Scottish Parliament, 10 June 2010

371 contributions from 75 members. The official report.

Alcohol etc (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

Good morning. The first item of business is a debate on motion S3M-6511, in the name of Nicola Sturgeon, on the Alcohol etc (Scotland) Bill.

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Govan)

I begin by thanking the Health and Sport Committee and its clerking team for their work in preparing the stage 1 report on the bill.

Over the past year or so, all of us inside and outside Parliament have moved a long way in our understanding of the sheer scale of the alcohol challenge that we face. There is now a much greater understanding that overconsumption of alcohol affects every age group, every socioeconomic group and every community. Alcohol misuse creates massive pressures on our national health service, our police service and our local authorities—it costs us more than £3.5 billion every year, which represents almost £900 for every adult in the country.

We also pay a heavy human price. Our rate of chronic liver disease has trebled, alcohol death rates have doubled and one in every 20 deaths is attributable to alcohol. The chief constable of Strathclyde Police said on Tuesday that in the past 10 weeks alone, alcohol—often cheap alcohol that has been consumed at home—has been a major factor in 14 murders in Strathclyde. Uncomfortable though it is to admit it, there is a particularly Scottish element to the problem. Sales figures suggest that we drink 25 per cent more than people in other parts of the United Kingdom. My view is simple: the time for talking is over and it is now time for action.

There is much common ground on the way forward. We all accept that a comprehensive approach is needed, and we have set that out in the alcohol framework. We all agree that effective enforcement of existing laws must be part of the solution. We all agree, too, that education, partnership working with the alcohol industry and investment in alcohol treatment services are all components of an effective alcohol strategy, which is why they are among the 41 actions in our alcohol framework.

However, we believe—this view is strongly backed by doctors, nurses, the police, the churches, public health experts, all four UK chief medical officers and a host of children’s charities—that no package of measures will be truly effective without real and effective action on price. We believe that it would be a dereliction of our duty to ignore the clear evidence and expert opinion from the World Health Organization, advisers to the European Commission, the British Medical Association and the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence, which tell us very clearly that price intervention is one of the most effective tools in tackling alcohol misuse.

Our proposal for minimum pricing is based on that evidence, and I welcome the fact that the committee reflects that evidence in its report. However, in spite of the evidence, and in spite of the growing support for minimum pricing outside Parliament, many members in Parliament remain doggedly opposed to it. Therefore, I want to take head-on some of the key arguments against minimum pricing that we will hear today.

The first of those arguments is that minimum pricing would hit disproportionately people who drink responsibly or people on low incomes. That argument is not borne out by the research that we have, which shows that minimum pricing is a targeted rather than a blanket policy. The University of Sheffield study is quite clear that the financial cost of minimum pricing to responsible drinkers, because they drink relatively little, would be about £10 a year. Data show that 80 per cent of people in the lowest income group do not drink, or drink moderately, so they would not be affected at all or would be affected only marginally by minimum pricing. We also have research that shows that middle and higher-income groups, not low-income groups, are the main purchasers of alcohol that is priced between 30p and 50p per unit.

The biggest problem with the low-income argument is not that it is wrong but that it ignores the fact that people on low incomes are disproportionately affected—not by minimum pricing, but by the harm that is caused by alcohol, as a result of which they are five and a half times more likely to be admitted to hospital and 13 and a half times more likely to die. Therefore, the real disservice to people on low incomes would not be to introduce minimum pricing; it would be to fail to take effective action.

Helen Eadie (Labour, Dunfermline East)

Does the cabinet secretary accept that because of a lack of the required data and sample sizes that were too small to allow a conclusion to be reached, the Sheffield study did no modelling on the income groups to which she refers?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Govan)

As a member of the Health and Sport Committee, Helen Eadie knows the reasons for the limitations on the Sheffield study in that regard, but since the publication of the Sheffield study, two pieces of research have been submitted to the committee that bear out the facts that I have just given to Parliament.

The second key argument against minimum pricing is that it would be illegal. In that regard, I warmly welcome the committee’s recognition that minimum pricing is capable of complying with European law. Of course, the committee rightly notes that the key to determining the specific effects of minimum pricing will be the price that is set. The committee has recommended that we lodge an amendment at stage 2 to propose a specific minimum price. I have said previously that we will suggest a price before a final vote is taken on the bill. Members will appreciate the importance of the price being set at the right level. That means that we must go through a careful process in order to arrive at a specific price to recommend to Parliament. Nevertheless, the committee has made a clear recommendation, which I am happy to reflect further on between now and stage 2, and I will endeavour to comply fully with it.

The third key argument against minimum pricing is that it has not been tried, so we do not know for sure that it works.

Mary Scanlon (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

Will the cabinet secretary give way?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Govan)

Not just now.

The critics say that the modelling that the University of Sheffield carried out, which suggests that minimum pricing would have significant health, crime and economic benefits, is not the same as real evidence. That is true, but in policy development around the world, such robust and detailed modelling is used for new policies that have not been tried. The national minimum wage is a good example of such a policy. The key message to the people who call for real evidence is this: let us introduce the policy and monitor and evaluate it, then we will have the evidence that people say is lacking. That is the responsible way forward. To ignore the weight of expert opinion that we now have is not responsible, and to do so on what appear to me to be party-political grounds is to play politics with public health, which is simply wrong.

The fourth key argument against the policy is that there are better ways of achieving the same aim. I am sure that colleagues will highlight the approach that the UK Government has mooted, in particular its advocacy of measures on alcohol duty and the proposal to ban below-cost sales. If the UK Government is serious about overhauling the alcohol duty arrangements, that is welcome because it is nonsense that alcohol that is sold as whisky is taxed unfairly in comparison with alcohol that is sold as beer or wine. The reality is that tax increases are often not effective public health interventions because they do not always get passed on to consumers. The fact that the UK Government is considering a ban on below-cost selling—although only for England and Wales, according to the Number10.gov.uk website—suggests that it agrees with us on that.

