Alcohol Misuse
The final item of business today is a members' business debate on motion S1M-1210, in the name of Donald Gorrie, on misuse of alcohol.
Motion debated,
That the Parliament agrees that everything possible should be done to ensure that alcohol abuse and the issues of health and violence arising from it receive greater attention, and urges the Executive to promote civilised social drinking and to reduce excessive and under age drinking through any means available, including administrative action, publicity, education and legislation.
My friends have been a bit concerned recently, because I have been telling them that I am now into alcohol. I then have to explain that I am into it as a political issue, not as a matter of excessive personal consumption. I know that it is of interest to other members, and I welcome their support for my highlighting the issue.
The objective of this motion is to put alcohol on the public agenda at a high level, where it should be. Compared with drugs, alcohol is a much greater problem in Scotland. Compared with drugs, alcohol gets much less public attention. That is not to say that we should downgrade the problem of drugs; we should take alcohol really seriously.
Most people find it difficult to take alcohol misuse as seriously as they should, because most of us go in for social drinking. Drinking is very much established as part of the Scottish way of life. We must accept, however, the evils that are caused by under-age or excessive drinking, both of which give rise to violence, including domestic violence, ill health, loss of jobs, family break-up and so on. They are all significant consequences, and we must tackle the issue.
The amount of perseverance on my part necessary to get this issue on the agenda is symptomatic—I know that Christine Grahame had a motion on this subject that was never selected for debate. Many other members' business motions could be considered to be of less significance, and there is a lack of urgency about the high heid yins' attitude to alcohol.
We will not solve the problems in half an hour, but I can suggest some measures that would help. Either the Executive—or, if it has the resources, the Parliament—should set up a new, Clayson-type commission. That inquiry was so long ago that our press officer could not even spell his name right, as he had never heard of him. In the 1970s, the Clayson commission did really good work and helped reform the Scottish licensing laws. We need a new look at the problem now; there are many aspects to it and life has moved on over the past 30 years. We need a new Clayson-type commission.
Some weeks ago, I wrote to the Minister for Justice to ask him what he is doing about alcohol as a public issue and notifying him that I wanted to lodge a member's bill. He responded that the justice department is considering the subject, but has not yet concluded what it is doing on inquiries, committees or whatever. I hope that the Deputy Minister for Health and Community Care, despite having responsibility for a different department, can tell us. We need the Executive to get a grip on the subject.
I believe in the need for a member's bill. Following considerable research, I gave Jim Wallace a preliminary shopping list of 16 issues that could be included in a bill. I have spoken to people with opinions on all aspects of the licensing of alcohol and I have found a great deal of agreement. I would be happy to co-operate with other people who I know have great interest in the subject and who come at it from different angles. They will be able to voice other useful ideas. We can draw up a member's bill that commands a great deal of consensual support in the Parliament and among all the organisations that have to deal with matters of licensing and alcohol. It would make some important changes while longer-term consideration was being undertaken by the Clayson-type commission.
We also need an all-party group on alcohol issues. There are a whole lot of cross-party groups; most of us spend a lot of time failing to get to meetings because of all the clashes. It might be better to enlarge the remit of the drugs group that my colleague Keith Raffan—who, unfortunately, has been ill for some time—has been working in. We should, perhaps, be considering all addictions together.
We need a continuing parliamentary body to press the issue, which easily escapes people's attention. They do not want to think about it because they feel uneasy about it, as they drink a bit themselves.
Some examples of issues that could be dealt with very quickly are: better policing of pubs, which could possibly be paid for by a variable licence fee; a police power to suspend a licence immediately, rather than the long drawn out procedure we have at present; licensing door stewards or bouncers; a system of qualifications and training for licensees, to make that a career path with national, recognised qualifications; a national system of proof of age cards for young people; and a duty on councils and health boards to provide a range of treatment centres. Treatment should start much younger—there is a failure to treat adolescents with serious drinking problems. Other examples are model byelaws for pubs and local forums where publicans and licensing people could talk in an informal way.
