohol Service. It is doing excellent work in education projects, but it shares the concerns that have been expressed about the resources that are available for alcohol-specific projects. I hope that any working group that considers the matter will recognise that those projects will have difficulties in achieving their aims if they do not have the resources to take their work forward.
I apologise for my sore throat.
I welcome the minister's announcements, but I would have liked more money to have been made available. Perhaps he could persuade the drinks companies that they should, as Shona Robison said, put some of their profits into an advertising campaign or give it to the Executive. They have a responsibility to the consumers of their products.
We all know that alcohol abuse is a serious problem in Scotland—there is no denying that. We have the facts and figures. Colleagues will give the chamber those facts and figures, which relate to crime, illness, age groups and so on. However, I will talk about the human suffering that is caused by over-indulgence—as I call it—in drink.
Most members will have been affected—personally or in their constituency—in one way or another by the consequences of somebody having a drink problem. We must ask why Scotland has this terrible drink problem and this culture of heavy drinking. In pubs, many men—young and not so young, as Malcolm Chisholm mentioned—buy round for round. Is that done to uphold a macho image? Are they too scared to say no to their friends and colleagues? Something must be done about it.
Why do women—young and old—drink over the limit? Why do they drink constantly and abuse their health and that of the people around them? Are they trying to hide something? Is it for comfort? Is it to try to emulate men? We must find out the facts and figures. I hope that the information that we get from the strategy will produce answers to those questions. As colleagues have said, we will never be able to tackle the problem until we get to the root of it, which I sincerely hope we will do.
Misuse of alcohol affects not only the person who drinks; it affects those around them, sometimes in terrible ways. Take the example of families who cower in their homes because they are terrified of somebody who misuses drink coming home at night. It could be a parent or even a child. They are terrified and do not know what to expect, but they know for sure that what they are going to get will not be pleasant.
Consider the child whose parents have an alcohol problem. That child cannot tell parents, teachers or their friends about what is happening at home. The child might under perform at school. Who can they go to? They cannot cope. They are frightened to bring their friends home because one of their parents might be drunk. What sort of future does that offer young children? We have those problems in Scotland and we must tackle them.
Many people lose their jobs through abuse of alcohol. Consider the people who lose their houses through alcohol abuse. It affects not only them, but their families. People lose their jobs, their homes and their self-respect.
Unlike Keith Raffan, I welcome the strategy, even if it is 18 months late. If we can get this right in Scotland, Parliament will have something to be proud of. I will endorse the strategy happily and I hope that we can stop this scourge.
I am pleased to be able to speak in this debate, in support of Keith Harding's amendment, which seeks to add to the minister's motion. The difference is between the words "endorses" and "notes". I hope that the minister understands that we found it difficult to accept "endorses" because, at that point, we did not know what we might be called on to endorse.
I look forward to hearing whether the minister feels able to accept the amendment. This is a serious subject, but it also has its lighter side. We must strike a balance between examining the ramifications of alcohol abuse and recognising that many people enjoy a good dram, a good pint, an advocaat and lemonade or whatever is their tipple.
It would probably be courteous to respond briefly to the amendment now. Although we are pleased that Tory members welcome the announcement of the review, we think that the last six words of the amendment will mean quite different things to different people. Furthermore, we feel that the reason that is outlined in the amendment for conducting the review should not be the only reason. Health and public order considerations are also very important. However, although we do not accept the amendment, we welcome the fact that there is agreement on the substantive issue of the review.
I thank the minister for clarifying that point and I am sure that Bill Aitken will pick up on it when he closes for the Conservatives. I noticed that, when the debate opened, the Minister for Health and Community Care was sitting on the front benches, which led me to wonder whether there might be further announcements about some kind of tsar—we have, after all, a drugs tsar and a fat tsar. I was a little concerned that we might end up with a booze tsar, which would allow people to say, "It's all right, hen—I'm off to the boozer." We should not give people such an easy excuse to abuse alcohol.
