Alcohol (Minimum Pricing) (Scotland) Bill: Stage 3
The next item of business is stage 3 proceedings on the Alcohol (Minimum Pricing) (Scotland) Bill.
In dealing with the amendments, members should have before them the bill as amended at stage 2, the marshalled list and the groupings—documents SP bill 4A, SP bill 4A-ML and SP bill 4A-G, respectively.
The division bell will sound and proceedings will be suspended for five minutes for the first division of the afternoon. The period of voting for the first division will be 30 seconds. Thereafter, I will allow a voting period of one minute for the first division after a debate.
Members who wish to speak in the debate on any group of amendments should press their request to speak button as soon as possible after I call the group.
Members should refer to the marshalled list of amendments.
Section 1—Minimum price of alcohol
Group 1 is on the meaning of “unit”. Amendment 3, in the name of Richard Simpson, is grouped with amendment 4.
During stage 2, when I moved a more complex set of amendments to section 1, I believed that it was important to simplify the overall formula. However, I have taken on board Jim Eadie’s criticisms of those amendments, which were that my stage 2 proposals would complicate the bill by introducing two definitions. I welcome the cabinet secretary’s acknowledgement at stage 2 that the central purpose of my amendments was to promote the measure of strength that we all hope that the public will increasingly understand and accept—namely, the unit—and the idea of how safe or, indeed, unsafe it is to consume units. I also accept that, in law, what is required—and what the formula lays out in the bill—is the much more complex measurement of strength by volume.
However, the fact remains that, although the public have some understanding of strength, they need to begin to understand that the bill and its consequences are about minimum unit pricing. Therefore, not to define “unit” seems to me to be remiss. The formula, after all, relates to minimum price per unit.
What exactly constitutes a unit? That should be defined in the bill with clarity, and my simplified amendments achieve that end.
The other argument from the cabinet secretary, which was a rather legalistic one, was that there is no current statutory requirement to display the number of units on a bottle or other container. However, the industry has agreed to introduce such information on a voluntary basis within the next 18 months. Knowing that a bottle of wine is 15 per cent might tell someone that it is strong, but telling them that it is nine or even 10 units indicates how safe consumption is.
It is to help the public that the term “unit” should be defined, and not to do so would be a missed opportunity. I am advised that the industry would welcome a clear definition. After all, we are not passing a bill that talks about “minimum price per 10ml of pure alcohol”; the bill talks about the price per unit. What a unit is should be clearly on the face of the bill, otherwise it is open to manufacturers have their own definition of unit.
I move amendment 3.
I fully understand what amendments 3 and 4 are trying to achieve. However, my strong view is that the amendments are not required in order to calculate the minimum price of an alcoholic drink. The minimum price is set by reference to the drink’s strength, its volume and the unit price that is set by Scottish Ministers.
The fact that a unit is 10ml of pure alcohol is already factored into the formula in section 1, and it is therefore unnecessary to add a separate definition of the term as amendments 3 and 4 seek to do.
14:45
I agree with Richard Simpson that it is desirable to raise awareness of what a unit of alcohol is, but putting that information in the text of a bill is not the best way to achieve that. An explanation of what is meant by a unit of alcohol will be provided in the explanatory notes and in the material that is prepared around implementation. Those are better places for such an explanation, as legislation should not contain superfluous provisions.
It will be made clear that a unit is 10ml of pure alcohol, and that the method of calculating the number of units in the formula in the bill has been devised on that basis.
Ultimately—and most importantly—public awareness of what the term “unit of alcohol” means is an educational issue. For that reason, it is right that we consider what we can do in that regard during the implementation of minimum pricing.
I have said that we will work with the industry on implementation and help to produce whatever will assist those who are selling alcohol to calculate the minimum price of any product. That would also assist those who are ensuring that the minimum pricing provisions are being adhered to. I hope that that process, along with whatever else we are able to do, will help the general public understanding of what a unit is.
I understand and have sympathy with what the amendments seek to achieve. I recognise that there is an educational issue, but simply putting that information in the text of the bill is not the way to address the issue.
For those reasons, I ask members to reject amendments 3 and 4.
As I indicated in my opening remarks, I have accepted that the formula is quite clear and that there is no need for the complex set of amendments that I originally proposed at stage 2. However, I maintain that not to define “unit” in the text of a bill that has minimum pricing as its whole context is seriously remiss. There is a possibility that people could define “unit” differently, notwithstanding any guidance that might be subsequently issued by the cabinet secretary. My amendments would put that issue beyond doubt and make it absolutely clear exactly what, in Scots law, a unit of alcohol is. I therefore press amendment 3.
The question is, that amendment 3 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
As we are not agreed, there will be a division. As this is the first division at stage 3, I suspend the meeting for five minutes.
14:47
Meeting suspended.
14:52
On resuming—
We move to the division on amendment 3.
