Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement

Endinburgh Council
 
 
Monday, 2nd November 2009 Change Date Latest Issue

Ian Swanson: No half measures in Scots booze battle

Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 19 March 2009
DOWNING Street was quick to dismiss the idea of minimum pricing on alcohol when it was floated by England's Chief Medical Officer Sir Liam Donaldson earlier this week.
But the move, which had already been proposed by the SNP as part of its bid to tackle Scotland's drink problem, could still go ahead here.

The Scottish Government's plan would mean setting a minimum price per unit of alcohol – probably around 40p
– which would end the situation, frequently highlighted by Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill, where a two-litre bottle of strong white cider can be bought for less than a bottle of water.

The new minimum price would apply both in pubs and clubs and in supermarkets and off-licences. But customers at pubs and clubs would not pay any more because prices there are already well above the level being considered.

And the Government says the vast majority of off-sales customers would also see little difference because the policy is targeted at ultra-cheap booze.

Opposition parties at Holyrood have warned they will unite to defeat minimum pricing if ministers try to push it through as secondary legislation, with only a limited opportunity for debate, rather than following the full process of passing a new Bill. But insiders hint the Government could give way and agree to include the measure in the Criminal Justice and Licensing Bill.

"We're not going to get hung up on the process," says an SNP source.

Minimum pricing is supported by Scotland's police chiefs, the British Medical Association and the Scottish Licensed Trade Association.

And despite the UK Government's rejection of the policy, Labour in Scotland has not yet adopted an official line. "It's up to the Scottish group to decide our own policy in the Scottish Parliament, says justice spokesman Richard Baker.

He says he wants to see the detail of how the scheme will work – what the minimum price would be; how it would be enforced; and the implications of having different laws north and south of the Border.

"Whatever you think about the principle, the crucial thing will be how it works."

The Liberal Democrats' business manager, Mike Rumbles, says they will vote against minimum pricing. "We will not support the Government telling private industry what price they will sell their alcohol at," he insists.

But Lib Dem leaders south of the Border have spoken out strongly in support of Sir Liam Donaldson's call for minimum pricing – home affairs spokesman Chris Huhne going as far as saying it is "crassly irresponsible" for Labour and the Tories to dismiss the idea. Some Lib Dem MSPs have also voiced sympathy.

The Tories seem firmly opposed and the Greens say they are "sceptical", but the SNP

is adamant that moderate drinkers would hardly notice any change. "It is specifically targeted at ending the pocket money prices."

And one Labour MSP says: "The public doesn't understand why people should be able to buy strong cider at knock-down prices."

Other critics claim minimum pricing could damage Scotland's whisky industry. But the Government says the only whisky which could be hit by the policy would be supermarkets' own cut-price brands. And sources also dismiss fears of people crossing the Border to buy booze or logging on to the internet, insisting that the marginal effect on most prices would not make it worthwhile.

Professor Anne Ludbrook, of Aberdeen University's Health Economics Research Unit, says studies consistently show that putting prices up does reduce drinking. "The debate is only around the size of the effect."

But she also says drinks companies, most of whom are firmly against minimum pricing, could actually see profits rise if the policy is introduced.

She says: "If a minimum price of 30p per unit was introduced, then a product which is currently heavily discounted might experience up to a 30 per cent decrease in sales. However, industry revenue could actually increase by as much as 68 per cent because most of the price increase is retained by the industry." Prof Ludbrook also argues drinks companies could cut prices by lowering alcoholic strengths. "The average strength of alcoholic drinks has been increasing without apparently being noticed by consumers. A reversal of this trend could achieve lower alcohol consumption without higher prices on the product being purchased."

Sir Liam Donaldson recommended a 50p minimum price per unit in his report and said that could mean 3393 fewer deaths every year in England, as well as 97,900 fewer hospital admissions, 45,800 fewer crimes, 296,900 fewer sick days, and a total benefit of more than £1 billion.

With alcohol estimated to cost Scottish taxpayers £2.25bn a year and alcohol-related death rates having doubled in the last decade, opposition parties will have to have some strong arguments to show why this policy should not be given a chance.





Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 19 March 2009 9:27 AM
  • Source: Edinburgh Evening News
  • Location: Edinburgh
  • Related Topics: Ian Swanson
 
1

Number 6,

Germany 19/03/2009 09:41:13
"Minimum pricing is supported by Scotland's police chiefs, the British Medical Association and the Scottish Licensed Trade Association." And now even
South Britain's Chief Medical Officer is agreeing with the SNP.