Members should forgive me if I concentrate on licensing, which is the subject of our amendment. However, I do so for the simple reason that licensing laws represent our culture written into legislation and it is the culture that we must change. If we can do that, many of the problems that are associated with alcohol abuse might at least be alleviated.
The current licensing system is quite complicated. As the Scottish Parliament information centre research note points out, there are many different types of licence. There are public house licences; off-sales licences; hotel licences; restricted hotel licences; restaurant licences; and refreshment and entertainment licences. I am sure that we can simplify that range of licences.
On top of that, licensees are also required to seek environmental health and fire licences. As the Executive has suggested, it might be possible to reduce the amount of regulation and bureaucracy if a way can be found to simplify the incorporation of those licences in applications from public houses or restaurants.
There is also the question whether a licence can be refused because of overprovision. Many people will have found in cities abroad that certain areas become famous for their range of restaurants and public houses—although in a sense, restaurants and public houses can often merge. The market is better able to decide that issue, because there are other aspects within the licensing system that would allow restrictions with regard to loss of amenity. Moreover, the issue of permitted hours certainly bears exploration. Because licensees are restricted in those hours, they have to apply for extensions. That is a situation that we should review.
We should also review the application of licensing restrictions to sports grounds. There is a considerable difference in this respect between Scotland and England. Drinking is still permitted in English sports grounds and there do not seem to be the same accompanying problems.
I support Keith Harding's amendment. By changing our licensing system, we can change cultural attitudes within the law, which would have the benefit of reducing the sad impact of alcohol misuse on some people.
I am sure that it will be no surprise to members to find that alcohol has been a significant factor in Scotland's economic, social and cultural spheres for many decades. It seems ironic that we are, as a nation, proud to support and welcome the revenue that the Treasury receives from the production of alcohol in Scotland. We claim to be the world leaders in the field and we identify the industry as being in the premier league of Scottish exporters—a proud record indeed.
However, we look with blinkered vision on the problems that are associated with the misuse of alcohol. I am sure that it has occurred to many members—it has occurred to me on several occasions—that we should encourage more exportation of our alcoholic products. That would reduce the amount that was available for consumption in Scotland, which would lead to less abuse and misuse of alcohol.
It is estimated that 90 per cent of Scottish adults drink to some extent. We must be prepared to accept that the abuse and misuse of alcohol is not confined to any specific sector of society, social group or area. It invades every community, both urban and rural. It is evident in our cities and on the streets of our quiet villages. It destroys homes, families and marriages daily and creates an unacceptable burden on our social services, our police and our hospital and medical services.
The latest statistics show that alcohol abuse contributes to at least 25 times as many deaths as drug abuse in the United Kingdom, but it receives far less attention from the Government. We must as a priority address—in the context of the level of funding that is allocated to addressing drug misuse—the level of funding that is allocated to addressing alcohol abuse. The latest figures, which were collated in 1998, suggest that we spent £1.275 million centrally to support cases of alcohol misuse. However, we spent a staggering £143.5 million on tackling drugs misuse, which is a disproportionate allocation of funds.
I speak with a little experience, as someone who has succumbed to alcohol abuse in the past. Happily—or miraculously—I survived. As a consequence, I am pleased to support the Executive's initiative to develop a national strategy to address the issue of alcohol abuse. That strategy must be supported by a guarantee of substantial and appropriate funding. I would like Parliament to move ahead with diligence and enthusiasm, so that we can secure a national strategy sooner rather than later. I am pleased to support the Executive's initiative.
Years ago, I worked in a laboratory in London. On one occasion, I had a conversation with a colleague from Peshawar, in Pakistan, about another gentleman from the Indian subcontinent—I suppose that we were gossiping. My colleague said that the gentleman drank quite a lot, but I expressed some doubt because of the man's religious background. To that, and to my shock, my colleague replied, "Nonsense. He drinks like a Scot." My colleague was immediately embarrassed at having made such a racist remark concerning my nationality.