Those are issues that we could pursue quickly through the Parliament, but the overall issue is getting it on the agenda. I welcome this opportunity to do so and the interest of other members in the issue.
As Donald Gorrie said, Christine Grahame has had a motion down on this subject since 6 June. I will therefore allow her up to four minutes. Other members should keep their speeches short.
That is very obliging of you, Presiding Officer. I thank Donald Gorrie for mentioning my motion. I am glad that we may get somewhere on the issue.
I first raised this subject on 20 January in the debate on drug abuse. The then Deputy Minister for Justice had not even mentioned it. In that debate, I quoted the following statistics:
"There are 200,000 people in Scotland who misuse alcohol. In the past 25 years, the recorded increase in deaths for which alcohol is recorded as cause of death is 552 per cent for males and 760 per cent for females."
Those figures are gross understatements because they refer to deaths directly attributable to alcohol. There are alcohol-related illnesses that are not in that category. Another staggering statistic is that
"One third of general hospital beds contain patients who have an alcohol problem."—[Official Report, 20 January 2000; Vol 4, c364.]
In his reply to that debate, the then Deputy Minister for Community Care told me:
"I want to deal early in my speech with the issue of alcohol abuse, which was raised by many members . . . one message that the Executive must take away is that of considering an early debate on alcohol abuse, to give the subject the time that Christine Grahame's statistics show that it warrants.—[Official Report, 20 January 2000; Vol 4, c384-85.]
The statistics are not mine; they are from an alcohol abuse organisation. We are nearly through the year and we have not had that debate.
I have questions for the Deputy Minister for Health and Community Care. Drug-related problems have just been given £100 million over the next three years, yet I was told in a parliamentary answer that there is only £2.5 million over the next three years for alcohol misuse. That is an enormous difference. In 1999, 1,013 deaths were directly traceable to alcohol and 340 deaths were directly traceable to other drugs. We have got things askew. Those 1,013 deaths does not include deaths that are related to alcohol through other diseases, fire, accidents, violent attacks, murders and so on. I will not go into the criminal impact of alcohol; someone else may, perhaps, address.
I challenge the minister to introduce measures to assist in educating children on the issue, because there is now evidence that it is not so much cannabis as alcohol that is the gateway drug to other drugs. A further issue is that of children living with a parent with alcohol problems. It is estimated that 85,000 Scottish children are likely to be living with a problem drinker. Consider what that must mean in those children's lives.
When I asked—yet again—for a debate, I was told by Iain Gray in an answer on 30 August that it would be scheduled. I spoke to him recently, informally, and he said that the Executive was setting up a programme this month. I hope we can have the debate before we begin another year.
I would like to thank Donald Gorrie for securing this debate and raising a very important issue. I have spoken about this subject many times—usually in the context of drug policy. Alcohol misuse is the ignored problem. As people have said, alcohol is acceptable in today's society. A bottle of spirits costs the same as a compact disk or a couple of tickets for the cinema. Most people see alcohol as harmless and enjoyable; as helping to relieve problems; as aiding relaxation. The media concentrate on its positive effects. Television adverts for drink highlight the cosy pub, the convivial company, the young and the beautiful. They ignore the brawls, the vomit in the gutter and the liver failure.
The problem is partly historic. We do not have a culture of socially responsible drinking. The contrast with other European countries is apparent. Alcohol is treated more responsibly there, with parents playing a key role in bringing up children with a sensible attitude to drinking. There is nothing sadder than hearing grown adults boasting about how many pints they sank the night before—unless it is hearing young teenagers boasting about the same thing.
In parts of the Highlands and Islands, the drink culture is pervasive. Between August and October this year, there have been 58 admissions to the six-bed detoxification wing at the New Craigs hospital. Such a figure gives a snapshot of the problem in the Highlands. However, we need to ensure that we have accurate and comprehensive information so that we know the true extent of the problem.