However, a ban on below-cost selling is not a realistic alternative to the proposals in the bill, which is why we ruled it out. It may sound tough, but all that it would do is create for each product a minimum price at such a low level that it would have no effect on consumption and harm. Moreover, it would hit small businesses hard because below cost for a local store is very different to below cost for a major supermarket. In addition, it raises massive issues around enforceability and administration. We welcome the UK Government’s stated intentions and the progress that it is making on the issue, but we believe that a ban on below-cost selling is not an effective way to tackle alcohol misuse, whereas minimum pricing is, which is why we have proposed it in the bill.

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Given everything that the cabinet secretary has said about the lack of political support for minimum pricing, and given that we know that the UK Government is determined to take forward proposals on taxation and a ban on below-cost selling, would not it be sensible for the Scottish Government to pause, wait and see what the UK Government does and work in conjunction with colleagues south of the border, rather than run down the road of minimum pricing, for which it does not have support?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Govan)

I say in all seriousness to Murdo Fraser that I will work as constructively as possible with the UK Government to find consensus on how to tackle alcohol misuse. However, I will not pause with a policy that I believe will be effective in tackling alcohol misuse in favour of one that I believe will not be. My responsibility is to take action that will make a difference.

With regard to other aspects of the bill, we welcome the committee’s support for the proposals on quantity discounts and, as it has suggested, we are having further discussions with the Scottish Grocers Federation about the practical issues that have been raised. We also welcome the committee’s agreement to make age verification policies such as challenge 21 and challenge 25 mandatory. We are keen to avoid any unnecessary bureaucracy for businesses that already operate good schemes, but we will certainly reflect further on the view that the minimum age should be 25 rather than 21.

We were disappointed that the committee did not agree with the proposal to enable licensing boards to increase the off-sales purchase age in their area. Although it did not major on that part of the bill in its oral evidence-taking sessions, it has nevertheless made a clear recommendation and we will reflect on it.

We welcome the committee’s views on the social responsibility levy and were particularly interested in its suggestion that the levy apply across the board with incentives for reaching high standards of responsible retailing. We will take that forward with stakeholders later this month and are happy to reflect on the committee’s recommendation with a view to setting out in the bill more detail on the levy’s principles and purpose. It has also been pointed out that a social responsibility levy could be used to deal with the increased revenues to, for example, supermarkets that would result from minimum pricing.

At the very start of this process, I made it clear that we do not claim to have all the answers. I made a genuine offer to the other parties that we would consider any suggestions that they wanted to make: that offer still stands. Various suggestions have been made, including tougher restrictions on promotions, limits on caffeine, further legislation on overprovision of licensed premises and a “two strikes and you’re out” policy for underage sales. This Government will consider amendments on a case-by-case basis, and on each and every issue we will put public health before party politics.

As the total amount of alcohol that is consumed by a population determines the level of problems that it suffers, we need to reduce consumption. If we focus only on young people or on antisocial behaviour, we will miss the harm that is caused—often to themselves—by people regularly exceeding weekly limits in their homes. If we focus only on the most harmful drinkers, we will miss those who are on the verge of becoming harmful drinkers. This bill is not going to stop people drinking—that is not its aim—but it will help to reduce consumption and the harm that goes with it.

Scotland has a proud record of innovation in public health. We should not be afraid to try new approaches and we should not let claims about unintended consequences cloud our judgement. Every policy has secondary effects of one sort or another: if we let such concerns blur the big picture, we will never do or achieve anything.

Our relationship with alcohol impacts on everyone in some way, even those who drink moderately or not at all. That is why we are asking Parliament to support the general principles of a bill that is based on sound evidence, peer-reviewed modelling and robust research, and will help to reduce consumption and harm.

I think that there is a mood swing in Scotland towards change. Our relationship with alcohol is no longer something that can be dismissed as being part of our culture, nor can it be tackled solely through education. Our culture is not somehow separate from cheap alcohol—we have become used to it and cheap alcohol is now part of the culture. It will be extremely difficult to change that culture without tackling low prices and irresponsible promotions.

We must be innovative, show leadership and rise above party politics to deliver a bill that is rightly ambitious for Scotland and which I believe is clearly in the national interest.

I move,

That the Parliament agrees to the general principles of the Alcohol etc. (Scotland) Bill.

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The Scottish Conservatives agree that Scotland has a growing problem with alcohol abuse and that action is needed to tackle it. Although we may disagree with some of the measures that it has proposed, we commend the Scottish Government for taking the issue seriously and for at least attempting to take action to try and address it. Some of what is in the bill we can support, some of it we are sceptical about and some of it we must oppose. In the time that is available, I will try to set out our position and explain the rationale behind my amendment.

I should say at the outset that it must be a source of real regret that we as a Parliament have not been able to find a set of proposals about which we can all agree. I believe that everyone here understands that alcohol is a problem in our society, that Government action is required and that there is a link of some sort between price and consumption. However, we have been unable to agree on the Scottish National Party Government’s plans for minimum pricing and I am truly sorry that the SNP’s obsession with this one element has allowed it to dominate the debate and has prevented us from moving on to discuss other areas where there might be consensus on what can be done.

In the past, we in the Scottish Conservatives have set out our beliefs that minimum pricing would penalise responsible drinkers, that it is of dubious legality and that it would do serious damage to the vital Scotch whisky industry and Scotland’s economic interests. Our position in that respect has not changed, but there is now another important and relevant factor, which is the signalled intent of the coalition Government at Westminster to increase alcohol taxation and pricing to ensure that it tackles binge drinking without unfairly penalising responsible drinkers and important local industries. Coupled with that is an intent to legislate to prohibit sales of alcohol below cost price.

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Govan)

Can Murdo Fraser tell us by how much a ban on selling below duty and VAT would increase the price of the problem drinks such as cheap cider that are causing such havoc in our communities?