Even 17 years later, I remember that incident, because it drove home to me the international reputation that Scots have as alcohol abusers. It is not just a Scottish problem; there is a problem with binge drinking in the United Kingdom—as other members have said—which seems to be shared with other far northern countries. I do not know whether that is a result of the climate or the fact that we have few hours of light in the winter, but we seem to have that problem. I am concerned that binge drinking appears to be culturally acceptable here. It worries me that television and radio programmes that are aimed specifically at young audiences often promote alcohol abuse and binge drinking, implying that it is cool to be out of one's face or to have a hangover.
Being very drunk has long been seen as a rite of passage among young men and, as Shona Robison said, it is increasingly regarded as such among young women. It is extremely important to recognise that most alcoholics start off as binge drinkers, therefore binge drinking should not be regarded as cool or as a natural part of growing up. It can lead to violence and severe illness in the unfortunate partaker.
I know from the alcohol liaison committee in my constituency that a significant number of young people end up in casualty because they have been binge drinking. In the long term, drunkenness also leads to a load of other equally bad or worse consequences—accidents, fires, vandalism, street fighting, anti-social behaviour, neglect of children, domestic strife, domestic violence, unwanted sexual activity, depression and suicide.
Alcohol and drug-related problems are often discussed in my surgery and I am sure that I am not the only member of the Scottish Parliament for whom that is true. I will not forget in a hurry the older couple who sat in my surgery in tears, begging me to find some treatment for their alcoholic and frequently suicidal son, before he was successful in attempting to take his own life. He got into Castle Craig and I hope that he managed to get the treatment that he needed.
We cannot tackle the other issues that I mentioned without tackling alcohol abuse. We talk a lot about youth crime, but it cannot be tackled unless we examine society's attitudes and the examples that adults set for young people.
It is important for the Government to provide leadership and education and there must be a review of the licensing laws. There must also be action on anti-social behaviour and local authorities must examine their byelaws. However, many of those measures address the problem, not the cause. It is important for us to examine our cultural attitudes and to look within ourselves to see why we have this problem. Alcohol misuse is a curse on individuals and families. It corrodes our communities and is a blot on our national dignity and on our national identity.
I welcome the Executive's strategy and the minister's announcement.
I am glad that Iain Gray is here, because on 20 January this year I raised the issue of alcohol misuse with him. He gave his word then that we would have a debate. It is wee bit late, but he has kept his word, which is a good thing for a man. It is a start, and I am allowed to be sexist.
I thank Donald Gorrie. We both lodged motions on this subject. There was an interesting members' business debate about a month ago, which many members here present were at.
In the previous debate, I referred to the estimated 200,000 people in Scotland who misuse alcohol. I am sure that members will agree that that figure is the tip of a very large iceberg. I was told this week in a written answer:
"There were 340 drug-related deaths and 1,103 alcohol-related deaths in Scotland during 1999." —[Official Report, Written Answers, 4 December 2000; Vol 9, p 190.]
Alcohol-related deaths are coded under the international classification of diseases, which covers illnesses such as alcohol psychoses, alcohol dependence syndrome, non-dependent abuse of alcohol and so on. It does not, however, take account of the many deaths that occur in Scotland because of over-consumption of alcohol, but which do not have that specified on the death certificate. It has been estimated that almost a third of hospital beds are occupied by people who landed there after abusing alcohol. That is a measure of the problem. We all know about it and we have all talked about it. In honesty, the minister must see that, unless he is going to come up with other figures, the funding does not even begin to approach the size of that aspect of the problem in Scotland, let alone the other aspects.
I want to let others speak in the debate, so I will say a few brief things about the national strategy. More money must be made available. On the membership of the Scottish Advisory Committee on Alcohol Misuse, I have looked at the papers and see that the police are represented, but that there are no other representatives of the justice system. It would have been useful to give sheriffs or justices of the peace an input. They deal with the consequences of alcohol misuse all day in court. Prison officers also see people who are involved in alcohol misuse in prison and could have an input to alcohol programmes.