When I was a teacher trying to discuss alcohol with children, they often described how drunk their parents got at the weekend. The parents went out drinking; the children did too. Some parents do not take seriously the damage that alcohol can do to themselves or their children.
Drinking in our culture is too wrapped up with ideas of machismo. Peer-pressure leads young people—girls and boys—to disregard their health and start on what has been described as binge drinking. The traditional image has been of young males going out on a Saturday night. That image is beginning to change: more and more evidence suggests that young women are beginning to binge drink. Young people's perception of maturity comes in part from how much they drink—that desperately has to change.
Our policies on this and other issues must all inter-relate. We need to recognise that drinking affects other areas of policy. For example, there is a link between drinking and under-age sex, teenage pregnancy, health issues and homelessness issues. In this debate, I want to concentrate on young people. With young people, we at least have the chance to change the culture and promote a more sensible attitude. As with drugs, a just-say-no approach is no longer appropriate, but it is essential that we get across to young people the dangers and the negative effects of drinking. We can do that through education programmes but, more important, we can do it through parents setting a good example in the home.
I congratulate Donald Gorrie on raising the important issue of alcohol misuse which, as we know, affects many families and has an impact on the lives of communities throughout Scotland. Many people find their public places blighted by the vandalism and abuse of gangs of anti-social youths who are involved in illicit drinking.
Last year, like Donald Gorrie, I lodged a motion that called on the Executive to review the Licensing (Scotland) Act 1976 so that licensing contracts and practice might be brought into line with modern attitudes and social outlook. In response to parliamentary questions, the Executive said that it intended to review the act but, regrettably, not during this session.
Donald Gorrie's motion covers many issues. In the short time available, I would like to address the problem of under-age drinking. I suspect that Donald is seeking additional legislative powers and direct Government action. My strong suspicion is that a legal crackdown on drinking would have no more beneficial effects than did prohibition in America. What we require instead is nothing less than a wholesale change in the culture of drinking in Scotland, to bring it closer to the European model.
Since the 1976 act was introduced, society and social patterns have changed considerably. I ask members whether there is not a case for reducing the age at which a young person can legally drink in a public house. In Greece, the legal age at which drink can be purchased and consumed is 13; in Spain, it is 14.
Those countries do not have under-age drinking problems. I acknowledge that that is mostly due to differences in culture, but theirs is a culture that we should aspire to in Scotland. In those countries, there is a social stigma to getting drunk, and drinking is seen as a social activity. I have spoken to many youngsters in this country, under and over 18 years of age, and they go out not just to socialise but specifically to get drunk.
I would like research to be undertaken to assess the benefits or otherwise of reducing the legal age for drinking. In America, the age limit is 21 and they have even greater problems than we do. Drinking in pubs, properly enforced, is socially inclusive and controlled. Drinking illicitly in public parks causes vandalism, nuisance and violence. It excludes our youth from the more responsible attitude to drink that is found in wider society.
For younger people, there is always the temptation to taste forbidden fruit. If alcohol were legally obtainable at an earlier age and an educational programme were delivered in schools by health promotion teams, we might begin to address this serious issue. If we can encourage sensible drinking in a legal and controlled environment, we might be able to cut the cost of disruption to our communities and reduce the need for enforcement, which stretches our police resources further every day. I ask the Parliament and the Executive to investigate and consider such reforms.
I congratulate Donald Gorrie on securing this debate. The problem with alcohol abuse is that we all treat it far too lightly. We are all to blame. It is no accident that the Liberal Democrat group nicknamed Donald's motion the killjoy motion. However, it hints at a very serious subject. We have all seen the misery caused by drunkenness in a family or in the work place. It is a peculiar private hell and I am sure that we have all seen friends, neighbours or relations go through it.