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

If the cabinet secretary is patient and waits for the budget that is due in a couple of weeks, she will soon learn by how much the duty on such problem drinks will increase. As I said, that is the UK Government’s signalled intent, which is precisely why I have called on the cabinet secretary to be patient. If she is prepared to wait a couple of weeks instead of rushing headlong into progressing the bill, she might well see concrete proposals with which she should be working. In any case, all of that means that minimum pricing as a policy has been overtaken by events; it is yesterday’s solution, so the sensible move would be for the Scottish Government to put its plans on hold and to engage with the UK Government on a shared way forward.

Notwithstanding all that has been claimed on the issue by the Scottish Government, the fact remains that there is no evidence base to support the introduction of minimum pricing. All that we have is the now widely discredited University of Sheffield study that the Health and Sport Committee analysed in detail. That study did not amount to evidence; it was simply modelling using available data. Indeed, Dr Petra Meier, the principal investigator, admitted to the committee that modelling was “like the weather forecast”. I am sure that all of us who are old enough to remember Michael Fish on the BBC all those years ago confidently telling us that there would no hurricane will have regarded Dr Meier’s claim with wry amusement.

Serious public policy proposals require a more secure evidence base than the one that is provided by the Sheffield study. Moreover, in its devastating critique of the Sheffield report, the Scotch Whisky Association identified a number of key failures, not least the fact that although alcohol consumption over the past five years has either been stable or decreasing, there has in that period been an increase in alcohol deaths and alcohol-related hospital discharges. That disproves the central contention in the Sheffield report that there is a clear link between price, consumption and harm. There are many other weaknesses in the Sheffield report. Time does not permit me to list them all but it is clear, as our amendment says, that the evidence to support minimum pricing is simply not there.

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee East)

I am very confused by what Murdo Fraser is saying. At the beginning of your speech, you said that everyone accepts that there is a link between price and consumption; however, you seem to have just completely undermined that argument. Do you or do you not believe that there is a link between price and consumption?

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

I remind members that they should always speak through the chair.

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I accept that there is some link between price and consumption. However, I do not accept that the modelling in the Sheffield university study is entirely accurate or is based on evidence. Indeed, Nicola Sturgeon earlier conceded that the evidence base is not there, and I think that that is a very important element in this debate.

The committee looked at a range of other issues around minimum pricing. It was highly sceptical, for example, about whether minimum pricing could not be got around by cross-border or internet sales. More and more people are buying their alcohol over the internet: that trend would be likely to accelerate if minimum pricing were introduced. If I buy my wine from Laithwaites or Tesco and I can save money by having it delivered to my door from a base in Carlisle or Berwick, that is what I will do. There will be thousands like me.

As for the question of legality, the best that can be said is that the matter is still in doubt. Without knowing the price, it is impossible to say for sure whether minimum pricing would be legal. We are therefore being asked to take a leap of faith. The Government is asking us to support a policy when we do not know whether it would be legal and enforceable. That is highly unsatisfactory.

There is serious concern in the spirits industry about the economic impact of minimum pricing. The Scotch Whisky Association has argued that a minimum pricing policy could lead to international copycat practice whereby key export markets would be expected to follow a Scottish health-justified trade barrier precedent. Already, South Korea has tried to introduce a health tax on Scotch, and Thailand is trying to impose warning labels on whisky bottles. According to the SWA, minimum pricing could result in a loss of exports worth £600 million a year. The Scotch whisky industry has damned the policy of minimum pricing as being the most serious threat to its future competitiveness. Those warnings should not be dismissed lightly by the SNP Government, particularly at a time of recession.

Ian McKee (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

Does Murdo Fraser agree that the reason why the South Korean tax attempt failed was because it was specific to imported whisky, whereas the Government’s minimum unit pricing proposal will apply to all products, whether from overseas or this country, and can therefore be viewed in an entirely different light?

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

With the greatest of respect to Dr McKee, if I were to take advice on such matters, I would listen to the experts in the field from the industry body, which is the Scotch Whisky Association. It represents the whisky producers and is concerned about the impact of the proposed policy. With respect, the Scotch Whisky Association, which has a huge legal team that spends its entire time legislating in countries around the world to protect the Scotch whisky brand, knows more about the situation than Dr McKee or the SNP Government, so we should respect its views.

Given all the problems with the minimum pricing policy, it must make more sense to go down the tried, tested and legal route of tackling the problem through taxation. As I stated earlier, we agree that action needs to be taken on the easy availability of cheap alcohol, which is why the coalition Government at Westminster has proposed to take action on alcohol prices by means of the tax and duty system, and to legislate on a ban on the sale of alcohol below cost price. Should the ban be introduced in only England and Wales, we would wish to see a similar measure in Scotland, which could be done by a legislative consent motion.

I turn briefly to other parts of the bill. We have some sympathy with the proposals to restrict promotional activity, but like the Scottish Grocers Federation, we wish to see more detail on those before we come to a final view. We support the introduction of legal-age verification at age 21 or, as Labour’s commission suggested, at 25. In relation to the sale of alcohol to under 21s, the Scottish Parliament previously saw off an attempt by the SNP Government to introduce a blanket ban on such sales. It is regrettable that there has been an attempt to reintroduce the measure by the back door, giving local licensing boards discretion as to whether to implement the bans on a territorial basis. We believe that that would cause a confusing postcode lottery that might well lead to a displacement of drink-related problems among the 18 to 21 age group so, like the Health and Sport Committee, we oppose the proposal.

Finally, we cannot support the social responsibility levy as a blanket provision. We have sympathy for the polluter-pays principle, whereby those who are responsible for problems have to pay the cost of them, but what is proposed in the bill is simply another form of taxation and that is inappropriate, particularly at a time of recession.