For
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Baker, Richard (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Chisholm, Malcolm (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (Lab)
Dugdale, Kezia (Lothian) (Lab)
Fee, Mary (West Scotland) (Lab)
Ferguson, Patricia (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (Lab)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Iain (East Lothian) (Lab)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Kelly, James (Rutherglen) (Lab)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow Pollok) (Lab)
Macdonald, Lewis (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Macintosh, Ken (Eastwood) (Lab)
Malik, Hanzala (Glasgow) (Lab)
Marra, Jenny (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Martin, Paul (Glasgow Provan) (Lab)
McCulloch, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Lab)
McDougall, Margaret (West Scotland) (Lab)
McMahon, Michael (Uddingston and Bellshill) (Lab)
McMahon, Siobhan (Central Scotland) (Lab)
McNeil, Duncan (Greenock and Inverclyde) (Lab)
McTaggart, Anne (Glasgow) (Lab)
Murray, Elaine (Dumfriesshire) (Lab)
Park, John (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Pearson, Graeme (South Scotland) (Lab)
Pentland, John (Motherwell and Wishaw) (Lab)
Simpson, Dr Richard (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Smith, Drew (Glasgow) (Lab)
Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Against
Adam, Brian (Aberdeen Donside) (SNP)
Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Biagi, Marco (Edinburgh Central) (SNP)
Brodie, Chic (South Scotland) (SNP)
Brown, Gavin (Lothian) (Con)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Burgess, Margaret (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Campbell, Aileen (Clydesdale) (SNP)
Campbell, Roderick (North East Fife) (SNP)
Carlaw, Jackson (West Scotland) (Con)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP)
Crawford, Bruce (Stirling) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
Davidson, Ruth (Glasgow) (Con)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Don, Nigel (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Eadie, Jim (Edinburgh Southern) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (East Kilbride) (SNP)
Fergusson, Alex (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gibson, Rob (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Goldie, Annabel (West Scotland) (Con)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Hume, Jim (South Scotland) (LD)
Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP)
Ingram, Adam (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Johnstone, Alex (North East Scotland) (Con)
Johnstone, Alison (Lothian) (Green)
Keir, Colin (Edinburgh Western) (SNP)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lamont, John (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
Lyle, Richard (Central Scotland) (SNP)
MacAskill, Kenny (Edinburgh Eastern) (SNP)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
Mackay, Derek (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)
MacKenzie, Mike (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
Maxwell, Stewart (West Scotland) (SNP)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
McDonald, Mark (North East Scotland) (SNP)
McGrigor, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
McInnes, Alison (North East Scotland) (LD)
McKelvie, Christina (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (SNP)
McLeod, Aileen (South Scotland) (SNP)
McLeod, Fiona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (West Scotland) (SNP)
Milne, Nanette (North East Scotland) (Con)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Neil, Alex (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Paterson, Gil (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Rennie, Willie (Mid Scotland and Fife) (LD)
Robertson, Dennis (Aberdeenshire West) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Russell, Michael (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Salmond, Alex (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Scanlon, Mary (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Southside) (SNP)
Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP)
Thompson, Dave (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Urquhart, Jean (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Wheelhouse, Paul (South Scotland) (SNP)
White, Sandra (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
Wilson, John (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow) (SNP)
The result of the division is: For 33, Against 84, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 3 disagreed to.
Amendment 4 not moved.
After section 1
Group 2 is on recovery of increased revenues. Amendment 5, in the name of Richard Simpson, is the only amendment in the group.
Amendment 5 relates to a scheme for recovery of sums in relation to certain licensed premises—or what has come to be known in debates as the windfall tax.
I make no apology for returning to the issue of the additional revenue that will accrue to the industry—mainly to the off-trade but also to the on-trade. This is not just Labour’s red line.
The supermarkets in particular are predicted to gain around £100 million out of the £124 million raised each year from a minimum unit price of 50p. There are mechanisms in place to claw back the money, and in amendment 5, we have not defined how the Government should do that.
I acknowledge that the retailer public health levy is designed to tax large retailers, but only if they sell tobacco and alcohol. Some major stores do not sell tobacco—they may be joined by others—and they will presumably be exempt, which will give them a commercial advantage. Labour voted for the levy in committee even though it is crude and its impact has not yet been examined in depth.
The social responsibility levy would have the merit of a broader base and covers only alcohol. Which licences it should be applied to could be a matter for local determination—it could be sensitive to the needs of local communities. Other clawback methods might be considered. For example, a separate rating of the licensed area in relation to the off-trade, based on turnover, has been suggested to redress the balance between off-trade and on-trade, given that that approach already applies to the on-trade. The amendment does not specify how to do that—it simply recognises that one of the public’s gravest concerns about minimum unit pricing is that it profits the retailers.
The Institute for Fiscal Studies has said that how the market responds will undoubtedly contribute to the outcome. On the one hand, the price of premium brands will rise to maintain differentials if commoditisation occurs; on the other hand, companies such as Whyte & Mackay, which produce own-brand spirits, may well adapt with its retail partners to create new brands, which, although profitable, are lower in price than the current premium brands.
It is highly likely that competition will continue to be fierce in what is an increasingly profitable market, which will be more profitable if the windfall tax is not put in place. Advertising is likely to increase, along with promotion activities. It is frankly naive to think that retailers will abandon what is an even more lucrative market to subsidise bananas or other staples.
Amendment 5 takes into account the technical flaws in the amendment that I proposed at stage 2.
I turn to the other criticisms made at stage 2, some of which were more helpful than others. Bob Doris’s comment that clawback powers already exist is true. However, amendment 5 would make it clear that, from the day of implementation in April 2013, the Government would claw back the windfall. Industry would have the certainty that it needed to plan, rather than assuming that the windfall would be available to it for some uncertain period. Business needs that certainty.
Gil Paterson questioned the use of the word “profit” and asked how profit would be defined. I agree that that was a difficulty, so I have changed the wording to “increased revenue” and suggested that it be based on modelling after discussion with those affected.
