Meeting of the Parliament

Meeting date: Tuesday, November 21, 2017

Official Report 912KB pdf

---

Minimum Unit Pricing of Alcohol

The next item of business is a statement by Shona Robison on the United Kingdom Supreme Court judgment on minimum unit pricing of alcohol in Scotland. The cabinet secretary will take questions at the end of her statement, so there should be no interventions or interruptions during it.

14:25  

It is with great pleasure that I come to Parliament today to make my statement on minimum unit pricing of alcohol in Scotland.

Members will know that, on Wednesday 15 November, the UK Supreme Court handed down a unanimous judgment rejecting the legal challenge to our pioneering legislation. The judgment was a resounding endorsement of our approach, which was approved—unopposed—by this Parliament in 2012.

The Supreme Court bench, which comprised seven justices, including Lady Hale, the newly appointed president of the court, and her predecessor, Lord Neuberger, concluded that minimum unit pricing was targeted, proportionate and lawful. The Scottish courts had already reached that conclusion on two separate occasions; we now have the decision of the UK Supreme Court, and I am delighted that the case has been finally decided in our favour.

As the current carrier of the baton on minimum unit pricing, with Kenny MacAskill, Nicola Sturgeon and Alex Neil preceding me, it is a privilege for me to make this landmark statement to the Scottish Parliament.

Over the past decade, there has been tremendous support for the policy from a vast array of organisations and businesses, including within the alcohol industry. Scottish Health Action on Alcohol Problems—SHAAP—and Alcohol Focus Scotland were often at the forefront. I pay particular tribute to Dr Evelyn Gillan, who sadly passed away in 2015. In her role as the chief executive of Alcohol Focus Scotland, Evelyn was a passionate advocate for minimum unit pricing. I remember her lasting contribution to Scottish public life and I feel extremely proud to have worked alongside her.

I have overseen the majority of the litigation—at the Court of Session in Edinburgh, at the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg and at the UK Supreme Court in London. Throughout, I had absolute certainty that our case was supported by evidence and policy analysis of the highest calibre.

Some members of the Scottish Parliament had different views on minimum unit pricing in the past, but I welcome the supportive commentary from across the parties over the past few days. I will shortly outline the next steps towards implementation, and I hope that all members will act in the spirit of consensus and get behind minimum unit pricing.

My justification for seeking parliamentary consensus is about more than warm words. Given the high and enduring levels of alcohol-related harm that Scotland experiences, the electorate deserves no less than a Parliament that unites to tackle the scourge of the cheap, high-strength alcohol that causes so much damage across our nation. I expect that I need not remind members that alcohol misuse costs Scotland £3.6 billion each year, or £900 for every adult.

We need not cast our nets far to see at first hand the devastation that is caused by alcohol misuse. The annual national health service hospital statistics, which were published only this morning, tell us that there were 36,235 alcohol-related hospital admissions in 2016-17, which is an increase of 2 per cent on the previous year. In August, we learned that there had been 1,265 alcohol-related deaths in 2016, which was an increase of 10 per cent on 2015. Behind every statistic is an individual, a family and a community. On average, alcohol misuse causes 697 hospital admissions and 24 deaths a week in Scotland. Let me be clear: that is wholly unacceptable.

We have never claimed that minimum unit pricing is a panacea. Our alcohol framework is comprehensive and has attracted international acclaim. It contains more than 40 measures across the prevention and support spectrum. Much of the work is on-going, and we plan to refresh the strategy shortly to build on our achievements to date.

Since 2008, we have invested more than £689 million to tackle problem alcohol and drug use. Furthermore, our recent programme for government commits an additional £20 million per year for alcohol and drug services, subject to parliamentary approval through the budget process.

Our commitment to providing treatment and recovery support is absolute. The Minister for Public Health and Sport, Aileen Campbell, intends to update Parliament shortly on our plans for reinvigorating the approach to alcohol and drug treatment.