The Scottish Conservatives regard the bill as being flawed. For the reasons that I have set out, we cannot support minimum pricing. We see merit in some of the proposals, so we will not oppose the bill’s passage to stage 2 where, if it survives, we will look to lodge amendments to strike out section 1 and some of the other provisions with which we have difficulty. As I said earlier, we would much prefer that the Scottish Government wait and see exactly what proposals on tax and duty will be introduced by the UK Government before it proceeds further with the bill. Above all, we believe minimum pricing to be a policy that will penalise responsible drinkers. It is of dubious legality and it will be highly damaging to the Scotch whisky industry. For those reasons, the proposed policy must be struck from the bill, and accordingly I have pleasure in moving the amendment in my name.

I move amendment S3M-6511.1, to insert at end:

“but, in so doing, believes that there is no evidence to support section 1, which would introduce a minimum price per unit of alcohol, and accordingly calls on the Scottish Government to lodge and move an amendment at stage 2 to delete section 1.”

Christine Grahame (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

I make this speech purely in my capacity as convener of the Health and Sport Committee, and given the range of views on the Government’s proposals, substantially but not exclusively on minimum pricing, I am equally constrained, substantially but not exclusively. It is a tough call because such constraints will make my speech quite dry, so I thank Murdo Fraser for lodging an amendment, which cuts my speech by four minutes.

The Alcohol etc (Scotland) Bill was introduced to the Parliament on 25 November 2009 and the committee held an eight-week call for written evidence. That resulted in the receipt of 185 written submissions. I thank our support staff—the clerks and the Scottish Parliament information centre—for providing us throughout the process with a rather too steady and frequent supply of written material, summaries and updates. The deputy convener, Ross Finnie, was in danger of invoking health and safety rules as he lugged the growing bundles into committee. I thank him especially for his advice and support on what was a difficult bill for committee members who, in the main, kept their humour and tempers. Only occasionally did I have to invoke the “headache coming on” alert.

We took oral evidence from 12 panels of witnesses over 14 weeks and we heard from 50 witnesses in total. We received 27 pieces of supplementary written evidence from those witnesses, along with a revised report from the University of Sheffield on minimum unit pricing based on updated Scottish statistics. Despite the fact that the minimum pricing issue attracted most of the media attention during the evidence taking and is controversial to this very day, there is much more to the bill. The committee was determined that all the proposed policies in the bill should be given due consideration in its scrutiny. As a result, the committee has spent a great deal of time considering written and oral evidence as part of its stage 1 consideration of the bill. I am told that it all took 29 hours and 56 minutes. I am obliged to the clerk for that information—it seemed much longer from the convener’s chair.

The committee thanks all those who contributed to the stage 1 evidence, but I single out Petra Meier of Sheffield university for her detailed oral and supplementary written evidence; John Beard, chief executive of Whyte and Mackay Ltd for appearing before the committee twice to clarify—is that the word that I really want?—his views on the economic impact of minimum pricing; and the cabinet secretary and her officials, who also attended the committee twice to provide oral evidence as well to provide requested supplementary evidence at quite short notice to allow us to meet deadlines for consideration.

As part of our oral evidence sessions on the bill, the committee held a videoconference with two panels of witnesses in Ottawa and Toronto on the Canadian policy of social reference pricing for alcohol sales. We thank them for making the time to take part in the scrutiny process. They seemed a nice bunch.

Regrettably, our attempts to let Ian McKee and Helen Eadie journey to Canada, even by canoe, were thwarted by the Conveners Group, whose members are tough cookies when allocating funding to committees. I never want to go therapy shopping with them. However, they allowed four committee members to undertake a fact-finding visit to Helsinki, which is beautiful in ice and snow with a temperature of -23°, and Paris—forever charming—in January 2010. Not to digress into a travelogue, the focus of the visits was to examine public health policy in those countries. Finland is a country that is comparable with Scotland that has experimented with alcohol pricing via taxation. In France, rates of alcohol consumption and alcohol-related disease had dropped progressively and significantly, although admittedly from a high, for reasons other than tax and other retail controls.

The committee spent five weeks considering thereafter all the written and oral evidence and drafting its stage 1 report on the bill, which was published on 27 May. That was another hard grind that ended with our amending the report as we scrutinised changes on an overhead screen to cries from the exhausted chair of “Paragraph signed off; no going back”.

I stress that despite our many differences—again, I thank the clerks for diplomatic drafting assistance—the committee was unanimous in its recognition of the serious public health problems that are faced by Scotland because of its unhealthy relationship with alcohol, and of the genuine attempts of the Government, other political parties and stakeholders to address the issue.

As in much of the written and oral evidence that was received by the committee, members had a range of views on the potential benefit of introducing minimum unit pricing and how it might affect the level of alcohol consumption in Scotland. However, we agreed that a full debate on all the potential benefits of minimum unit pricing as well as on the legality in European Union law of the policy will not be sustainable in the absence of knowing the actual minimum unit price.

The committee was also of the view that a much more detailed debate is required between the Scottish Government and key stakeholders on the operation and impact of the proposed social responsibility levy. There was considerable consensus that the levy might be, as my history teacher used to drum into us, “a good thing”.

The committee acknowledges the desire of the Government to allow itself maximum flexibility in defining the details of policy areas such as minimum unit pricing and a social responsibility levy, by using subordinate legislation under the bill. However, on policy areas of such importance and widespread debate, the committee believed that Parliament must have the opportunity to scrutinise the key provisions fully, in the form of proposed primary legislation. In plain speak, that means “on the face of the bill”. The measures should indeed be put on the face of the bill at stage 2, so that further evidence can be taken, if necessary, prior to consideration of the amendments. I note what the cabinet secretary has said in that regard.

The committee was not wholly persuaded by the argument that licensing boards should be granted the power to raise the age of purchase for off-sales alcohol from 18 to 21. However, members fully support the proposal to bring the regime for off-sales alcohol discounts and promotions into line with those that currently exist for the on-sales trade. Concerns were expressed by some committee members, however, about the possible unintended consequences that might result from that change, including potential increases in revenues to the drinks industry. The committee considers that those concerns must be addressed by the Government.