Local authorities are mentioned in the strategy. Will the strategy home in on social work departments, which must be involved, and education authorities?
From the justice perspective, I welcome drugs councils. Is there any thinking along those lines for people with alcohol problems who get themselves into the criminal justice system? Perhaps such people should be dealt with a little differently from the way that they are dealt with at the moment. In short, I welcome the steps that are being taken. Many members want much more to be done. We are too politically correct about drugs. We are keen to get involved in other drugs issues, which are serious, but we keep quiet about this other rather large issue that Scotland faces. Other European nations do not have to face it—they enjoy their drink, but do not abuse it.
I welcome this debate, but I hope that we do not spend too much time developing the detail of the strategy at the expense of beginning to deal with some of the problems.
People have talked about severe alcohol-related harm, as indicated by deaths, admissions to hospital and diagnoses of alcohol-related brain damage, which have risen markedly in the past 20 years. Many people who suffer from those diseases—problem drinkers—are admitted to acute psychiatric beds, where they are treated by general psychiatric staff who might or might not have specialist interest or expertise in alcohol dependence. There is a question about whether people who suffer from the more acute forms of alcohol dependency are getting the most appropriate treatment and whether that is available everywhere that it should be.
In the north of Glasgow, the drug epidemic has resulted in a squeezing of the availability of resources for the treatment of people who suffer from acute alcohol dependency and alcohol-related disease. It would be unfortunate if the existence of a serious drugs problem in a city led to a lack of emphasis on alcohol services. I am pleased that the Greater Glasgow Health Board has anticipated the Executive and has produced a detailed alcohol strategy document that identifies the problems comprehensively. Its activities and strategy should be supported by the Scottish Executive in advance of the Executive completing its work.
The question is not simply one of treating people who suffer from the advanced stages of alcohol-related disease. We must think of the range of services that are offered for people who suffer from alcohol problems. There is a requirement for us to direct services more specifically at younger people. Currently, limited services are available for younger people who might think that they have a drink problem and there is insufficient targeted work in the environments within which those services operate. Through television, cinema, billboards and so on, young people are exposed constantly to adverts that show alcoholic substances in environments that make alcohol seem glamorous and attractive. However, we know that many of our young people, by engaging in excessive consumption or consumption that might become excessive and might lead to disease, are at risk. We need to get more information to young people about the risks to which they expose themselves through drink.
We must strike an appropriate balance in relation to the emphasis that is given to drugs and tobacco. Alcohol, drugs and tobacco are great threats to people's lives and we must take alcohol seriously.
Some cost-effective mechanisms could be operated. When people end up in accident and emergency departments because of alcohol-related incidents, what steps are taken to provide them with health advice? Are people in that situation given advice about drink? Do we provide adequate training for nurses? Do we provide the opportunities for people who are in hospital with alcohol-related problems to get access to information on leading a healthier lifestyle? There is evidence that short interventions—five or 10 minutes of health advice on drink consumption and alternatives to alcohol consumption—can be a cost-effective way of providing people with a greater awareness of some of the dangerous consequences of the excessive consumption of alcohol. We should think about the training of nurses and other health professionals in that context and encourage them to provide advice as they do in relation to tobacco and drug abuse.
Drink is a serious issue. The Scottish Parliament must support people who are beginning to deal with that issue and provide them with positive encouragement.
We now come to the closing speeches in this debate. I apologise to those members whom I was not able to call. Mr Gorrie has four minutes in which to close for the Liberal Democrats.
There are two underlying issues. First, there must be funding, not just good words. Secondly, we have the huge task of shifting attitudes and the way in which we conduct ourselves—that is a great task for any Parliament.
