Ken Robertson: Minimum pricing is a tax that will not solve Scots alcohol problem

Dismissing fears about the threats to the Scotch whisky industry arising from minimum pricing, she appeared to welcome the prospect of the Chancellor effectively doing the job in his Budget with a substantial rise in excise duty. She is right about one thing: minimum pricing of alcohol is another tax. It's another tax on all those who drink, and the people likely to be most affected are those with the least money.

This logic is apparently lost on those whose devotion to a totemic policy position long since persuaded them to depart from evidence-based argument and switch instead to lecturing opponents on morality. No-one denies that Scotland has a problem with alcohol, but Scottish politicians, voters and businesses are entitled to ask whether minimum pricing would solve the problem.

I do not believe it would, and I find it particularly odd that, as we emerge from recession, some politicians believe the answer is to take more money from all consumers' pockets, rather than focus on those who have the problem.

The Scottish Government says a minimum price of 40p per unit would not hurt anybody (though it hasn't yet set it at that price), yet argues that it will have a significant impact in addressing Scotland's drink problem.

It bases its argument on a Sheffield University study, which claims a 40p minimum price would reduce consumption by 2.6 per cent, while forcing harmful drinkers to pay less than the price of a pint extra per week. Are they really likely to be put off by that? The health campaigners supporting the Scottish Government don't think so, which is why they say minimum pricing has to be upwards of 50p to have an impact.

The Scottish Government's own health survey figures show that alcohol consumption in Scotland fell by over 9 per cent between 2003 and 2008, yet this was ignored by ministers, who also chose not to ask the Sheffield team to examine the impact of minimum pricing on the poor.

It is grossly hypocritical for supporters of the policy to suggest that opposing political parties seek to subvert the will of parliament when their own government is highly selective with the facts upon which it chooses to act and has chosen to disregard a Scottish Parliament vote on the issue of restricting off-trade sales of alcohol to those over the age of 21. It is equally wrong to dismiss the interests of an industry that contributes so much to the economy.

Scotch whisky ranks among the UK's top five export-earning manufacturing industries, contributing some 2 billion to the balance of trade. The drinks industry is a major employer.

Today, the Scottish Parliament health committee will hear evidence from Canada on so-called social reference pricing which operates in a state-controlled retail environment. Yet per-capita alcohol consumption in Canada rose by almost 10 per cent between 1997 and 2004, and a study of the Canadian model by UK health officials concluded that "investment in primary care provision/greater prioritisation would deliver greater benefits than taxation or minimum pricing".

That's why we welcome Sunday's announcement by health secretary Nicola Sturgeon that the number of clinically effective brief interventions will increase significantly this year.

But we don't believe the price of products enjoyed by millions of responsible consumers should be put in the hands of politicians.

Additional tax via minimum pricing will not address the root causes of alcohol misuse.

Ken Robertson is a director of Diageo Scotland