I welcomed Jackson Carlaw’s support at stage 2 for the sentiment in my proposal. I am not opposed to working with the alcohol industry. The World Health Organization is clear that there should be no input from the tobacco industry in discussions, but the alcohol industry is quite different. I would be very sympathetic to the industry discussing how, as part of its corporate community responsibility, it could add value to the use of, for example, the social responsibility levy, perhaps in promoting community safety schemes, as it has done at St Neots in Cambridgeshire, or for youth diversion work. Amendment 5 does not rule out voluntary, locally agreed schemes.
At stage 2, the cabinet secretary summarised some of the points that I have referred to, but added, in effect, that it was all too difficult and that we did not know what would happen. If the amendment is not agreed to in its new form, we will just have to wait and see what the market does. That would be an approach of masterly inactivity, which I am afraid characterises too much of this Government’s complacent attitude.
The Government has failed to recognise the genuine concerns of respected commentators such as Nigel Hawkes, who wrote in the British Medical Journal that windfall revenues were one of the central reasons why he believed that the policy was not worth pursuing. If we must have a minimum unit price, let us use the tax that is being imposed on the community, for that community.
I move amendment 5.
15:00
In paragraphs (3)(a) and (3)(b) and subsection (4) of the new section that amendment 5 seeks to insert in the bill, the principal word is “estimate”. My question is: who will estimate the profits? Will it be the VAT man, the Inland Revenue or the business owner? If the business owner is to do it, how would he or she manage the process? How would they quantify costs against profit? What kind of quagmire would a business get into if it had to separate on the basis of profit hundreds of lines of drinks, all of different prices, from thousands of other lines? They would need to attach all costs to make the sums work, estimate or not. Items such as delivery, personnel, discounts, quantities, business rates, rents, wages and many other costs would need to be split to come up with the estimate that amendment 5 calls for.
Richard Simpson’s proposed new section defines the perceived profits to be those that exist at the final point of sale, but what would happen if the producer retained the profit but, because of the price increase from the manufacturer, the retailer doubled the price? Would the estimate be based on what was charged by the retailer prior to the producer’s increase? What authority could go to court to challenge an estimate?
Labour’s television language is about supermarkets making big profits, but its amendments would affect all licence holders. Labour has consistently rubbished minimum pricing on the basis that the drinks industry would make huge profits from it, but the drinks industry has threatened court action to stop minimum pricing. I can just see the next meeting of Diageo shareholders, with the chairman announcing that the dastardly Government had tried to push big profits the company’s way, but that the board was magnificent in stopping it.
The profits question that Labour has posed—which is about playing to the gallery—does not add up, nor do Labour’s amendments. No wonder Labour members do not want to say how it would work.
I am surprised that we are considering this amendment at stage 3, given the discussion that we had in committee at stage 2. In that discussion, Gil Paterson outlined from a business perspective the technical difficulties that would be encountered in attributing any additional profit that had been raised entirely to minimum unit pricing as opposed to the multitude of other actions that a business could take that might have contributed to an increase in revenue or profit. It was evident that those difficulties were insurmountable. This afternoon, Gil Paterson has again detailed those problems to the chamber.
I understand and sympathise with Dr Simpson’s concern. In promoting and supporting a minimum unit pricing policy, none of us, as Conservatives, is comfortable with the idea that the net effect of the policy would be that retailers would benefit financially. However, to call it a windfall is almost to deny that the policy will be a success because, if the policy is a success, it should reduce alcohol consumption and, therefore, the amount of profit that would otherwise be generated.
Conservatives have said that we would prefer an approach that involved adjustments to duty at a national level, but let me be perfectly candid: never in my life have I heard a Chancellor of the Exchequer, in proposing to increase alcohol duty at Westminster, say that he is doing it because he thinks that it is in the public health interest to do so and because he wants to contribute to a rehabilitation scheme for people who drink too much. Alcohol duty has always been raised purely in an effort to raise money.
Our preferred route is for the Government to work with industry in the light of what happens, and to seek to generate from it a voluntary contribution towards the rehabilitation of those who have alcohol abuse problems. We do not believe that a legislative approach that would involve the imposition of an additional tax, over and above everything else, is the right way to go. I must say to Dr Simpson that, given that it takes a page and a bit to define his scheme, I rather suspect that it would cost as much money to administer, interpret and implement as it would raise.
It has been said that the idea of a supermarket tax
“is an example of town centre regeneration in reverse”,
and that
“it shows little or no understanding of the interests of Scottish business or workers.”
Those are not my words, but the words of a Mr Andy Kerr, who was the Labour finance spokesperson in the previous parliamentary session, when opposing a £30 million tax brought forward by this Scottish Government on supermarkets.
Mr Kerr also said:
“Labour is not in a position to support this unacceptable policy”.—[Official Report, 2 February 2011; c 32875, 32876-7, 32876]
What has changed? Andy Kerr is no longer here, but one thing that has not changed is Labour’s absolute hypocrisy in relation to the taxing of supermarkets and their profits. In Parliament, the Scottish Government has proposed a Scottish public health supplement. I am content that the £95 million that the largest retailers that sell alcohol and tobacco will need to pay in the next three years represents a balanced approach to ensuring that they make an appropriate financial contribution to society.
Labour is now pointing to the Sheffield study in targeting the concept of windfall profits. Dr Simpson has sought to rubbish the Sheffield study at every turn, but he has spectacularly failed to do so. He now points to one part of it that he completely misunderstands. The Sheffield study does not talk about windfall profits but about potential increased revenue. From Dr Simpson’s contribution, we can see that he clearly does not understand the difference.