I see this as a three-stage operation. In the long term, the Executive has agreed to set up a Clayson-type commission, which various members have been pressing for. That is good news and the Executive deserves great credit for it. We look forward to the commission's deliberations, although it will obviously take some years. In the medium term, the Executive is working out an alcohol strategy, which will take a year or so to come to fruition.
In the short term, my research and the polls that have been carried out by a magazine that circulates among people who deal with licensing—as well as what has been said in this debate and in the recent members' business debate on alcohol—show a consensus on a number of points, which could rapidly be incorporated into a bill and which would offer a quick improvement to our whole attitude to alcohol. It is important that we pursue that; we could show that we are in earnest by having a bill dealing with alcohol as soon as possible. There is a lot of support for that among all parts of the licensed trade, lawyers, licensing people and the groups involved in trying to reduce the amount of alcohol that is consumed. That would send a strong message to the public. I have been pursuing that matter with the Executive.
I am going to be allowed to talk to some civil servants—I do not think that I have ever been allowed to do so before, so it is a first, and I was pleased that it was arranged. In a few days' time, Iain Gray and some civil servants are to explain to me exactly what is to be included in the various Executive measures. We will then have a list of any gaps and of things that we could push more rapidly. I hope that, in the new year, we will have a meeting of members who have shown in this and previous debates—and on other occasions—real interest in the issue of alcohol. We could then put together a bill that would have widespread support and push it forward as a member's bill in the new year.
First, should such a bill be a committee bill? There would probably be a wide measure of cross-party support for that if the Executive has not got the matter covered in its timetable. Secondly, I would be interested to know whether Donald Gorrie feels that the people involved in selling drink, including the licensees, should have some duty of care.
It is important that we proceed with a bill. I am under the new dispensation that I believe we are to have imposed on us, in that I will be only on the Finance Committee. It is difficult to see how finance committees can produce such bills. Perhaps another committee could do so.
On duty of care, I included on my shopping list to Jim Wallace the idea to take more seriously the rules that exist for selling to minors and to people who are already drunk. I suggested that that could be enforced through the introduction of a graduated off-licence licensing fee. At the moment, a corner shop that sells a few miniatures pays the same licensing fee as Asda or Safeway, which is ridiculous.
There are issues in addition to those that have been raised, such as the licensing of door stewards and a possible duty on councils and health boards to offer various kinds of support to people with alcohol problems. There is a whole list of such issues, but other members have already made good lists. I hope that we can make real progress with this matter over the next few months.
This has been a good and welcome debate, which, as Christine Grahame said, has been a long time coming. Perhaps the reason for the delay is that, as many members have pointed out, alcohol misuse is not given the political priority that it deserves, given the devastating impact that it has on so many individuals, families and communities in Scotland. According to some analyses, it has a greater impact than does drug abuse, which, obviously and rightly, is high up the political agenda.
To give a flavour of just how deep a concern alcohol misuse is in Scotland, it is worth reiterating some of the statistics that have been cited this afternoon. Shona Robison said that one in five people in Scotland worries about their own or someone else's drinking and that 85,000 children in Scotland live with a problem drinker. For every one drug death in Scotland, there are three alcohol deaths. Those are raw statistics, but they paint all too graphic a picture of the misery that alcohol abuse inflicts on people.
The question that we have to address is what politicians can do about the problem. As Malcolm Chisholm said, much good work is already being done. I welcome all the speeches that members have made. Although I welcome the central suggestion in the Tory amendment and am glad that the Executive has agreed to a review of the licensing law, I, like Malcolm Chisholm, have some concern with its last few words. Perhaps, in summing up, Bill Aitken will clarify those words.
We must recognise that no one suggestion that has been made today is a solution to the problem that alcohol poses in our society. With the greatest respect to Malcolm Chisholm, if past practice and experience is anything to go by, even expensive television adverts will not make a world of difference by themselves. We should recognise that the challenge that we face is to change the culture in Scotland that celebrates and glorifies overindulgence in alcohol.