The committee looks forward to hearing from the cabinet secretary about whether the Government will accept the committee’s recommendations. The cabinet secretary has already indicated that to some extent. Should the bill proceed to stage 2, we look forward to considering amendments to address the range of issues that are highlighted in our report.

I again thank our robust clerks and committee members. I ask Helen Eadie, who has offered me first aid before, to have the paracetamol ready for stage 2.

Richard Simpson (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

All of us in the chamber seek to reverse the 30 years of rising general alcohol consumption and increasing levels of hazardous drinking and harm. We should recognise, however, that 70 per cent of the population use alcohol responsibly. Unlike tobacco, there are health benefits from alcohol taken in moderation. We should not support policies that, although they might—I stress might—tackle the 7 per cent of harmful drinkers in our communities, would have a disproportionate effect on the 70 per cent and would not tackle the underlying culture.

The other problems that we all agree need to be tackled—this was reinforced by Chief Constable Stephen House—include those of young binge drinkers causing mayhem in the night economy and alcohol-fuelled crime. We must also tackle underage drinking, the majority of which is parent sanctioned. We do not have a robust test-purchasing programme, those who sell illegally are given derisory fines, and the SNP Government has not even felt it important enough to collect the data on suspensions for 2008-09, which is regrettable.

Most of all, the issue concerns the culture. Just as we successfully changed the culture on tobacco and on drink driving, so we have to change the culture on drinking. That could take a generation, but it is a task to which we must collectively apply ourselves.

There are many measures in the bill that we can support, but we need to pay heed to the evidence from the Law Society of Scotland, not least on the Labour-Liberal Licensing (Scotland) Act 2005, which contained a power unique in the world, on taking into account the public health interest and the protection of children. The 2005 act has yet to achieve its full potential in tackling availability, which is one of the three main drivers for potential change; the other two are price and culture. I accept the cabinet secretary’s arguments about price per se, although there is constant confusion between price and minimum unit pricing.

The SNP’s other proposal is mainly concerned with discounts and promotions. Labour supports such measures, although we hope to strengthen the provisions at stage 2. As the World Health Organization has stated, alcohol should be treated like no other commodity. A significant reduction in discounts and promotions could reduce consumption by about 3.1 per cent if the level were 40p, which is significant.

We do not accept the arguments of experts in the industry regarding the effects on the industry overseas. That is the basis of the Conservative amendment, and we do not accept it.

We believe that minimum unit pricing fails on many counts. For all the vocal support from health professionals in particular, the issue comes down to one question: does the Parliament believe that a single, untried and untested econometric model provides a sound basis for the main instrument to solve Scotland’s drinking problem? Although the model was peer reviewed, it was described to the Health and Sport Committee by its main author as “like the weather forecast”. Images of Michael Fish or the forecast of barbecue weather last summer come to mind. Why did Dr Meier say that? Like any good academic, she was responding honestly to a question. The question was why, when real data are applied retrospectively to it, the model does not do what it says on the tin. That point is fundamental to one of our arguments.

The cabinet secretary and most of the SNP members who support the minimum unit pricing measures repeatedly talk about “overwhelming evidence”. Frankly, that is dishonest. Only one piece of empirical evidence has been published on minimum unit pricing, and it is from an Aboriginal community that is not served by too many supermarkets. There is no other published evidence on it. What does exist is a single model, and that must be the basis of the debate. If it is not, the SNP is obsessing about the matter.

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Govan)

Richard Simpson accepts the relationship between price and consumption.

Richard Simpson (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Yes.

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Govan)

He is saying that he does not think that minimum unit pricing is the way to tackle that relationship. Can he tell us today what he thinks is the best way to tackle it?

Richard Simpson (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

No, but what I will do is complete the arguments against minimum unit pricing.

On the basis of a single econometric study, Scotland is once again to be used as an experimental laboratory. The last time we were used for the testing of an economic theory was when the poll tax was introduced. There is no evidence; there is just an untried and untested model. It is like weather forecasting. It is an experiment.

Who are the groups with the largest numbers of hazardous drinkers, by income? It is the richest half of the community. Which age group contains the largest number of hazardous drinkers? It is 18 to 24-year-olds. Who will be most responsive to the minimum unit price? It is not the harmful drinker, who, evidence shows, will substitute; it is not the richer half of the community, who can simply switch drinks and who will not be affected one jot even by a 60p minimum price; and it is not the young, heavier drinkers, whose consumption, according to Dr Petra Meier in her study, would be reduced by only 0.7 per cent. It will be the less well off in our community, as more of their spend is on cheap alcohol. The SNP failed to commission any research on low-income groups.

Minimum unit pricing fails on lack of evidence. It fails on its lack of effect when real data are applied to the model. It fails to tackle the richer, who consume far more. It fails to tackle the 18-to-24 age group, who have the greatest number of hazardous drinkers among them. It fails to tackle the night-economy drunkenness. It fails to tackle the culture of drinking. It fails to protect the poorest third from what could be punitive tax increases.

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Govan)

Will the member give way?

Richard Simpson (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I do not have time.

If that is not enough, the SNP failed to commission any research on the market response to the £113 million annual revenue windfall. What will the market do?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Govan)

Will the member give way on that point?

Richard Simpson (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

No.

The market will probably reduce to the minimum price the price of high-volume drinks that come just above it. The situation will not change. We still do not know what the SNP’s minimum unit price is, so we cannot test its legality.

Godfrey Robson, the civil servant who wrote the first alcohol action plan, recently wrote that the unanswerable questions on minimum unit pricing are whether it will be decisive and whether it will be sustainable. The answer is no.

I quote what NICE has said on the matter, which Murdo Fraser referred to:

“As would be expected, greater overall price increases lead to larger consumption reductions.”

The NICE report continues:

“Policies targeting price changes specifically on low-priced products lead to smaller changes in consumption, as they only cover a part of the market and induce substitution for other products by consumers.”

That is from the NICE report that was published last week. MUP is not acceptable.

