Duncan Hamilton: Alcohol pricing is a test Holyrood must not fail

Published on Wednesday 23 June 2010 19:22

IT HAS been a week dominated by booze. Not for me, you understand - though in the midst of conducting a grinding proof at Edinburgh Sheriff Court in the course of my day job the temptations were real - but in the world of politics.

The SNP government has decided to try to prevent most of us drinking ourselves into an early grave. To achieve that, it has proposed to combat the availability of discount price alcohol by setting a minimum price of 45p for each unit. The question now is this: are the other parties really prepared to vote down the most significant proposal to combat alcohol misuse in recent times?

Labour rejects minimum pricing and, having been in a terrible fankle over an alternative, has now settled on supporting a "floor price". The consequent problem for the SNP is that to make minimum pricing law will require the support of either the Tories or the Lib Dems. Neither looks likely.

But before our MSPs get the spades out and commence the usual trench-digging, they might reflect instead on the areas of agreement rather than division.

It is agreed that this is the single greatest social problem facing Scotland. Alcohol misuse costs Scotland 3.56 billion every year. It fills our courts and jails - half of Scottish prisoners are drunk at the time of offending. It also plainly strains the resources of the NHS. Witness, for example, the massive rise in chronic liver disease.

There is also a broad consensus that previous efforts to encourage, cajole or scare the population out of the pub and into the gym have failed. Crucially, every party accepts the incontrovertible evidence that the single most important thing we can do to reduce alcohol consumption is to raise the price.

Finally, and importantly, there is an appreciation that there is a particular Scottish problem here - cultural and societal - which demands a solution which works in Scotland. Alcohol-related deaths in this country are twice the rate in England.

The point is this: we created a parliament to provide Scottish solutions to Scottish problems. Now is precisely the moment to show that the parliament is capable of realising that vision. We voted for a new politics - one where policy was evidence-based, where politicians started by identifying agreement and thereafter sought to reach a robust consensus view. In 1999 it was about creating a parliament of minorities trying to reach agreement in the national interest. There has been no greater test of that resolve than on this issue, and at this time. The remaining dispute is not about whether to raise prices but how best to do it.

There are two options. First, we can charge 45p per unit of alcohol. That targets some drinks and not others. For example, a three-litre bottle of Tesco Strong Cider which is currently sold for 2.90 will now cost 7.43.By contrast, the price of Gordon's Gin (doubtless to my father's relief) will remain unchanged.

Labour argues that this policy is "regressive" - in other words it will disproportionately impact on lower-income families. But hang on, the Labour proposal of a new "price floor" is also designed to raise prices. Does that mean it too is "regressive" and to be discarded? And if Labour's plan doesn't actually raise prices, what will it achieve?

Labour can't seriously be suggesting that we run public policy on the basis that members of society have a "right" to cheap beer. This is not about public supplies of water, without which we cannot live. It is about products we can choose to buy or not buy. The plan is to target a range of absurdly cheap products which, because of those low prices, are too readily available. Labour also claims that higher prices will "not raise a single penny for the NHS or the police" but rather will boost the profits of the companies. Not only does that ignore the obvious fact that presumably those profits are themselves taxed but no mention is made of the other provisions of the Alcohol (Scotland) Bill which specifically include a social responsibility levy for precisely that purpose. Again, the impression of Labour playing politics with this issue is unmistakable.

The Labour "floor price" alternative - and credit for at least coming up with an idea - operates on the basis that there would be a ban on alcohol being sold lower than the combined price of production, duty and VAT. The immediate problem is the practicality of getting, and verifying, those commercially sensitive costs. More damagingly, it has been suggested that for many drinks, the "floor price" would not raise prices at all - thus entirely defeating the point of the exercise.

Neither scheme is perfect. But this is now a test for the Scottish Parliament it cannot fail. This is a huge issue, and a huge opportunity to impress a cynical electorate that devolution can be mature and constructive. Ultimately, the Tories may hold the key to this vote. They claim to be implacably opposed to minimum pricing. There is, however, one Tory who is in favour. He said recently that the proposal to introduce minimum pricing in Manchester at 50p per unit must be looked at "very sympathetically" by the government.

The problem for the Scottish Conservatives as they consider whether to vote down this bill is that the man in question was one David Cameron.