I will focus on a few areas in which we must do more to change that culture fundamentally. First, I will discuss ambition. Malcolm Chisholm referred to the Scottish health survey, which showed that 32 per cent of males and 14 per cent of females drink more than the recommended limit. Those are extremely worrying statistics, but the target reductions are only 1 per cent and 2 per cent in five years, and 3 per cent in 10 years. Those are hardly ambitious or challenging targets. We must set our sights higher and push ourselves further. There is an old adage: "If you don't try, you won't succeed." I hope that in the strategy that the minister has discussed today those targets will be revised so that we set our sights higher. Of course, we might not succeed at the first attempt, but if we aim low we will certainly not deliver as much as we could.
Secondly, the message that comes from politicians and Government must be clear and consistent, as Mary Mulligan rightly said, but it must also be meaningful. Of course, recommended limits for alcohol consumption are useful. The move from weekly to daily expressions of those units is welcome and might address the problem of binge drinking but, as Shona Robison said, we must focus more on educating people to recognise signs in their own lives of excessive drinking. Many people may drink less than the recommended limit, but drink too much in terms of the effect on their behaviour, relationships and working lives. Rather than referring always to statistical limits, a strategy must encourage people to examine themselves and become more responsible for their habits.
Thirdly, I will discuss briefly the question of resources, which has been raised by several members, including Sandra White. Far more is spent on action against drug abuse than is spent on dealing with alcohol misuse. No one would argue with the £100 million that is being spent over three years on drug services, but there is no similar commitment to dealing with alcohol misuse. The Government must address that point.
Will the member give way on that point?
I am sorry, but I am running out of time.
We need a cross-cutting approach to dealing with alcohol that goes across education, health, justice and social inclusion and that looks at the links between alcohol misuse and other drug abuse. I ask the Executive to implement recommendation 36 of the Social Inclusion, Housing and Voluntary Sector Committee report, which calls for a cross-party commission to look into the broader problems of substance misuse.
If this debate signals a change in the political attitude towards alcohol abuse, it is welcome. Unless we have that change and are prepared to give alcohol misuse political priority, we will not change the culture in Scotland in the way that is so desperately needed.
Perhaps uncharacteristically, I am approaching this matter with a more optimistic outlook than members of other parties are. However, my party recognises the gravity and severity of the situation. To put it simply, drink destroys lives. People are right to raise the problems. The arguments suggest that the problem can be dealt with under three headings: enforcement, health and culture.
I will deal first with culture. We must change our attitude towards drink. It seems to be part of the Scottish psyche to believe that heavy drinking is something to be proud of or a demonstration of machismo. That is far from the case.
On health, the question of resources arises. Resources must be made available for the treatment of those suffering from alcoholism and for counselling those likely to find themselves in that position.
Does Bill Aitken agree that funding for alcohol counselling groups is woefully inadequate, especially in rural areas? For example, the Islay and Jura council on alcohol has to rely on funding of £1,200 a year for all its counselling.
I agree. When we were working on the Social Inclusion, Housing and Voluntary Sector Committee report on drug abuse, we found great disparity throughout Scotland in the funding that was available for drugs groups. I have no doubt that that is the case for groups dealing with alcohol abuse. Especially in areas where there is a significantly greater problem with alcohol abuse, as is shown in the figures for the Western Isles, that problem must be looked at.
On what my party wishes to see in the review, we do not recommend a laissez-faire attitude, because we recognise the problems. However, we would go back to 1976 when the Clayson recommendations, which Donald Gorrie referred to, came into force, because that represented a positive approach. We started treating people like adults. I was convener of the licensing committee in Glasgow in the late 1970s and we took chances—we took a more liberal attitude and it paid off. We no longer had the same distressing street cabaret in Glasgow on Friday and Saturday nights. People were given a longer time to drink and they drank less—that may seem contradictory, but it was what happened. There was a more responsible attitude towards drink. We involved all parts of the community in what we were trying to do. We involved the licensing trade and made it more responsive to what people wanted. A stick-and-carrot approach was used. If the trade demonstrated that it was prepared to bring public houses up to standard, and particularly to attract women to accompany men to public houses to moderate their behaviour, as undoubtedly they did, that approach worked.