Go ahead unionista detatchments, you huddle together in your wretched opposition and watch another Golden Opportunity to do something about Scotland's biggest social scourge, pass you by.

I hope your proud of yourselfs.

2

Rob Simpson,

19/03/2009 11:54:20
"With alcohol estimated to cost Scottish taxpayers £2.25bn a year and alcohol-related death rates having doubled in the last decade, opposition parties will have to have some strong arguments to show why this policy should not be given a chance."

Modern politics seems to work thus;

Party X comes up with idea Y which they claim will do Z. They show NO evidence that Z will happen, let alone that idea Y might create more problems than it solves. And yet the unthinking appear to accept the premise without question and are quick to comdemn anyone who challenges the idea.

Furthermore if Z does NOT happen then will Y idea be repealed? Not likely. It's failure will just be used to excuse more restrictions.
3

Unimpressed one,

19/03/2009 12:44:07
#2, spot on.
4

The Hon. Liam Fairtod,

19/03/2009 14:23:45
I would like to propose the policy of paying me £1bn a year to go round the pubs and restaurants of Scotland taking drinks out of peoples hands and pouring them on the floor. Before telling them "no drinky drinky, is bad, make you sicky"

With alcohol estimated to cost Scottish taxpayers £2.25bn a year and alcohol-related death rates having doubled in the last decade, opposition parties will have to have some strong arguments to show why this policy should not be given a chance.
5

Peter - very disappointed/concerned,

Edinburgh 19/03/2009 14:25:14
I am convinced that the SNP are only trying to push this through as they do not want a second term in Office at Holyrood.

Regretably this kind of legislation can only result in electoral suicide.

Rather than trying to force through strict minimum price controls, it might be better to introduce a research tax on the profits made by the producers. This could be used to pay for research into cures for alcohol related diseases.
6

blackcat5555,

edinburgh 19/03/2009 15:24:54
Have politians got any brains at all !! Price increases
will do nothing, binge drinkers should be fined in court, if they go to a hospital, make them pay for
their treatment in cash...then they will cut down their
drinking habits. Dont hit me in the pocket I am a
sensible drinker and DONT binge drink, its only
common sense, If you binge drink you will die young
and wont see 65 or any of your pension !!!
7

,

19/03/2009 16:01:25
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
8

,

19/03/2009 16:03:26
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
9

reincarnated,

Edinburgh 19/03/2009 16:17:26
Binge drinking? Think I'll have a glass or two of binge tonight.
10

Peter - very disappointed/concerned,

Edinburgh 19/03/2009 16:34:44
#7 Jwil,

This kind of action can only be a vote loser for any political party attempting to make it legislation regardless of whta part of the UK is involved.

Certainly up here, in drink-soaked Scotland, it would be certain electoral suicide. As I said earlier, I am convinced that the SNP do not want to face a second term of Office at Holyrood. This would be an easy and honourable 'out' for them at the next election.

11

AJM,

19/03/2009 21:07:54
#10 Peter, interesting point. I was thinking today that the SNP are a natural party of opposion, they appear to happier pushing the independence line without the trappings of government and responsibility. LIT, SFT are all major proposals that realy the homework was not done on the detail.

If the polls continue to show a slide in the support for independence then you may well be right. Loosing an election to get back to what they do best and hope to raise the level of interest in independence with probably a Tory UK government. Sounds a better bet for them.
12

leftcoastcolonial,

Southern California 23/03/2009 23:50:33
It's interesting how such proposals become politicized..and how much misunderstanding there is about the effects of increasing the price of alcohol, however slightly.
All the research---worldwide---shows that even a tiny increase in the cost of a drink results in less binge and underage drinking. Common sense seems to show that a few pennies won't make a difference, but it always does. (Rob S. and blackcat, poke around online...I'm not making this up, honest.) As the professor said in the article, "The debate is only around the size of the effect."
From a practical standpoint, there's no downside to this. It will "do Z," as Mr. Simpson put it. It won't impact the whiskey business, nor will it hurt pubs and restaurants, as the price increase probably won't even trickle down to the bar bill. The only downside is for politicians who might back this, who will be painted as prohibitionists. Rob, old bean, this wasn't thought up by a party, it was designed by eggheads who study public health problems, and come up with solutions.

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 


Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.