There can be no doubt that Scotland pays a high price for alcohol-related harm. That is why the Government has an obligation to intervene in the market and to set a minimum unit price. The benefits of minimum unit pricing will be substantial. As an illustration, last year, Sheffield University modelled that a price per unit of 50p would lead to 58 fewer alcohol-related deaths in the first year, with a cumulative total of 392 fewer alcohol-related deaths within the first five years. The reduction in alcohol-related hospital admissions at that price would be similarly substantial. In the first year, a price of 50p would lead to 1,299 fewer alcohol-related hospital admissions, with a cumulative total of 8,254 fewer alcohol-related hospital admissions within the first five years.

I turn to my plans for implementation. Minimum unit pricing of alcohol has been delayed for far too long. During the court cases, lives have been lost. That is why I will move to implement the policy as soon as is practicable. I am delighted to confirm that I am, today, laying a commencement order that brings into force immediately the order-making provisions of the Alcohol (Minimum Pricing) (Scotland) Act 2012.

I intend to consult on our draft Scottish statutory instrument, which sets the minimum unit price, and I will begin that consultation on 1 December. The consultation will run for eight weeks, until 26 January 2018. We will then work swiftly to ensure that the order that sets the minimum unit price is laid before Parliament on 1 March 2018. That order will state our intended implementation date for minimum unit pricing of alcohol in Scotland: 1 May 2018. Following the appropriate parliamentary scrutiny, and assuming that the Parliament votes to bring the price-setting order into force, no alcohol in Scotland will then be sold for less than the specified minimum unit price from 1 May 2018.

I anticipate setting the minimum unit price at 50p per unit, subject to the outcome of our consultation and a refreshed business regulatory impact assessment. A consultation is necessary to meet the requirements of European Union food regulations and, given the time that has elapsed since the Parliament passed the legislation, I am keen to consult stakeholders and the public on our preferred price. The BRIA plays an important role in explaining the impact of our legislation, so it is vital that it is up to date and reflects the consultation outcomes.

We want to hear from retailers about the practicalities of implementation. We are already talking to representative bodies and we will convene a retailers implementation group in December. We will also engage next month with licensing standards officers, who enforce Scotland’s liquor licensing laws day in and day out, to hear their views.

The Supreme Court judgment was comprehensive and included consideration of the sunset clause that the Parliament approved in 2012. That means that Scottish ministers will bring to the Parliament an evaluation of the impact of the policy five years on. The Parliament will then vote on the policy’s continuation before the sixth year of its operation. It is well known that NHS Health Scotland is conducting that independent and objective evaluation, given its excellent track record of evaluating alcohol policy in Scotland over the past decade. The industry will also be involved in that evaluation.

Earlier this morning, I discussed moving forward with Karen Betts, the new chief executive at the Scotch Whisky Association. Karen has confirmed to me that the SWA will pay the Scottish Government’s costs in the court cases, and I welcome that very much. We are agreed that a line must be drawn under the litigation.

The whisky industry remains a very important part of Scotland’s heritage and, indeed, its future. It brings many benefits to our country, including employment—often in remote and rural areas—and, of course, tourism. There are many challenges ahead for the whisky industry, particularly because of the uncertainties of Brexit, and the Scottish Government will continue to work with the sector, including the SWA, to advocate for decisions that benefit the Scottish economy.

The court case was always about compliance with EU law and whether public health arguments should ultimately win out over trade. The European Court of Justice concluded that the ultimate decision on minimum pricing was for the domestic courts, and fellow nations are interested in following in our footsteps. Last month, the Welsh Government introduced a minimum unit pricing bill in the National Assembly for Wales, and Ireland looks set to do the same in its Parliament. I wish Wales and Ireland all the best in tackling alcohol-related harm in their jurisdictions.