Let us look at the potential increased revenue from a minimum unit price of 50p. Nowhere is £124 million mentioned, as Dr Simpson suggests. The figure is £98 million, but that is for both the on-trade and the off-trade. The supermarkets could get a share of £69 million but that figure will be reduced because of the small amount of off-sales and the small proprietors out there in the economy who will take additional revenue. It is additional revenue, not profit.
I far prefer what Jackson Carlaw and Gil Paterson said. We must take a balanced view and approach to taxing supermarkets appropriately. The Government will seek to do that, and we will take no lessons from Labour, which is why members should reject Dr Simpson’s opportunistic and, frankly, deeply flawed amendment.
I have sympathy for what Richard Simpson is trying to do. I can understand the concern that, by the end of this process, all that we will do is increase supermarkets’ profits. However, as other members have done, I point to the practicalities of the scheme in his amendment, which would be enormously expensive to implement and difficult to calculate, so we will not support it.
The intention behind the amendment is right. The House of Commons Health Committee identified that we should proceed by using a combination of price and duty to deal with the issue of consumption that leads to harm. Now that the UK Government is considering minimum pricing, perhaps it will consider going with that combination of duty and minimum price. That would help us to achieve the ambitions that Richard Simpson has set out.
In the meantime, we cannot just wait for that to happen; we have to get on with it. We have been debating the issue for a number of years. I do not want to wait for something perfect to come along before proceeding with the bill, and I am disappointed that Richard Simpson has taken that view today.
We need to reflect on the fact that it will not just be the supermarkets and off-licences that will benefit from the measure. There is a whole supply chain—a whole industry—that could benefit from increased profits. There is a difference between revenue and profit. We might end up with the more expensive brands having narrower margins for the supermarkets, so there might be a proportional increase in profit. As I said, we cannot support the amendment.
On Jackson Carlaw’s point, I note that the bill’s intention is to suppress consumption, and if consumption is suppressed, we suppress revenue and profit. Let us make the policy a success.
Richard Simpson quoted expert opinion in moving amendment 5, and I am sure that it was eminent expert opinion. I just think that it is such a shame that Richard Simpson and his Labour colleagues continue to ignore all the other expert opinion in the debate: the doctors, nurses, police officers, children’s charities—all the people who work every day with the consequences of alcohol misuse. It is time that Richard Simpson and his colleagues started listening to that expert opinion.
We should call a spade a spade: amendment 5 is nothing more than a fig leaf. All Labour’s other reasons for opposing the bill have fallen away or been demolished, so this has become its last line of defence. It is a rather strange last line of defence, though. The same arguments about so-called increased profits—I will come back to why that term is misleading in a second—that Richard Simpson uses to oppose minimum pricing applied to the ban on quantity discounts as well, and yet Labour enthusiastically supported quantity discounts; in fact, it said that we did not go far enough. There is absolutely no consistency in Labour’s position.
That is a misrepresentation of the discounting issue. Richer people take up opportunities to purchase discounted alcohol to a far greater extent than those who are poorer. The discounting ban had a principle behind it that we could support, which was that nobody in our society should be encouraged to buy a greater quantity of alcohol by paying less for more. In addition, because that policy affects the rich more than the poor, it fulfils some of Labour’s values, with which the Scottish National Party does not seem to agree.
We were talking about increased revenue.
The first reason why I oppose amendment 5 is that it is utterly misleading. Bob Doris has already gone into the issue, but Labour talks repeatedly about £124 million of increased profit. Richard Simpson might be interested to know that that sum in the Sheffield report includes the increased revenue from the quantity discount ban that Labour enthusiastically supported. When we strip that out, the figure becomes £98 million, a third of which would go to the on-trade. I am not sure that anybody is suggesting that tilting the balance in favour of the struggling pub trade is a bad thing. Perhaps Labour should reflect on that.
Some of the remaining £69 million will go to small corner shops and smaller retailers. Labour is being completely misleading on the issue, which is the first reason why amendment 5 does not deserve support.
The second reason is that amendment 5 is unworkable. A number of issues make it difficult to calculate increased revenue from minimum pricing. Many alcohol producers are multinationals, and a very small amount of their production is sold in Scotland. Amendment 5 seeks to calculate the change in revenue relating to a very specific policy intervention in the Scottish market. Increased revenue is not the same as increased profit.
The third and final reason for opposing amendment 5 is that it is completely unnecessary. As other members have said, we have the public health supplement, which has already raised £25 million this year to help to address health and social problems—a public health supplement that was in the budget that those on the Labour benches voted against. Of course, we have powers in the Alcohol etc (Scotland) Act 2010 to introduce a social responsibility levy, should we consider at any point in future that that is a necessary step to take.
I ask all members to vote against amendment 5 because to do anything else would simply be to collude with Labour to provide a fig leaf for its embarrassment over its ineptitude on this policy.
We have been consistent on this issue from the outset of the debate—
Members: Oh!
We have been totally consistent about the windfall issue.
In its briefing for the debate, Children 1st expressed considerable disappointment that the social responsibility levy, which nobody said at the time was too difficult to collect—no one raised that in debate—is not being collected. It is not being collected because this Government has decided at this point in time not to collect it.
Whether the figure is £124 million, or whether it is more or less than that, we are talking about a model. We have said from the outset that that model may or may not prove to be accurate. In answer to Gil Paterson, that is why amendment 5 says:
“The estimates mentioned in subsection (3) are to be based on such research and modelling as the Scottish Ministers consider appropriate.”
15:15
One big flaw in this whole operation is that the Treasury intake will reduce, while the supermarkets’ and off-trade’s intake will increase. The producers are unlikely to get additional money.