We would like various ideas on the trade to be introduced—for example, that the individual, rather than the establishment, should be licensed, and that temporary extensions should be controlled by the police rather than by the licensing board. We would like to consider the issue of opening hours to see whether we can bring our thinking on licensing into the 21st century. Christine Grahame made a telling point, building on something that Keith Harding had said: whoever considers this issue should compare and contrast our situation with that of some of our European colleagues. Statistics prove that where a more prohibitive attitude towards drink is adopted—as in some Scandinavian countries—alcoholism is manifestly worse. It is worse there than it is, for example, in the Mediterranean countries. Possibly there is a lesson to be learned from that.
We have to look into the problem of under-age drinking, and do so in the knowledge that there are difficulties. The trade—or some irresponsible elements within it—advertise with a view to entrapping youngsters into an alcohol lifestyle. We especially deplore the way in which alcopop products are aimed specifically at teenagers. We ask that that be clamped down on and we ask that the difficulties in corroboration that arise over the sale of drink to under-age people be considered. I suggest that, to ensure corroboration, those producing drink be required to register each drink container so that it can be traced back to the retailer. That would obviate the problem. We must also consider the age at which drink can legally be consumed. We are not suggesting that the age limit be reduced, but let us consider that limit in the light of European experience.
This has been a good debate. It is encouraging that the Executive largely accepts what we have to say on the matter. Conservative members look forward to having an opportunity to contribute to the deliberations that will take place.
As Bill Aitken suggests, this has not been a partisan debate, and I make no partisan point when I remind members that this is the 100th anniversary of the Labour Party. In that vein, the Secretary of State for Scotland is fond of pointing out that our founder, Keir Hardie, stood on a four-point platform 100 years ago. The first three points were a Scottish Parliament, reform of the House of Lords and a guaranteed wage, all of which the current Labour Government has delivered. The punch line is that Keir Hardie's fourth election pledge was temperance. We will not deliver on that, as Neddy Scrymgeour did not deliver on it in Dundee.
I make that point lightly, but with the serious intent of underlining the fact that alcohol—its effects, its control and its production—is a strand that has always run through reformist Scottish politics. Indeed, it runs through the history of civic Scotland. My father, when a boy, was a member of the Band of Hope, which was an abstinence movement then active in Leith. That is in the constituency of my colleague Mr Chisholm, although I am referring to a time a little before Mr Chisholm's, of course.
Alcohol is a theme that also runs through Scottish culture, as in Burns, who says:
"Wi' usquabae, we'll face the devil!"
The trouble is that, too often, usquabae is the devil. As many members have made clear, it takes a toll in undermining our people's health and happiness and in fuelling disorder. Members' speeches have also served to demonstrate the complexities of the issues and to reinforce the need for our strategy to be sufficiently wide-ranging and flexible.
Has the Executive endorsed the European alcohol action plan 2000-2005, as the World Health Organisation has done? If so, will the Executive make representations to Westminster on lower blood alcohol limits, on monitoring alcohol consumption and on alcohol tax levels, all of which are unfortunately reserved to Westminster?
One of the reasons for our taking some time to develop a strategy—for which we have suffered some criticism—is that we have to place it in the context of international thinking on alcohol misuse. That international thinking ought to be considered as we develop our strategy over the next year or so.
The strategy must be realistic and practical. As many members have pointed out, it must recognise that the majority of people who drink do so responsibly, with little harm to themselves or others. As Shona Robison said, the strategy must deal with the messages on alcohol, which are sometimes mixed. Mary Mulligan illustrated that point from today's press. The strategy must also address the binge culture, which is often encouraged in young people—as Elaine Murray pointed out—not only by the media, but by the way in which some drinks are promoted.