I conclude by reflecting on one of the most important parts of the UK Supreme Court’s judgment on minimum unit pricing of alcohol. The Supreme Court has set out the approach that the courts should take in considering a challenge to a policy decision of this sort by the Government and Parliament. Its judgment tells us that, in considering the question of public health benefits versus free trade, it is for the Government and Parliament to decide what weight is placed on public health harms. Paragraph 63 of the judgment says:

“That was a judgment which it was for them to make, and their right to make it militates strongly against intrusive review by a domestic court.”

The Supreme Court judgment is a very important decision for public health policy generally. The power to act to minimise public health harms, to change unhealthy cultures and to give our children the best start in life lies in all our hands. Next May, we will take a huge step forward in tackling one of Scotland’s enduring health harms. Minimum unit pricing of alcohol can help to turn the tide on alcohol harm, and 1 May will be a landmark moment. [Applause.]

I unreservedly welcome and associate the Scottish Conservatives with the statement that the cabinet secretary has just made. It is quite extraordinary to think that it is five and a half years since, as Conservative health spokesman, I spoke in support of the Alcohol (Minimum Pricing) (Scotland) Act 2012.

I recall that, although the Scottish National Party had won a significant overall majority in the Scottish Parliament election in 2011, the members of the front bench of the day were prepared to reach out to other parties to get their support for the policy. They supported two conditions that the Scottish Conservatives attached to their support for the legislation. The first condition was that the legislation was legal. It has taken a lot longer than any of us imagined for us to get to the point of being able to say unreservedly that that is so. The second condition was support for my amendment to introduce a sunset clause. That is terribly important, because contentious pieces of public health legislation will enjoy greater ease of support in Parliament if those who are sceptical—some members were sceptical about the policy at the time—know that there will be an evaluation process.

I heard what the cabinet secretary said, but I ask her to agree to ensure that all the political parties in the Parliament are involved in agreeing the evaluation process and take part in that as the legislation to implement the policy proceeds through Parliament.

Shona Robison referred to the 50p minimum unit price that was established at the time, and I welcome the consultation that is to be held on that. It is clear that she favours a minimum unit price of 50p, but given how long it is since the legislation was passed, is she confident that that is an appropriate level? At any point over the five-year evaluation process, does she intend to put in place criteria that would allow for that level to be reviewed if that were felt to be necessary?

I thank Jackson Carlaw for his supportive comments and for his welcome support at the time for proposals that were groundbreaking and controversial. As he has recognised, the sunset clause was an important aspect of the legislation, and it was cited in court as such, so I thank him for his work on that.

As far as the evaluation process is concerned, the evaluation board will involve a number of stakeholders, including some from the industry. This morning, I offered the Scotch Whisky Association a seat on that board. It will reflect on my offer. I am happy to give further consideration to Opposition involvement and to talk to the Opposition spokespeople about how that can best be facilitated.

As to whether 50p is an appropriate level for the minimum unit price, that is our preferred option and the one that we will consult on. However, given that five years have elapsed since the passing of the legislation, it is important that we listen to views on that. All the modelling that the University of Sheffield has done has been based on the 50p proposal.

Jackson Carlaw will be aware that, if we should want to amend the minimum unit price at a later stage, once the evaluation has been carried out and—as I am sure will happen—the benefits of the policy have been shown, we would have to come back to Parliament to do that.

I am keen to get on with the implementation, the timeframe for which I laid out in my statement. I look forward to receiving Jackson Carlaw’s support for that, as well, I hope, as support from across the chamber.

The Supreme Court ruling was clear, as was the decision of Parliament five years ago. In her statement today, the cabinet secretary has set out the next stages in detail. I look forward to supporting those next stages and engaging constructively with the process as it goes forward to full implementation.

The cabinet secretary referred to the publication today of the annual NHS hospital statistics. She will know that they reveal that alcohol-related hospital admissions for 2016-17 were eight times higher among people from the most deprived communities. In the psychiatric statistics for 2015-16, the difference was even more pronounced, with just over 15 times as many people from the most deprived areas being admitted.