If members do not want to listen to me, what about the Institute for Fiscal Studies? It has said:
“the policy would probably transfer large sums from drinkers to alcohol retailers and manufacturers. We suggested it would be preferable to move towards a more equal taxation of different drinks on the basis of their alcohol content, helping introduce a floor price through the tax system but allowing the revenues to flow to the Exchequer instead.”
From the tone of the debate, it seems that the Parliament is going to decide to hand a substantial quantity of money to retailers. Just because the amount is difficult to assess, that does not mean that we should not attempt to assess it. In the stage 2 debate, an issue was raised about the use of the term “profit”, but the change to the term “increased revenue” would allow differentiation.
It is regrettable that the tone of the debate on amendment 5 has been less about looking at the issue seriously in the way that groups such as Children 1st have asked us to do, and more about making spurious attacks on what is a reasonable amendment. I press amendment 5.
The question is, that amendment 5 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Baker, Richard (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Chisholm, Malcolm (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (Lab)
Dugdale, Kezia (Lothian) (Lab)
Fee, Mary (West Scotland) (Lab)
Ferguson, Patricia (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (Lab)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Iain (East Lothian) (Lab)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Johnstone, Alison (Lothian) (Green)
Kelly, James (Rutherglen) (Lab)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow Pollok) (Lab)
Macdonald, Lewis (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Macintosh, Ken (Eastwood) (Lab)
Malik, Hanzala (Glasgow) (Lab)
Marra, Jenny (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Martin, Paul (Glasgow Provan) (Lab)
McCulloch, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Lab)
McDougall, Margaret (West Scotland) (Lab)
McMahon, Michael (Uddingston and Bellshill) (Lab)
McMahon, Siobhan (Central Scotland) (Lab)
McNeil, Duncan (Greenock and Inverclyde) (Lab)
McTaggart, Anne (Glasgow) (Lab)
Murray, Elaine (Dumfriesshire) (Lab)
Park, John (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Pearson, Graeme (South Scotland) (Lab)
Pentland, John (Motherwell and Wishaw) (Lab)
Simpson, Dr Richard (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Smith, Drew (Glasgow) (Lab)
Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Against
Adam, Brian (Aberdeen Donside) (SNP)
Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Biagi, Marco (Edinburgh Central) (SNP)
Brodie, Chic (South Scotland) (SNP)
Brown, Gavin (Lothian) (Con)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Burgess, Margaret (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Campbell, Aileen (Clydesdale) (SNP)
Campbell, Roderick (North East Fife) (SNP)
Carlaw, Jackson (West Scotland) (Con)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP)
Crawford, Bruce (Stirling) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
Davidson, Ruth (Glasgow) (Con)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Don, Nigel (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Eadie, Jim (Edinburgh Southern) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (East Kilbride) (SNP)
Fergusson, Alex (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gibson, Rob (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Goldie, Annabel (West Scotland) (Con)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Hume, Jim (South Scotland) (LD)
Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP)
Ingram, Adam (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Johnstone, Alex (North East Scotland) (Con)
Keir, Colin (Edinburgh Western) (SNP)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lamont, John (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
Lyle, Richard (Central Scotland) (SNP)
MacAskill, Kenny (Edinburgh Eastern) (SNP)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
Mackay, Derek (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)
MacKenzie, Mike (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
Maxwell, Stewart (West Scotland) (SNP)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
McDonald, Mark (North East Scotland) (SNP)
McGrigor, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
McInnes, Alison (North East Scotland) (LD)
McKelvie, Christina (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (SNP)
McLeod, Aileen (South Scotland) (SNP)
McLeod, Fiona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
McLetchie, David (Lothian) (Con)
McMillan, Stuart (West Scotland) (SNP)
Milne, Nanette (North East Scotland) (Con)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Neil, Alex (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Paterson, Gil (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Rennie, Willie (Mid Scotland and Fife) (LD)
Robertson, Dennis (Aberdeenshire West) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Russell, Michael (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Salmond, Alex (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Scanlon, Mary (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Southside) (SNP)
Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP)
Thompson, Dave (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Urquhart, Jean (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Wheelhouse, Paul (South Scotland) (SNP)
White, Sandra (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
Wilson, John (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow) (SNP)
Abstentions
MacDonald, Margo (Lothian) (Ind)
The result of the division is: For 35, Against 83, Abstentions 1.
Amendment 5 disagreed to.
Section 1B—Report on operation and effect of minimum pricing provisions
Group 3 is on the evaluation of the operation and effect of minimum pricing. Amendment 6, in the name of Richard Simpson, is grouped with amendments 7, 1, 1A and 2.
This is the last group of amendments on the bill. My amendments 6 and 7 seek to achieve additions to the welcome amendments that the cabinet secretary has proposed, which are amendments 1 and 2. I thank the cabinet secretary and her officials for responding positively to the intentions of my amendment 12 at stage 2. I welcome amendments 1 and 2, which will underpin the MESAS—monitoring and evaluating Scotland’s alcohol strategy—programme of research on minimum unit pricing.
My amendment 12 at stage 2 sought to lay out in considerable detail many of the elements that I believe are necessary to show whether a minimum unit price is effective. The models make predictions about many beneficial changes but, if those changes occur, we will know that the policy is working only if the multiple variables are controlled for, which will not be an easy task.