Ross Finnie (Liberal Democrat, West of Scotland)

At a rather early stage in the morning, we are in danger of substituting volume for argument, which is slightly concerning.

I have some concerns about the bill and about the arguments that have just been adduced. I have heard clearly the view that the Sheffield report is effectively a load of rubbish. That view was expressed by those who might support a tax policy, which is not normally accompanied by evidence of its economic impact; of course, tax policies are not normally accompanied by evidence of their impact on drinking behaviour. I am, frankly, puzzled about which model might be used. If the evidence that came before the committee was clear about nothing else, it was clear about the prevalence of such modelling in determining courses of action in public health.

It is legitimate to point to areas of the study either where the conclusions require further reinforcement or where there are questions. However, I do not accept the argument that the modelling—in this case, the peer-review exercise was very complimentary about its potential use—should simply be dismissed. That invites the conclusion that we will never proceed because there will never be any way in which we can model or even suggest the effect of such a measure. We have moved into an area of debate in which we are in danger of setting precedents about the test that we might apply to public health policy.

Murdo Fraser said that he thinks that the SNP Government might be rushing into legislating in this area. There can be no question but that it has done that, and the Liberal Democrats are deeply concerned that, despite the length of time that it has taken, the bill’s preparation leaves a lot to be concerned about. It must have been obvious to the Government that, when the Parliament stated that it wanted the proposed measure to be contained in a bill and not a statutory instrument under the 2005 act, the Parliament was expressing the view that all aspects of this most important policy proposal should be subject to parliamentary scrutiny. Therefore, it must also have been obvious to the Government that the Parliament would want to debate the price. The cabinet secretary keeps telling us that she wants to set the price on the basis of the latest and best possible evidence. I accept her view, but I think that, as a parliamentarian, I am entitled to exactly the same access to the latest and best possible evidence. I cannot for the life of me understand why the Government has not understood the wish of Parliament in that regard.

Ian McKee (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

Would any minimum unit price that was set command Mr Finnie’s support for the bill?

Ross Finnie (Liberal Democrat, West of Scotland)

I will explain the relevance of the price as I develop my point. If we accept the various data on which the Sheffield model is constructed, even if we wish to probe and question certain of the conclusions that have been advanced from those, there is no doubt that the Sheffield model produces a range of potential health benefits. Two important matters arise from that.

First, if we are to assess properly the material or other health benefits that might accrue from minimum pricing, we need to know the price—I say to Dr McKee that that is the problem. I do not wholly accept Richard Simpson’s argument that at no point in the model do we get to the point at which minimum pricing affects other people. Indeed, I have questions about the assertion that 70 per cent of people drink responsibly. If 70 per cent drink responsibly, a heck of a lot of people are developing sclerosis of the liver without drinking irresponsibly. That gives me real concerns about the statistics on the general population, which is one of the areas where weaknesses in the data begin to emerge. I do not find such an assertion robust.

The second issue is that of the proposal’s legality. The Government must have known that Parliament would be concerned about that. Notwithstanding the proper certificate that the Presiding Officer gave to the bill, the Subordinate Legislation Committee revealed clearly that that was possible only because no price was mentioned. There is no question of members using the debate to challenge the Presiding Officer’s authority, but it is a fact that the Government needs to specify the minimum unit price before we can properly assess the legality or illegality of the bill. The Sheffield study is pivotal, and I do not accept all the criticisms that Richard Simpson made of it. Nevertheless, the Government must have known that the Scottish Parliament inquiring into a Scottish measure would properly expect the bill to contain as many Scottish data as possible.

Although the committee did an incredible job it was seriously hampered for those reasons in testing witnesses on the best possible evidence, which is the purpose of committee scrutiny. As anyone who has read the committee’s report can see, the committee was not satisfied that the case was made in a range of areas. Part of the problem—but not the whole problem—was the fact that some of the evidence did not enable the committee to arrive at a properly measured conclusion. I was one of those committee members who was perfectly willing to say that the bill should proceed to stage 2, but I was also one of those who contributed to the voluminous criticism in the report, calling for further evidence to be taken at stage 2. Whatever the merits or otherwise of the proposed measure, it would be good to have that debate.

Regrettably, with the best intentions in the world, the Government has introduced a bill that has major aspects that were very difficult to test and scrutinise properly, with the consequence that the committee’s conclusion does not give the bill the endorsement that the cabinet secretary might have hoped for. No parliamentarian doing their job could come to a simple conclusion on the basis of the evidence that was put to the committee. Nevertheless, although I believe that there was evidence, I think that to proceed in this way might set a dangerous precedent for the way in which we deal with other public health matters.

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk West)

We have heard this morning about the extent of Scotland’s problem in its relationship with alcohol. The evidence that the committee received clearly illustrated the deep-rooted and long-standing problem that Scotland has in that relationship, which is causing serious damage to individuals, families and communities throughout Scotland. The committee received evidence from children’s organisations, churches, health professional groups, medical professional groups, poverty groups, the Royal Society of Edinburgh and students organisations. As a member of the committee, I thank those organisations for the time that they took to submit their evidence to us, the range of which demonstrates the extent to which the issue affects our society.

The committee’s stage 1 report makes it clear that, despite the measures that have been taken by present and previous Governments to tackle Scotland’s relationship with alcohol, more needs to be done. If we are to achieve real change in the area, we must implement radical measures that will start to change Scotland’s relationship with alcohol. I believe that, collectively, the measures that are proposed in the bill will achieve that.

Much of today’s debate has focused on minimum pricing, which was also the case during consideration of the bill in committee. A series of arguments, many of them legitimate, have been made against minimum pricing. The main one, which was made at the outset, concerned the legality of minimum pricing. The main proponent of that argument was the Scotch Whisky Association. However, it is clear from the evidence that the SWA submitted to the Health and Sport Committee that a lot of the detail is fairly speculative in nature. The degree of certainty that the SWA tried to present to the committee in its argument demonstrates that it is simply trying to talk up the issue of illegality despite the fragile legal basis for its proposition. The more measured evidence from the Law Society of Scotland demonstrated that there is the potential to ensure that minimum pricing is capable of complying with EU law. It is not acceptable for those who oppose minimum pricing to shout as loudly as possible that it may be or is illegal, despite the limited legal basis for that argument.