I, too, would like to concentrate on the issue of young people drinking. I have listened with interest to Keith Harding's comments. I have 16-year-old twins. Like anyone who has teenage children, I wonder, when they say they are off to a dance in the town or the village, whether they will behave themselves, what will happen that night and whether there will be a telephone call in the wee small hours from a policeman or someone worse. It happens.
Young people go to dances and, despite the best intentions of all involved, many of them get hold of drink and that leads to the most unhappy and miserable episodes. Such episodes eat into the heart of a happy family life. We have seen it and know that it happens. Even if they do not get the drink at the dances, an 18-year-old will go across the road to the off-licence, buy the vodka and alcopops and hand it out to the kids.
Donald Gorrie hinted at the idea of proof-of-age cards. That is one way forward. He also hinted at tightening up the licensing boards and other authorities. Those of us who have been councillors have sat on licensing boards. We know that members sit like a row of tatties, the clerk says: "Is that agreed?" and members nod in agreement. All of us were licensing the sale of something poisonous—a life destroyer. That is something we should think about.
To return to the issue of identity cards, we cannot blame bouncers for getting young people's ages wrong. Even the best-trained bouncer in the world will have trouble telling whether a person is 18, 16 or 19. One just does not know. One could take the draconian route by taking to court all people who serve drink to young people—even by mistake. At the end of the day there needs to be a safety net. The time has come to tackle the issue.
Maureen Macmillan talked about education and parents setting an example. I have seen families where the parents have set the very finest of examples and yet the young teenager has gone out, gone wrong and become caught in the death trap of drinking. We need concrete, costed proposals along the lines indicated by Donald Gorrie.
I congratulate Malcolm Chisholm on his elevation and ask him to consider the proposals in the weeks and months ahead if he is unable to give them support today.
I, too, want to thank Donald Gorrie for his willingness to debate the issue. Members have spoken very thoughtfully on the subject. Most have touched on the fundamental point about the cultural context in which the consumption of alcohol takes place. That is the issue that needs to be challenged.
When I look back on my childhood, I realise that things I considered fun at a certain time might not be worthwhile when experienced at a personal level. In preparation for today's debate, I reflected on a time when I played school football. Two of my friends and I had the regular experience of our fathers visiting us on Saturday morning after a Friday night binge. Everyone else thought it was a laugh that our fathers were entertaining the crowd at the side of the pitch as we played football, but the three of us felt hurt and injured. Part of my commitment to the issue of alcohol is shaped by my childhood experience.
Members have touched on the fact that we celebrate those who misuse alcohol, from football players to football supporters to rock stars. Irrespective of the fact that the culture of popular music is fairly dangerous anyway, it is worrying that rock stars are celebrated for their misuse of alcohol as much as for their creative impulses. The fact that we do not address that in a positive way strikes me as something that will cause us long-term difficulty.
Change can come, though. If we look back 25 years, major public service employers had a significant problem with the drink culture in some of their workplaces, but through a commitment to employee training, development and support they turned that culture round, be it in the railway service or the postal service, because they committed themselves to challenging that behaviour. I hope that the minister can address that issue.
My constituency has some of the worst alcohol-related statistics in Scotland on foetal alcohol syndrome, loss of work and illness. I hope that the Deputy Minister for Health and Community Care can examine the relationship between alcohol misuse and mental health problems, which a doctor in my constituency has addressed at Parkhead hospital. I hope that we can begin today a process that will make a difference for the future. I welcome the contribution that Donald Gorrie and others have made to that.
Donald Gorrie is to be congratulated on bringing this matter before the Parliament. He initiated his remarks by referring to the Clayson report. Others have referred to a change in culture. The time of the Clayson report was the last time we changed our drinking culture in Scotland—and it was tremendously successful because the Licensing (Scotland) Act 1976 began to treat people as adults.