I can give some examples. The number of deaths with alcohol as an underlying cause has reduced since 2005. The most recent figures are from 2009 and they show a 15 per cent reduction in that number, which amounts to 231 fewer deaths. In other words, there are 58 fewer deaths in that regard on average each year. The Sheffield model predicts that minimum unit pricing will produce a reduction of 60 deaths in the first year. However, that figure could be met on the present trend and, with the discount ban, it may even be exceeded in year 1 without the introduction of minimum unit pricing.
There have been similar reductions in hospital discharges, with the latest figures showing a reduction of 2,500. The Scottish schools adolescent lifestyle and substance use survey shows that there has been an increase in the number of non-drinking children aged 13 to 15. The Scottish health survey shows a downward trend in hazardous drinking from 28 to 22 per cent. Something is therefore already happening and I suspect that it is the result of the new licensing acts and all the debate that surrounded that and the fact that we have been debating the alcohol issue in the Parliament on and off for the past three years.
Something is happening out there, for whatever reason, whether it is minimum unit pricing, the discount ban, excise and VAT increases—which the coalition Government followed Labour in introducing; 2 per cent above inflation every year—or changes in the excise policy for different drinks, with a reduction in the tax on low-strength beer and a change in the definition of cider. Those elements of the coalition Government’s alcohol policy will also have an effect on what happens to alcohol consumption. There is also the fact that unemployment has risen substantially and that there is therefore considerable income restraint. Those two factors may also affect alcohol consumption.
Before we sell the Government’s alcohol policy, which I still believe is deeply flawed, to the rest of the world, we need to ensure that it is properly evaluated and studied and that its effects are properly understood. I welcome the cabinet secretary’s funding of the Queen Margaret University group that is looking at seriously harmful drinkers. A previous study found that they consumed an average of 197 units a week. Such individuals are known to treatment teams and they form the one group that I have always accepted could benefit from minimum unit pricing, because an increase in the price of their alcohol will help underpin their desire to stop drinking or to achieve controlled drinking.
However, I remain extremely sceptical about the effect of minimum unit pricing on harmful and hazardous drinkers, which is the group that we should wish to affect most, and I am still sceptical about the effect that the policy will have on young adults who binge drink, which is the age group that even the Sheffield team acknowledged the policy would have the least effect on.
I welcome the cabinet secretary’s commitment to the research project. I hope that she will take the opportunity to put on record a commitment to present to the Parliament a comprehensive programme to examine the possible effect—or lack of effect—of minimum unit pricing.
In the meantime, my amendment 6 simply requires data to be published as we go along, with an accompanying analysis of the available statistics. That would involve a revision of the annual Information Services Division alcohol statistics.
My amendment 7 invites the Government to look at the response of the market, which has not been examined so far. We discussed it a bit in the previous amendment. The Sheffield researchers, in their evidence to us, offered to make predictions on how the market would respond. Regrettably, that offer was not taken up by the Government.
I hope that the Sheffield group, or Professor Hastings’s unit at the University of Stirling, which has advised the House of Commons committees on alcohol, or any other reputable research unit with a track record in market effects, will be invited to undertake this important research. As I indicated previously, the Institute for Fiscal Studies has suggested that market adaptation could seriously undermine the intended effect of the policy.
As far as amendment 1A is concerned, the Health and Sport Committee report drew particular attention to the issue of protecting children who may be growing up in a household where alcohol is being abused and the detrimental effect that that can have on their care, development and wellbeing.
We understand that around 80,000 children in Scotland are currently affected by their parents’ harmful drinking. As I said earlier, Children 1st was disappointed that no specific reference was made in the reporting requirements to assessing the harm caused to children and young people by parental alcohol misuse. Although one of the licensing objectives in section 4 of the Licensing (Scotland) Act 2005 is to protect children from harm, that has tended to be interpreted with a focus on restricting the sale of alcohol to under-18s, rather than on the wider issue of the harm that is caused to children by alcohol misuse among adults. That issue is, however, reflected in the guidance accompanying the act.
The children’s charities have called for the specific inclusion of “children and young people”, which is what amendment 1A addresses. However, if the cabinet secretary can provide assurances that the age category in amendment 2 would cover an evaluation of whether minimum pricing had reduced the impact of parental alcohol misuse on children and young people, I will not move amendment 1A.
I move amendment 6.
I call Jackson Carlaw.
Thank you, Presiding Officer. We will not—
I beg your pardon—I should have called the cabinet secretary first to speak to amendments 1 and 2 and the other amendments in the group. Forgive me.
This group of amendments sets out provisions for the evaluation of minimum pricing. Richard Simpson lodged an amendment at stage 2 that set out the detail of what he wished to see included in an evaluation. As I said at the time, I agreed with the essence of that amendment but did not consider the level of detail proposed to be appropriate for primary legislation. I therefore gave a commitment to have discussions with Richard Simpson regarding evaluation arrangements once minimum pricing had come into force. Those discussions have taken place with my officials and were positive. I am glad to hear Dr Simpson say that he is supportive of amendments 1 and 2.
As I said to the committee, l believe that we already have the basis for a comprehensive evaluation of minimum pricing in our monitoring and evaluation of Scotland’s alcohol strategy programme. MESAS is led by NHS Health Scotland and will ensure that the impact of minimum pricing on consumption and harm is closely monitored over time and that any differential impacts on or between groups are properly identified and explored. Those factors are set out in amendments 1 and 2. We are currently working with NHS Health Scotland and academic partners to consider what further research might be required to monitor fully the impact of minimum pricing and the amendments provide the flexibility to allow additional factors to be considered.