I welcome the cabinet secretary’s commitment to publish a refreshed alcohol framework, and I hope it will be published this year. Will the cabinet secretary ensure that, when it is, it recognises the undeniable link between deprivation and higher levels of alcohol abuse and includes clear action to tackle yet another health inequality caused by wealth inequality?

Will the cabinet secretary also recognise the impact on people who face an addiction problem of the recent 24 per cent reduction in funding to alcohol and drug partnerships, which, by definition, has hit the poorest and the most deprived communities hardest? Will she ensure that the refreshed strategy at least changes and reverses that reduction in funding?

I thank Colin Smyth for his questions and look forward to him engaging constructively in the process.

Colin Smyth cited a number of statistics that show that the impact of alcohol misuse falls disproportionately on the most deprived communities, and he cited the figures for hospital admissions and the impact of alcohol misuse. The refreshed framework will be available in the new year. I am sure that it will set a clear direction of travel and show the further action that can be taken, while building on the substantial amount of action that has already been taken. The work on brief interventions has been successful in helping people to address their alcohol-related problems.

On resourcing, Colin Smyth will be aware that there is a £20 million commitment in the programme for Government, which is obviously subject to the budget process. That will mean additional spend on alcohol and drug services. It is, however, important that that spend is related to the evidence of what works best, which will be set out in the framework. Aileen Campbell will also share with Parliament information about alcohol and drug treatment proposals that she will be bringing forward. I hope that we will have the support of Colin Smyth and others for securing that money in the budget process, because it will be important for progress.

I welcome the statement and the Supreme Court judgment. The Green Party is the only Opposition party that has consistently supported the policy since its inception. Now that the legal arguments have been proved right, I agree that it is time to press on and demonstrate that the policy can be effective.

The cabinet secretary tells us that the industry will be involved in the evaluation process. Does she agree that the industry is not homogenous and that we should be listening rather less to the giant drinks multinationals, who can afford to employ lawyers and lobbyists and who make their profits from volume sales and mass manufacture, and more to the independent and smaller businesses and producers, who make a living not a killing and whose profitability is based on quality rather than mass manufacture and cheap promotions?

I thank Patrick Harvie for his and his party’s consistent support for minimum unit pricing.

Patrick Harvie refers to the alcohol industry having differing views, and that is true. Sections of the alcohol industry have supported minimum unit pricing over the years, and that is to be welcomed.

Patrick Harvie makes an important point about the manufacturers of high-quality products. As we have always said, the target of minimum unit pricing has never been those premium-quality products. It has always been the low-price, high-alcohol-content products, which can be priced as low as 18p per unit, that have been in the sights of minimum unit pricing.

We hope that we will have the support of many sections of the alcohol industry. As I said in my statement, it is important to draw a line under the issue of litigation. We hope that the Scotch Whisky Association and the Scottish Government will be able to reset their relationship going forward, because they have many areas of common cause.

I was increasingly sceptical that this day would ever come, and I was depressed about the time that it was taking, because we have been fully supportive of the measure.

Since we have come so far, would it not be advisable—to follow on from what Jackson Carlaw said—to revise the price level? We set it at 50p before. Would it not be more suitable to set it somewhere in the order of 60p, to reflect inflation and other factors that have changed in the very long march towards delivery of the policy?

I was confident that this day would come. It has been a long haul, but here we are.

Willie Rennie asked about the price level. As I said in my statement, we are going to consult, and obviously we will hear the views on that consultation, but we believe that there is a lot of evidence for maintaining the 50p price, and that is what we will consult on. The modelling that was done by the University of Sheffield states very clearly the public health gains from setting a price of 50p. Therefore, although we will listen to the consultation responses, the consultation will advocate the Scottish Government’s position of a 50p minimum unit price.

We have about 10 more questions, if we can squeeze them in. Alex Neil is next, to be followed by Miles Briggs.

I congratulate the Scottish Government on persevering with this issue for the past five years and on its plans for swift implementation. I also welcome the Scotch Whisky Association’s commitment to pay back to the taxpayer all the legal costs that were involved in the unnecessary and irresponsible action that it has taken. I encourage the Government to make sure that it recovers every penny of those costs.