Robert Brown (Liberal Democrat, Glasgow)

Does Michael Matheson accept that it is astonishing that, as we come to the stage 1 debate, the issue of legality is still not determined because the Government has not specified the price? Is that not an important consideration that needs to be dealt with?

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk West)

Robert Brown makes a fundamental mistake: even if the minimum price was announced today or last month, that would not stop those who argue that minimum pricing is illegal. Any provision of this nature could be challenged in the European courts. Overcoming the issue of legality is not dependent purely on the announcement of the minimum price.

I turn to another argument against minimum pricing, which is the impact that it would have on low-income families. Again, that was a legitimate concern raised by committee members and by other members today. However, when we hear politicians arguing that the policy will have a serious impact on people from low-income families, I would expect the same argument to be made by those who work with children from low-income families and with families who are on or below the poverty line. It is interesting that the evidence that the committee received from such organisations does not make that argument. In fact, they say that they support minimum pricing. They raise concerns that the policy could have an impact on low-income families, but they ask us to monitor the impact of the policy once it is introduced.

Helen Eadie (Labour, Dunfermline East)

Does Michael Matheson acknowledge that Tom Roberts at Children 1st stated clearly that there was not an exact link between price and consumption? There are many other such references throughout our report.

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk West)

I am not entirely sure how relevant that is to the issue. As the member will be aware, Children 1st, Barnardo’s Scotland and other organisations support minimum pricing as a way of trying to deal with the serious damage experienced by low-income families as a result of overconsumption of cheap alcohol. The member raises another argument that has been created for political reasons, without any evidence to support it.

Another main concern is over the potential for minimum pricing to put more money into the retailers’ pockets. Again, that is a legitimate concern. However, we must consider the evidence that the committee received on the issue. Increased income for retailers in this regard is driven by two things: one is to do with minimum pricing, and the other is to do with the ban on discounting. What I find interesting is that those who argue against minimum pricing on the basis that it will increase retailers’ profits are perfectly happy to support the ban on discounting, despite the fact that it will also increase retailers’ profits. That position is completely hypocritical, yet it was adopted by Richard Simpson today.

I welcome the fact that people on all sides of the debate recognise that price and availability are important drivers in the consumption of alcohol. However, it is staggering that those who oppose minimum pricing as a serious attempt to tackle the problem in Scotland have not come up with one alternative measure to ensure that we get on top of the issue.

Richard Baker (Labour, North East Scotland)

I congratulate the Health and Sport Committee on its scrutiny of the Alcohol etc (Scotland) Bill, and Christine Grahame on the restraint and humour in her speech as convener.

The report reflects the fact that while there is not consensus on every policy, the committee has diligently carried out its duty to scrutinise the legislation and its evidence base. It also makes it clear that all parties are troubled by the extent of alcohol misuse in Scotland and want effective action to tackle our heavy drinking culture. Obviously, that is important from a health perspective; however, it is also crucial from a law-and-order perspective. That was reflected in Chief Constable Stephen House’s comments—which the cabinet secretary referred to—when earlier in the week he spoke of the number of assaults and murders in recent months that have been linked to alcohol misuse. Although it is right that he should highlight that link, we cannot get away from the fact that the coverage of those incidents in The Herald showed the prevalence of the use of knives in those offences. That is a matter to which we will return in the Criminal Justice and Licensing (Scotland) Bill.

To address the relationship between alcohol misuse and crime, we have called for the use of alcohol treatment and testing orders for offenders whose drink problem has contributed to their crimes. That has also led us to seek action on caffeinated alcohol; indeed, the article in The Herald referred to a Buckfast bottle being used in an assault on a young man by his brother. We believe that the amount of caffeine in alcoholic products should be limited. We have talked time and again about evidence, and on that issue, the evidence is clear. In January, Strathclyde Police told the BBC that between 2006 and 2009 Buckfast was mentioned in 5,638 crime reports in the region, equating to three a day on average.

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee East)

Given the importance given to modelling and evidence by Richard Simpson, will the member tell us what level of reduction in harm has been measured in relation to the proposal on caffeine? What impact, in measurement and modelling terms, would that policy have?

Richard Baker (Labour, North East Scotland)

The minister should look not only to evidence from here—from Glasgow Caledonian University, for example—but to evidence from abroad. The evidence on caffeinated alcohol is far stronger than the evidence for a minimum unit price. I have more statistics that minister may wish to hear. One in 10 of the offences to which Strathclyde Police referred were violent. A bottle was used as a weapon 114 times in that period. Bottles are now the second most common weapon of attack. There is yet more evidence. The need for action is clear, and I hope that we can persuade others to support us on the issue.

I have never supported the proposal that the bill should include raising to 21 the age at which one can purchase alcohol in off-licences, but I very much welcome the proposal for a mandatory age verification scheme. For the past two years, we have supported a mandatory challenge 25 scheme as an effective way of tackling underage drinking. However, in order to tackle underage drinking and excessive drinking in general, it is vital that the current licensing laws are properly enforced. The cabinet secretary referred to that, but there are concerns that still not enough is being done. For example, in the past two years, only one person has been successfully prosecuted for selling alcohol to someone who was already drunk, and only three people were proceeded against. That issue requires far more action from the Government, beyond the bill.

One of the concerns that we have raised about minimum pricing relates to the extent of the profits from which the drinks industry would benefit as a result of its introduction. We prefer measures that could result in funds being retained for investment in important alcohol misuse services. Of course, that can be achieved through taxation, and the previous Labour UK Government increased duty on alcohol, and wished to do so on cider in particular.