Other areas are being covered in the evaluation, but we consider them too detailed to be set out in the amendments. For example, a study primarily funded by the Government and led by Queen Margaret University is already under way to determine the impact of minimum pricing on heavy drinkers who are in contact with specialist services. The study will also consider whether there are any possible displacement or substitution effects. It will use a longitudinal design to determine whether minimum pricing results in changes among those drinkers in consumption, the type of beverage, the price that is paid or substitution with industrial or illicitly produced alcohol or drugs. It will also determine whether any changes are differentially patterned—for example, by deprivation.
A Newcastle study arm will enable the researchers to determine whether any observed change in behaviours in Scotland is attributable to minimum pricing and will help us to identify the impact more generally. The evaluation will seek, where possible, to compare trends in Scotland with those in other parts of the UK. Members will appreciate that the extent to which that is possible will depend on the availability of data and whether other countries follow our lead in implementing the policy. Comparative analysis of that kind is standard practice. NHS Health Scotland has committed to publishing an annual MESAS report and it will publish a detailed evaluation and research plan before the implementation of minimum pricing. That will help to ensure that the evaluation is both robust and transparent.
A propos the matter of testing the theories and the policies when they are implemented, why are we comparing ourselves with the rest of the UK when we already know the answer to that, because so many studies have been done? Why are we not comparing ourselves with countries that are like ours and societies that have the same roots, such as Ireland, Norway, Iceland and Finland?
15:30
I certainly take that point on board and I am happy to feed it into the work that is done on evaluation. When I referred to comparing us with the rest of the UK, I was referring not to doing that now but to looking at comparing the effects of minimum pricing and its impact on alcohol consumption in Scotland with what might be happening in other parts of the UK at different times. However, I am more than happy to factor that in.
Margo MacDonald rose—
I am also more than happy to take a final intervention from Margo MacDonald.
With all due respect, I think that it will be difficult to separate the effects of the policy from the effects of the recession.
Again, I accept that point, but if Margo MacDonald was listening to what I said about the detail of the evaluation, as I am sure that she was, she will know that that is exactly what it is intended to do—to try, as best we can, to look at the specific impact of minimum unit pricing. The reason why we will have a range of studies and methods of evaluation is to try to capture that as effectively as possible.
In my view, Richard Simpson’s amendment 1A duplicates what is already covered by section 1B and amendments 1 and 2. Amendment 2 specifically permits the report to cover the effect of minimum pricing on specific age groups such as children and young people, and that is certainly the intention. In addition, section 1B(2)(a) requires the report to the Parliament to include the impact of minimum pricing on the licensing objectives, one of which is protecting children from harm. I therefore consider that the issue is already adequately covered and that amendment 1A is unnecessary.
I turn briefly to amendments 6 and 7. In those amendments, Richard Simpson has returned to some aspects of the amendments that he lodged at stage 2. Amendment 6 sets out a timetable for the laying of reports that contain analysis of data on the impact of minimum pricing. As I said, MESAS provides the basis for a comprehensive study, and we are seeking to build on that. The bill requires the Scottish ministers to evaluate the effect of minimum pricing five years after it comes into force and to report to the Parliament on that. The report must include information on the effect of minimum pricing on the licensing objectives, which include protecting and improving public health and reducing crime and disorder; the effect on premises licence holders, such as the pub trade, the retail sector and the wider licensed trade; and the impact on alcohol producers.
In preparing that report, ministers will also be required to consult people who have functions relating to health, crime prevention, children and young people, education and social work, and those who represent premises licence holders and alcohol producers. In evaluating the policy, we will of course consider any data and statistics that are relevant. I do not consider amendment 6 to be necessary to ensure that that happens.
Amendment 7 seeks to ensure that research is carried out on the response of retailers and producers to the introduction of minimum pricing. I absolutely agree that such research should form part of the overall evaluation, but it is already covered by the generality of section 1B, which states that the report must cover the impact of minimum pricing on
“holders of premises licenses granted under the 2005 Act, and ... producers of alcohol”.
I apologise for the length of that explanation, Presiding Officer, but I hope that members will see, first, that the Government, with its amendments, has attempted to respond to points that were made at stage 2 and, secondly, that the other amendments in the group are not necessary as they are covered in the generality.
I urge members to support amendments 1 and 2 and to reject amendments 6, 7 and 1A.
The Scottish Conservatives support amendments 1 and 2, and we are persuaded by the cabinet secretary’s arguments and will not support amendment 1A if Dr Simpson moves it.
Amendments 6 and 7, however, have caused us to ponder in more detail. In supporting the legislation, the Scottish Conservatives want it to succeed. The whole purpose of supporting minimum unit pricing is to tackle Scotland’s relationship with alcohol, although we are sceptical that everything that has been claimed for the measure can be achieved and we are grateful for the support of the cabinet secretary and the Labour Party for the sunset clause that we proposed at stage 2.
We also know that the cabinet secretary will allow the legislation to be the subject of a voluntary notification to the European Commission. In part, my problem with amendments 6 and 7 is that, given that we cannot know the timetable of that notification or the subsequent timetable if the legislation is challenged by the industry in the courts, the setting of dates in the amendments is inappropriate. It presumes that the legislation will have been implemented and in effect for a period of time, but that might not be so. Had the amendments used terminology such as “three years after”, it would have been easier for us to support them. That causes me to rule out support for amendment 6.