The strategy must also address the issue of adequate resourcing. However, we should examine what is already being spent. Malcolm Chisholm was honest in pointing out how difficult it is to garner information on how much is spent on dealing with the effects of alcohol. For example, Des McNulty spoke of alcohol-related brain damage in Glasgow. Greater Glasgow Health Board estimates that it spends £3.3 million directly on that problem. Clearly, that sum is not included in the figure of £2.5 million that was mentioned. An exercise needs to be done to ascertain how resources are being spent.
Both my department, with its responsibilities for criminal justice and licensing matters, and the health department have a significant role to play in reducing alcohol-related harm. Mr Chisholm, who chairs SACAM, has undertaken to note Christine Grahame's point and to consider the lack of criminal justice input into the advisory committee.
I also have specific responsibility for drugs strategy. A number of members have commented on the priority that is given to drugs. The misuse of alcohol and the misuse of drugs are major health and social problems. However, we must recognise that they are different. On one hand, we are dealing with a legal and socially acceptable activity controlled by regulation, where the pattern of consumption is probably the central and most harmful issue. On the other hand, we have an illegal activity that causes widespread misery to individuals and communities through consumption itself and the crime that funds that consumption.
I make no apologies for the priority attached to tackling drug misuse. However, that does not—and must not—diminish our desire to address alcohol misuse. The Executive believes that it is right to keep the national strategies separate. However, we need to ensure that there are links—particularly at local level, where drugs and alcohol overlap—in the planning and delivery of some services. Mary Mulligan gave the example of such work in West Lothian and there are other examples to be found throughout Scotland.
In terms of linking alcohol and drugs, what is the Executive's advice on drug action teams? Three or four of the 23 DATs are joint drug and alcohol teams, one is a substance team and the rest focus on drugs. At the moment, there is a right hotch-potch.
It is not a hotch-potch, but an example of just the kind of local decision making in the planning and delivery of services that we intend to encourage. Some of the services benefit from joint delivery on alcohol and drug misuse, but that is not the case for all services.
I am pleased at the support expressed for a review of licensing. There is no doubt that the time is ripe for us to take another good look at the regulatory framework. It is 30 years since that was done and our world has changed, as Keith Harding said.
I came across a quote recently, which might be of interest to members:
"I am continually brought up against the damage that is done to Scotland as a nation by misuse of alcohol and alcohol-related crime. I pore over cases relating to the release of life-sentence prisoners and am amazed at the number of times that the original crime was related to alcohol." —[Official Report, Written House of Commons, Scottish Grand Committee, 15 April 1975; c 6.]
Those words are from Willie Ross's opening address, as Secretary of State for Scotland, to the Scottish Grand Committee on the consideration of the Clayson report in the early 1970s. It is clear that we have not come far enough, particularly when we pore over the unacceptably high levels of violent death in 1999, as shown in the figures published yesterday.
The review needs to be thorough and I say quite clearly that it will take some time. We need to consider its remit carefully, but it will certainly have to consider issues both of public health and of public order. As Malcolm Chisholm indicated, that is why we feel unable to accept the Conservative amendment, because it pre-empts the scope of the review, although I am happy to acknowledge that there is no disagreement with its intent.
Will the minister give way?
I am out of time.
Several members have indicated the importance of tackling under-age drinking; I can only agree with them. The local community newspaper in my constituency features that problem and I expect that every member could produce similar evidence from their own constituencies. The strategy and the licensing review must both address that difficult issue.
Today's debate has been short but important, first, because it has finally allowed me to make good the promise that I made to Christine Grahame and, secondly, because it has to be the tip of the iceberg. From today flows the development of the action plan, the review of the licensing laws and the further engagement of the Parliament and its committees with this issue, which has been at the centre of reform in Scotland for so many years.