I can remember, although not in such personal and poignant terms as Frank McAveety, the effects that drink had on a wide section of the Glasgow community during my childhood years in the 1950s and 1960s. It was commonplace to see people staggering in the street and lying drunk in the gutter. That became much less common after the Licensing (Scotland) Act 1976 was implemented, because it changed the culture. It changed pubs from being drinking dens to places where people went with their wife, girlfriend or boyfriend—if that was their bent—to socialise, rather than simply get drunk.
I wonder whether the way forward is to attempt to change the culture once again, to treat people like adults and to see how the licensed trade responds—because it responded positively in 1976. I was the convener of licensing in the days when the Conservatives held Glasgow District Council. We took a fairly liberal and, I would like to think, enlightened attitude to licensing. We found that the licensed trade provided much better and more comfortable facilities, which encouraged people to drink and treat alcohol as we would want them to treat it. Perhaps that is the way forward. Perhaps it is one of the major issues that the minister will address in the weeks ahead.
I had hoped to talk about substance abuse rather than simply alcohol abuse, but time is short so I will pitch in my grenade at the end of the debate. I am glad that Bill Aitken touched on the attitude of the licensed trade. I was once part of that trade and I know a little bit about it. Responsible licensees are an important part of responsible drinking.
However, in this city, alcohol plays a large part in the economy. To realise that, we have only to look at the breweries and the number of people who are employed in the advertising and marketing industries. Therefore, when we are talking about the promotion of all things that are good in Scotland, we should not forget that we are hoping to attract visitors here on the basis of having much better whisky than, for example, the Irish have.
We must address the huge hypocrisy that lies at the centre of our society if we are to do what Donald Gorrie asks—and we should do it. We have shown by the campaign against smoking that culture and attitudes can be changed, but we must not forget that the marketing, sponsorship and advertising surrounding the cigarette industry was also considerably affected. We have to do that if we are serious about this issue. I commend the motion.
The motion today touches upon a serious health and social issue, and I congratulate Donald Gorrie on bringing it before the Parliament. Like him, I view alcohol as a serious issue, and share his commitment to tackling the problem and moving it further up the political agenda.
The debate is particularly timely, as the Executive is currently working towards a new alcohol misuse strategy. I assure Christine Grahame that there will be a debate before Christmas to allow us time to explore these issues more fully.
Concern has rightly been expressed about the worrying trends in alcohol misuse, particularly, but not exclusively, among young people. Alcohol misuse takes many shapes and forms, and may affect the individual, families, the workplace and the wider community. However, a complex social policy is involved. Governments need to take care over what they can and should do, and over what is and is not effective. The problem of alcohol misuse is many faceted, as responses to it require to be. I am sure that all members agree that there are no quick or simple solutions.
Alcohol is also different from some other substances as it can be included in a healthy lifestyle if taken in moderation, at the right time and in the right place. Drinking provides much enjoyment, and many Scots use alcohol responsibly. Moreover, we must recognise that the production and distribution of alcohol makes a significant contribution to the Scottish economy and provides employment for many thousands of Scots.
Excessive drinking carries a heavy toll in illness, accidents, anti-social behaviour and criminal acts of violence. However, it was perhaps wrong of Donald Gorrie to say that it causes domestic violence, which involves much wider issues. The cost of excessive drinking in personal, social and economic terms is great, and is too often hidden or unheeded. Alcohol misuse is linked to crime, road deaths, lower achievement, family breakdown, poor employment prospects, poor physical health and, as Frank McAveety reminded us, poor mental health.
Donald Gorrie and others referred to two worrying trends. The first is the trend in under-age drinking. It is sad that 14 seems to be a milestone. Most teenagers have begun to drink by the age of 15. The second is the trend that statistics show in excessive drinking. The Executive has set targets for a reduction in harmful drinking levels because of that, but the cultural issues to which Frank McAveety referred are clearly critical to that. The Executive is taking action on a range of fronts.
It would help if the Deputy Presiding Officer told me how much time I have left.
You have another four or five minutes, if you wish to use them.