I also point out that, based on the estimates that have been provided by the University of Sheffield, nearly 400 people in Scotland have died unnecessarily and avoidably as a result of the Scotch Whisky Association’s action over the past five years. Had the legislation been implemented five years ago, about 392 people who have died would probably still be alive.

We cannot undo what has already happened. However, I press the cabinet secretary to say to the Scotch Whisky Association that repaying the legal costs is not enough. Given the vast profits that the industry makes every year in Scotland, it should be investing heavily in the communities that are particularly adversely affected by the problem of alcohol abuse. It owes those communities a lot after its irresponsible behaviour. We should make sure that it pays those people as well as our legal costs.

I recognise Alex Neil’s contribution, when he was health secretary, to getting us to where we are today. All the previous health secretaries have contributed to getting us to the position that we have got to today.

Alex Neil mentions cost recovery. As I said in my statement, the Scotch Whisky Association has confirmed that it will pay the Government’s court costs. Lawyers will discuss the cost recovery process, as is normal in such circumstances.

Karen Betts and I have agreed to discuss a number of things when we meet, one of which is how the Scotch Whisky Association can contribute to the public health agenda. One of the issues on which we want to ensure that we move forward is the chief medical officer’s new guidelines on alcohol packaging. There is still discussion to be had with the Portman Group, because it has yet to agree to that. The alcohol industry could collectively take that step forward to ensure that the most up-to-date guidelines are available clearly for the public’s information.

Members will need to ask very brief questions if we are to get through them all.

I welcome the clarity that we now have in relation to minimum unit pricing, which it is estimated could help to reduce the number of alcohol-related deaths by around 10 per cent. That would be welcome progress, but does the cabinet secretary accept that minimum unit pricing is just one of a broad range of measures that we need to take as a country to address alcohol misuse? Can she give more details of any additional proposals that the Scottish Government is developing? Will she agree to hold a cross-party summit on alcohol misuse so that we can look at the broader cultural changes that we need to take as a nation if we are to address Scotland’s relationship with alcohol?

When I say “brief questions”, I mean one question, and please keep it brief.

As I said in my statement, Aileen Campbell will shortly make a statement on developments in substance misuse treatment. Of course, the alcohol framework will be coming back for a refresh in the new year, and I am sure that we can look for a parliamentary opportunity to discuss that further. Miles Briggs is right that minimum unit pricing is not a silver bullet or panacea—or whatever phrase we want to use—and we have never argued that it is, but it is an important part of the armoury that we need to deploy to tackle alcohol misuse, because price and consumption are so closely linked.

I am happy to write to Miles Briggs with an update on the more than 40 actions in the framework, many of which are delivering a lot of change. For example, the brief interventions approach is helping people to address their alcohol misuse.

I echo the cabinet secretary’s sentiments on the devastating impacts that alcohol misuse can have on families across Scotland. Minimum unit pricing is a huge step in the right direction, but it is important to remember that it is not being done in isolation. Can she outline other measures that the Government is taking and other plans to tackle alcohol misuse?

As I said to Miles Briggs, we have a framework with more than 40 actions. Those include regulatory measures such as the quantity discount ban, a ban on irresponsible promotions, lowering the drink-driving limit and the introduction of the age verification policy challenge 25. Other initiatives include the promotion of smaller measures of wine in the on-trade, the best bar none initiatives and of course the brief interventions approach, which I mentioned. It is important to consider that basket of measures, many of which have been of real and tangible benefit. Scotland is leading the way, particularly with things such as lowering the drink-driving limit. It is about changing the culture, and minimum unit pricing will help to do that. Just as it is no longer acceptable to drink and drive, we can create a different culture in our relationship with alcohol in Scotland.

The cabinet secretary spoke about the high price that Scotland pays for alcohol-related harm and the need to intervene in the market. My region of Central Scotland pays a high price for high caffeine content alcohol-related harm. Will the Scottish Government consider a market intervention in that area?