We have decided that we will support amendment 7, notwithstanding that reservation. When we discussed earlier an amendment that was lodged by Dr Simpson, we talked about the need for a voluntary partnership with industry in view of the contribution that could come from it to help to support and fund rehabilitation programmes. If the challenge to monitor the bill’s effect on producers and retailers is included in the bill, that will send a shot across the bows of producers and retailers that we will deliberately focus on their response and they should therefore take that into account. For that reason, we will support amendment 7.
I thank the cabinet secretary and Jackson Carlaw for their contributions, which have been very helpful.
The first of the two most welcome things that I have heard today is that there will be an annual report by MESAS on the statistics and the analysis. In effect, that is what is suggested in amendment 6. With that proviso and the hope that the cabinet secretary will ensure that that is laid before either the Parliament or the Health and Sport Committee, I am happy to seek to withdraw amendment 6.
Jackson’s Carlaw’s points on amendment 7 are well taken. It is important to include it in the bill. We are not including stuff about windfall profits in the bill, but including that amendment will at least indicate that there will be an examination—I hope that it will be a strenuous one—of the industry’s response. That is important. Part of the reason why we are in the situation that we are in with the growth in alcohol problems over the past 15 or 20 years is the shift in the purchasing of alcohol from on-trade purchasing to off-trade purchasing. However, we have all agreed in the debates over the past four years that there have been unacceptable practices in using alcohol like any other commodity. That term, which is used in the WHO analysis, is critical. Retailers need to treat alcohol unlike any other commodity.
Agreeing to amendment 7 will send the message to the industry that it will be under scrutiny by the Parliament. We will want to ensure that any surplus revenue that it accrues is used for the greater good and not to line the pockets of the top people or the shareholders. That is critical. If society’s attitude is to change, it is critical that the attitudes of the supermarkets and other retailers also change. Therefore, I will move amendment 7.
In light of the cabinet secretary’s comments and assurances, I am happy not to move amendment 1A.
Amendment 6, by agreement, withdrawn.
Amendment 7 moved—[Dr Simpson].
The question is, that amendment 7 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Baker, Richard (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Brown, Gavin (Lothian) (Con)
Carlaw, Jackson (West Scotland) (Con)
Chisholm, Malcolm (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (Lab)
Davidson, Ruth (Glasgow) (Con)
Dugdale, Kezia (Lothian) (Lab)
Fee, Mary (West Scotland) (Lab)
Fergusson, Alex (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Goldie, Annabel (West Scotland) (Con)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Iain (East Lothian) (Lab)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Johnstone, Alex (North East Scotland) (Con)
Johnstone, Alison (Lothian) (Green)
Kelly, James (Rutherglen) (Lab)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow Pollok) (Lab)
Lamont, John (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Macdonald, Lewis (North East Scotland) (Lab)
MacDonald, Margo (Lothian) (Ind)
Macintosh, Ken (Eastwood) (Lab)
Malik, Hanzala (Glasgow) (Lab)
Marra, Jenny (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Martin, Paul (Glasgow Provan) (Lab)
McCulloch, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Lab)
McDougall, Margaret (West Scotland) (Lab)
McGrigor, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
McLetchie, David (Lothian) (Con)
McMahon, Michael (Uddingston and Bellshill) (Lab)
McMahon, Siobhan (Central Scotland) (Lab)
McNeil, Duncan (Greenock and Inverclyde) (Lab)
McTaggart, Anne (Glasgow) (Lab)
Milne, Nanette (North East Scotland) (Con)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Murray, Elaine (Dumfriesshire) (Lab)
Park, John (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Pearson, Graeme (South Scotland) (Lab)
Pentland, John (Motherwell and Wishaw) (Lab)
Scanlon, Mary (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Simpson, Dr Richard (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Smith, Drew (Glasgow) (Lab)
Smith, Elaine (Coatbridge and Chryston) (Lab)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Against
Adam, Brian (Aberdeen Donside) (SNP)
Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Biagi, Marco (Edinburgh Central) (SNP)
Brodie, Chic (South Scotland) (SNP)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Burgess, Margaret (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Campbell, Aileen (Clydesdale) (SNP)
Campbell, Roderick (North East Fife) (SNP)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP)
Crawford, Bruce (Stirling) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Don, Nigel (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Eadie, Jim (Edinburgh Southern) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (East Kilbride) (SNP)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gibson, Rob (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Hume, Jim (South Scotland) (LD)
Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP)
Ingram, Adam (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Keir, Colin (Edinburgh Western) (SNP)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
Lyle, Richard (Central Scotland) (SNP)
MacAskill, Kenny (Edinburgh Eastern) (SNP)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
Mackay, Derek (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)
MacKenzie, Mike (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
Maxwell, Stewart (West Scotland) (SNP)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
McDonald, Mark (North East Scotland) (SNP)
McInnes, Alison (North East Scotland) (LD)
McKelvie, Christina (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (SNP)
McLeod, Aileen (South Scotland) (SNP)
McLeod, Fiona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (West Scotland) (SNP)
Neil, Alex (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Paterson, Gil (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Rennie, Willie (Mid Scotland and Fife) (LD)
Robertson, Dennis (Aberdeenshire West) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Russell, Michael (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Salmond, Alex (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Southside) (SNP)
Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP)
Thompson, Dave (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Urquhart, Jean (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Wheelhouse, Paul (South Scotland) (SNP)
White, Sandra (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
Wilson, John (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow) (SNP)
The result of the division is: For 50, Against 68, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 7 disagreed to.
Amendment 1 moved—[Nicola Sturgeon].
Amendment 1A not moved.
Amendment 1 agreed to.
Amendment 2 moved—[Nicola Sturgeon]—and agreed to.
That ends consideration of amendments.