Michael Kelly: I'll drink to minimum alcohol pricing

I'm on the drink this week. Not literally, because I do not drink alcohol. So I feel that I am in an excellently objective position to assess the Scottish Parliament's laboured attempts at agreeing policies to tackle this worst of Scotland many social evils.

After examining this complex problem, which will only be solved by a series of equally complex measures, I am inclined to endorse Nicola Sturgeon's plea for the introduction of minimum unit pricing for alcohol. According to the health minister, this would not raise the price of all drinks. By setting a "floor price" at which a unit of alcohol could be sold, it would target the dirt-cheap supermarket white ciders, super-strength lagers and low-grade spirits sought out by problem drinkers. "Responsibly-priced products", however they are defined, would be unaffected.

It is not a magic bullet. Nicola acknowledges that. But as all the other parties agree tackling the absurdly low prices and promotion for drink is necessary, this seems the simplest way to push forward a process already delayed for far too long.

There's been a year's consultation following which the Scottish Government published its Alcohol Framework in early 2009. However, the closer parliament looked at the proposals the less satisfied was it that there was evidence to back them up. Quite properly it sought more. This was not simply a delaying tactic by opposition parties. Rather, as the problem was investigated and its social and deep cultural roots exposed it became clear that, if it was to be properly tackled through legislation, convincing evidence that the proposed policies would produce results had to be uncovered. The difficulty with minimum unit pricing is it has not been tried anywhere in the world.

This examination was Holyrood's committee system working at its best, exploring the problem and the proposed solutions in detail before rushing to make new law. The process also produced strong backing for minimum unit pricing from the four chief medical officers of the UK, the BMA, the Royal Colleges, the police, the brewers, retailers and the pub trade - a formidable coalition.

Then the debate became more political and positions more entrenched. The famous Sheffield University study remodelled for Scotland appeared to show enormous benefits including a total fall in alcohol consumption, and in alcoholic deaths and illnesses, crime, absenteeism amounting to saving of 950 million over ten years. However, as this study began to be dissected, other conclusions emerged that challenged the strong case that had been made. For example, it was established that one of the main groups whose alcohol consumption had shot up to levels causing concern were middle-aged professional women whose habits would not be changed by increases in price.

It is also argued minimum unit pricing would penalise the moderate, less well-off drinkers. But there are virtually no demographic groups that don't overindulge, so cutting down alcohol consumption generally is a positive, not negative, side effect. As to the argument that a minimum price of 40p per unit would net supermarkets 130m extra a year this can only be good news for teetotallers like me. Banned from using drink to lure in customers supermarkets will turn attention to promoting and price cutting other products, so benefiting a wide range of consumers.

In an attempt, they say, to clarify the evidence, Labour set up an independent Alcohol Commission, under a chair who is not a member of the party. It is expected to publish its report with policy prescriptions early next month. That comfortably fits the parliamentary schedule expected now to reach its culmination in October. Less comfortable for Labour might be the conclusions it draws.

Expect to hear very technical arguments about other means of establishing a floor price for alcohol, expect to hear about solutions through the tax and duty systems that would apply throughout the UK. Expect arguments that minimum unit pricing is against EU law and concerns from the Scotch Whisky Association and others that its introduction will give other countries - such as India - the excuse to discriminate against imports from Scotland.

So, it has serious drawbacks. But in terms of doing something that will make a contribution to tackling alcoholism, it is worth a try. And that is what is now being offered. Nicola Sturgeon has offered to incorporate a "sunset" clause into the bill. This will allow the policy to run for a trial period and for the results to be assessed. If the sunset clause is worded in such a way that the policy is then dropped unless parliament re-imposes it, few MSPs can object. To Labour, however, this offer is an admission that there is no evidence that minimum unit pricing works and, therefore, rather than a policy, it is merely an experiment.

There is only one more step that the health secretary has to take before she can rightly demand all-party support. She must come out now and announce what minimum price she is going to set. The Lib Dems won't move without that. And now that David Cameron has favoured the policy, surely the Tories cannot continue to ignore a market solution to the problem? The working figure has been 40p per unit. It is estimated that consumption would fall by 3 per cent and that 119 lives per year would be saved - not very impressive given that 216 people were killed on Scotland's roads in 2009.

If the minimum price were set at 70p - the figure favoured by many health professionals - consumption would fall by nearly 20 per cent and we would see significant results. One pound would make a greater impact.

Nicola's problem is that she has built her coalition of support precisely because she hasn't fixed a price. However, to buy the other parties' support she has to come off the fence. The higher the price the more convincing she will be. I'll raise my glass to that.