Alcohol etc. (Scotland) Bill - Stage 1

Speech delivered on Thu 10th Jun 2010

This has been a high-quality debate in which speakers from across the chamber have engaged effectively with the issues. In concluding for the Liberal Democrats, I recognise the cabinet secretary's powerful opening speech in support of her position, which was trumped only by Ross Finnie's powerful critique of the details of that position.

I have had some critical things to say about the SNP Government, but it must be acknowledged that it has raised the prominence of the severe problems that are created by alcohol abuse and the priority that Scotland gives to addressing them. In that, it has gone a certain distance towards challenging deep-seated and harmful cultural traditions in our country.

The price of excess consumption of alcohol is paid in illness, disability and premature death, as well as in life-destroying criminal activities and family-destroying abuse. We have a major national challenge, and the question is what we can do about it, particularly to change the underlying cultural norms whereby binge drinking is regarded as a normal part of life; rolling-about drunkenness is accepted as routine, if not amusing; preloading at home is the preferred evening activity; and excess alcohol feeds into masks and excuses, unacceptable levels of violence, rape and domestic abuse, and a society that is made more violent and disconnected by booze.

Throughout the debate, Liberal Democrats have argued for more stringent enforcement of the existing law, particularly against selling to drunk people and minors. We back community alcohol partnerships, and the full use by licensing boards of the extensive discretion that was given to them by the Licensing (Scotland) Act 2005. I pause here to congratulate Glasgow on rejecting applications from certain supermarkets for more floor space for selling alcohol. Those same supermarkets inundate us with their views on how we should tackle alcohol excess without recognising the irony of their substantial contribution to the problem.

Liberal Democrats recognise the strong connection, confirmed by the Health and Sport Committee, between consumption, and price and availability. Accordingly, we support the banning of price discounts for alcohol products, which would be a mighty blow against the invidious practice of loss leading with those products. It must be matched by the ban on below-cost selling to which the UK Government is committed.

We do not believe that the Government has successfully made the case for minimum unit pricing, nor for its ill-thought-out proposal for a social responsibility levy. Rhoda Grant put it very well when she said that it is Parliament's duty to make sure that the Government's proposals are practical and effective. I stress the word "proposals" because-I say with respect to the cabinet secretary-the fault here is with the Government. From the beginning, the Government was told that Parliament will not support vague and ill-specified plans under either of those headings. With some degree of huffing, the Government was eventually forced to take minimum unit pricing out of the Criminal Justice and Licensing (Scotland) Bill and put it into the Alcohol etc (Scotland) Bill. As Ross Finnie pointed out, the policy was still to be implemented by statutory instrument, even when it became clear that the unit price would determine the central issues of the policy's legality, its likely effectiveness or relatively marginal effect on health, and the extent of any unintended consequences. That is no way to treat Parliament or win friends for the proposals. If the bill's future is in doubt today, it is entirely the fault of the Government, which was well warned.

If anything, the social responsibility levy is even worse. The Government proposes to consult on the basic question whether there will be a blanket levy on the industry, or a specific levy on bad licensees. With respect to the cabinet secretary, no self-respecting Parliament would grant that kind of Henry VIII power to a Government. The consultation should have preceded the legislation, not followed it.

The SNP has also been obsessed with a specifically Scottish solution, largely ignoring the Westminster dimension and the option of proceeding with certain measures across the UK. That might have been a result of the poor relationship between the First Minister and the previous Labour Government but, whatever the reason, it has always been a weakness in the approach. We now have a different dimension with a UK Government that is committed to a respect agenda, to working with the Scottish Government, and to moving forward on substantial plans to review duty and the pricing of alcohol. I have no inside knowledge of what the chancellor will say at the budget, but my view is that he should raise the duty on alcohol to increase the relative price and to contribute to reducing the deficit.

Christine Grahame: Does the member accept that, when duty is increased, many supermarkets make it a point of sale to say, "The chancellor has raised the duty but we are not passing it on," and that it does not impact on the sale price?

Robert Brown: I accept that point, although Christine Grahame has slightly overstated it. Although it is not total, there is a relationship and it is clear that significant duty increases affect price.

The minister has the broad support of medical opinion for her efforts on minimum pricing. However, it is Parliament's job to test the proposals, and to make sure that they are workable and do what it says on the tin. The committee has tested the proposals and found them wanting. When prohibition was brought in in America, I imagine that it was well intentioned and had the support of the great and the good of the time, but, of course, it was a spectacular and disastrous failure because no account was taken of the unintended consequences.

It is our job as parliamentarians to look at the practicabilities, and unfortunately, the SNP Government's insouciance means that we will find it difficult to get past first base. That is a great pity, but the Government must learn some humility and accept much earlier the reasonable requests of members and the Health and Sport Committee if the bill is to have a significant future.

To read the debate in full please click on the link below:

Related Link:

Alcohol etc. (Scotland) - Stage 1.