Obviously, the product that Mark Griffin is talking about would not be affected by minimum unit pricing, because the unit price is already above 50p. However, that does not mean that other measures cannot be taken on such products. I am happy to continue to have those discussions, but there has to be an evidence base for any measures. The process over the past five years has taught us that, when we bring forward public health policies, we must have a strong evidence base because, if we end up in the courts, it will be the evidence base that will lead to success or otherwise. I am happy to continue that discussion with Mark Griffin and others to see whether we can do more in that respect.

Given the intricate relationship between alcohol use and poor mental health that can exist for some people, does the cabinet secretary expect that, in the longer term, the impact of minimum unit pricing on mental health will be just as positive as, if not more positive than, its impact on physical health?

My apologies—I should remind members that I am the parliamentary liaison officer for the cabinet secretary.

Yes, I believe that it will have that impact. That is part of changing the culture. Many people with addictions have a dual diagnosis of addiction and mental health issues. Part of the Sheffield study covered the mental health impact of minimum unit pricing. It found that the reduction in hospital admissions that would be a benefit of the policy would apply to mental health, too.

There is a lot to be gained by minimum unit pricing, and mental health is just one area that will benefit.

In Scotland, harmful and hazardous binge drinking is increasing among people aged 65 to 74 while it is decreasing in other age groups. How will the Scottish Government incorporate age into its alcohol strategies and recognise that older adults’ needs might be different from those of younger people?

Annie Wells makes a reasonable point that alcohol misuse affects the whole population. That is why our alcohol strategy takes a whole-population approach. As we refresh that strategy, we should consider older people and alcohol. For example, many of the brief interventions that have been delivered have been for older people who have turned up at their doctor’s surgery or accident and emergency with injuries in which alcohol misuse may have been an underlying factor. As we refresh the framework, it is important that we take into account the needs of older people who may have an alcohol misuse problem.

I listened carefully to the cabinet secretary’s responses to Jackson Carlaw and Willie Rennie. When legislated for, the suggested unit price was 50p. Five years later, that has been eroded significantly by inflation but remains the suggested unit price. Will the Scottish Government reconsider raising the minimum unit price in real terms to maintain its effectiveness and align it with inflation to ensure that the policy’s positive impact in saving lives continues without having to be reconsidered intermittently, as was suggested in her statement?

I recognise Kenny Gibson’s interest in the matter. I also recognise what he is saying but I am very keen to get on with implementation and would be very cautious about taking any action that could lead to further delay. That is why we are consulting on the 50p minimum unit price. As I said, we will listen to the responses to that consultation, but the evidence base has been built up on the 50p minimum unit price and modelling has been done of that price. I am therefore keen that we should get on and evaluate the policy’s impact. However, we will continue to keep the matter under review and, if necessary, come back to Parliament.

I congratulate the Scottish Government on the policy and commend the parts of the drinks industry that have consistently supported it, including Tennents in my constituency. The policy will reduce the number of people who develop an alcohol problem. What additional support will the Government put in place to support the recovery of people who already have an alcohol addiction?

Next week, Aileen Campbell will lay out the developments in treatment for alcohol and drug addiction. She will be able to give more of the detail.

It is absolutely right and proper that, as well as changing the culture, addressing the link between price and consumption and reducing alcohol misuse, we ensure that people who need help get it as quickly as possible. Our treatment waiting times are being met for alcohol and drug treatment, so people are getting quick access to the help that they need. The brief interventions are also helping to address people’s alcohol misuse at an earlier stage. Those measures are backed up, of course, by the £20 million in the programme for government that will help to deliver further improvements in alcohol treatment options for people who require them.

I thank the cabinet secretary and members for their co-operation.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. Forgive me but, during that item of business, I should have made an oral declaration of my membership of the cross-party group in the Scottish Parliament on beer and brewing. I apologise for the oversight.

Thank you, Mr Harvie, for that update.