Leader comment: Alcohol Bill

Published on Monday 8 February 2010 10:16

WHILE the SNP's attempts to galvanise support for minimum pricing as the cornerstone of its Alcohol Bill are well-intentioned, Labour's refusal to support the proposal appears to have dealt it a fatal blow.

Their objections are understandable and are shared by others outwith the party. For a start, there is no evidence that raising the price of drink would have any effect on sales, especially among those determined to drink to excess.

Those most likely to suffer would be the responsible majority of drinkers, who would be punished by having to pay more for their occasional – and harmless – tipple. As it stands, only drink manufacturers and retailers would benefit from increased prices.

But even those who don't support the government's proposals accept that alcohol abuse is a growing problem and that something must be done to curb it.

The reasons are clear: over-consumption causes 1,500 deaths and costs the NHS and industry 2.25 billion a year in Scotland. The average annual cost of abuse to every adult Scot is estimated at 900 a year.

Driving up booze prices, as the SNP suggests, would undoubtedly have an impact – but it would be taking a sledgehammer to crack a nut.

Labour's alternative, as laid out in the News today, is less Draconian but must still raise doubts. One element that does make sense, though, is that if extra income is to be generated from sales it should be channelled into dealing with the consequences of alcohol abuse rather than further line the pockets of producers.

Labour also wants to look at shopkeepers carrying out mandatory ID checks should they suspect that someone attempting to buy alcohol is under age. It is unclear how this will work in practice – not least in the absence of any sort of national ID card – but the idea has the potential to bring current voluntary schemes within a legal framework.

Perhaps the most radical proposal Labour's commission has been asked to examine is the question of tougher enforcement. Recent test purchasing exercises showed that too many shopkeepers are still selling booze to under-age drinkers. Sadly, even when caught, many of them receive only a slap on the wrist and those who lose their licences do so for relatively short periods of time.

Until such time as heavier punishments are introduced many retailers will be willing to take the risk in search of greater profits.

If a driver can lose a licence for a year for being behind the wheel when even marginally over the drink limit why should shopkeepers who break the law not face the automatic loss of their licence for a similar period?

That is something Labour – and the government – should consider if they really want to curb illegal sales.