There is a relationship between alcohol misuse and wider drugs misuse. We are still considering the question whether we should develop a joint strategy. Nevertheless, we should recognise the value of addressing drugs and alcohol misuse jointly at local level in some parts of the country. Several drug action teams now include alcohol in their remits, and services may cover both.
The £2.5 million that Christine Grahame referred to, which was earmarked following the public health white paper, is being used for strategic development. However, 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. Nevertheless, we recognise the need to review the situation and plug the many gaps that exist. That can be taken into account in the new strategy.
We are keen to ensure that everyone with an interest is taken into account in the development of the strategy. Action is for lots of groups: individuals; parents; all those who work with young people; industry; the retail trade; the licensed trade; employers; the national health service; local authorities; voluntary organisations; the police; and, not least, the Executive. We look to the Parliament to inform the strategic thinking, which is another reason for having an early debate.
As members will know, the Scottish Advisory Committee on Alcohol Misuse was set up following the white paper. There are representatives on it from all the key sectors. Much groundwork is going on to provide the necessary building blocks for the new strategy.
For example, in co-operation with local alcohol misuse co-ordinating committees, the advisory committee is undertaking a review of services. Work is being done by the committee on prevention and health promotion, on co-ordination and on the collection of information.
In recognition of the importance that I attach to tackling alcohol misuse and to give those efforts added impetus, I have decided to take over as chair of the Scottish Advisory Committee on Alcohol Misuse.
As I said, a fuller debate will give us time to explore issues in more depth, but it is clear that there is strong support from Donald Gorrie, Keith Harding and others for an overhaul of current licensing laws. There have also been demands for firm and effective action to tackle under-age drinking and, in that context, proof-of-age cards have much support. Christine Grahame, Maureen Macmillan and Jamie Stone emphasised both the importance of alcohol education and the need for it to be more robust. If time allows, I will say a little about each of those areas.
Liquor licensing and the Licensing (Scotland) Act 1976 is a complex area on which people have widely differing views. People argue for different strategies only to arrive at the same conclusions. A great deal of work must be done on that area, but we accept the need to consider a review of licensing within the context of developing our national alcohol misuse strategy.
Donald Gorrie referred to the role of the licensed trade and there are many ways in which the trade could help. It could discourage the use of special promotional offers. It could encourage risk minimisation by lowering prices for low alcohol and soft drinks. It could encourage a policy of "no proof, no sale" when a young person's age is in doubt. It could ensure that the trade and its staff are adequately trained on alcohol misuse issues.
On under-age drinking, a number of measures are in place to address young people's drinking. For example, many local authorities have introduced byelaws to curb drinking by young people in public places. Powers are also available to confiscate alcohol from under-18s in public places
Those measures, which are backed by criminal sanctions, have a positive effect, but we do not intend to make criminals of people, whether young or old, who drink in public places. However, we wish to reduce or eliminate the nuisance element and the petty crime that are associated with drinking in public.
The Executive is funding a pilot scheme of proof-of-age cards, which is being developed in co-operation with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities. I wish to announce that the Executive has just agreed to fund a pilot scheme, to be run along the same lines, in Angus, in order to test that one-card approach in a rural area.
It is clear that alcohol education is critical, as many members noted. A range of factors, such as life circumstances, socio-economic factors, peer pressure and fashion, must be considered.
Where children and young people are concerned, we must complement enforcement measures with messages about sensible drinking and sensible choices, and health education in schools is clearly essential. As I said, the Scottish advisory committee is considering how to improve our prevention efforts.
As I have run out of time, I conclude by reiterating that the Executive is alive to the need to act. We are aware of the size of the challenge and the complexity of the social and cultural issues that are involved.
We must take the public with us in developing our strategy. I am pleased with the considerable interest that was expressed in Parliament during the debate and I look forward to working with members to develop this most important strategy.
Meeting closed at 17:38.