A social responsibility levy offers a similar opportunity to ensure that those who profit from the sale of alcohol contribute to the provision of services and initiatives to deal with its misuse. I welcome the fact that it has the potential to be something wider than simply a levy based on the polluter-pays principle—it is something in the bill that we can support. There is a range of measures on which there can be agreement, and I am sure that new, practical measures will be proposed through the alcohol commission that we have established, which will report back before stage 2.

We need a wide range of measures because there is no silver bullet that will tackle alcohol misuse; certainly, a minimum unit price is not a panacea. The SNP proposition is to establish a consensus on tackling alcohol misuse. However, consensus means that everyone has to agree—in this case, to support a minimum unit price for alcohol—and I do not believe that that is helping the debate, particularly given the clear problems with the minimum unit price proposal. The issue of cross-border alcohol sales was flagged up in the committee report: I refer not only to Carlisle as the new Calais but to internet sales, which the committee recognises are increasing greatly. I worry about the potential for minimum unit pricing to lead to greater illicit sales of alcohol, thereby contributing to criminal activity. The issue has not been considered properly thus far.

As the Law Society of Scotland pointed out in its evidence, there may be justification for the policy in terms of European law, but it requires to be tested. It is by no means evident that the policy will be successful. I am afraid that the cabinet secretary’s failure to state what the minimum unit price will be not only weakens the general argument for it but raises the suspicion that there are deep concerns about its legality. I say that because the Scottish Government is unwilling to test the matter now.

It is quite wrong to suggest that those who are unwilling to support one proposal are not serious about tackling alcohol misuse. There are important matters on which we can agree and new proposals that we and others will bring forward that we hope will attract support. That is what we should reflect on today. What is not in question is that we have to change our country’s damaging relationship with alcohol. I think that there is a determination across the chamber to find the most effective policies to do so. That is why we have come forward with our policy proposals not only to change laws but to take action that works.

Ian McKee (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

Like other members, I recognise the complexity of Scotland’s relationship with alcohol. I also recognise that culture plays a major role and that no single measure is the answer to all problems. Beneficial change will not come about by legislation alone. What is required is a sea change in the way in which everyone considers alcohol and the place that it has in society. That said, I believe that legislation has a role to play, within which the proposal for minimum unit pricing has an important place. Given that minimum unit pricing is one of the most controversial elements of the bill, I will devote the rest of my speech to it.

Let us consider some of the arguments that have been presented against minimum unit pricing. The first is that the proposal is not firmly evidence based. I refer to the widely respected modelling exercise that Dr Petra Meier of the University of Sheffield conducted. On reflection, Richard Simpson may come to regret some of his remarks on the subject. The exercise was simply a forecast using best evidence. Indeed, when, in her evidence to the committee, Dr Meier likened it to a weather forecast, one could hear the snorts of derision from opponents, which have been repeated today, yet the Government, like its predecessor, thinks so highly of weather forecasting that it gives the director of meteorology services a salary that is greater than that of the Prime Minister. No sensible sailor sets out without first checking the shipping forecast, likewise the sensible aircraft pilot without first checking the Met Office report. Forecasts have some value. The reason that there is no harder evidence is that no country has tried minimum unit pricing and rigorously assessed it. Why should we not be the first? If everyone waited until someone else had done something, nothing would ever be done. Given that we are world leaders in alcohol problems, why should we not be the country to lead the way on minimum unit pricing?

I turn to the effect of minimum unit pricing on poor families. The truth is that poor people are simply poor, not feckless or stupid. According to the Scottish Government’s analytical services division, 23 per cent of people in the lowest income quintile buy no alcohol at all—they have better things on which to spend their limited resources. Of the rest, 57 per cent drink on average 4.9 units a week and so will be only marginally affected, and 20 per cent fall into the category of hazardous or harmful drinkers. The last group, which another report showed drink on average 198 units a week, would be heavily hit by minimum unit pricing, but they are the people who suffer hugely and excessively from the physical and psychiatric harm that is done by alcohol. Given that there is evidence that even that group is price responsive, the rise in the price of cheap alcohol that would be occasioned by minimum unit pricing would certainly save lives and prevent ill health.

The Opposition makes great play of the allegation that minimum unit pricing simply puts money into the pockets of supermarkets. We have heard that again today. There are two drawbacks to the argument. First, as Michael Matheson pointed out, the banning of deep discounting, two-for-one offers and so forth also puts money into supermarket pockets, yet those measures seem to meet with approval from those who oppose minimum unit pricing on that very ground. That said, of much more importance is the question, why are most supermarkets firmly against minimum unit pricing? Is it, as Nick Grant of Sainsbury’s told the committee, a matter of principle to refuse this largesse? I doubt it. I tend to believe the argument that people ranging from the owner of a small corner shop in my constituency to Mitchells and Butlers, which owns 2,000 pubs in the UK, have put forward—supermarkets use low-priced alcohol as a loss-leader to attract more customers who then buy their groceries from the same store. As well as fuelling our alcohol spree with cheap alcohol, the supermarkets threaten the viability of small shops and pubs in Scotland, where alcohol can be as much as seven times as expensive as it is in supermarkets.

Almost all the evidence that we hear against minimum unit pricing comes from the vested interests who produce or sell alcohol—those who would lose out if Scotland were to reduce its drinking habits. On the other hand, we hear a torrent of evidence in favour of minimum unit pricing from a vast array of impartial witnesses. I refer to all the directors of health of Scotland’s terrestrial health boards, the chief medical officers of the four home countries, the British Medical Association, the medical royal colleges, the police, churches and organisations that care for those who are wrestling with alcohol—the list goes on and on, yet the Opposition opposes. The stance of Opposition members reminds me of the first world war Irving Berlin song in which a proud mother watching her son marching off to France with his battalion exclaims to her friends:

“They were all out of step but Jim”.

I will conclude with two quotes from international public health consultant Dr Peter Anderson. The first is from a meeting in Edinburgh last year:

“Internationally, Scotland is seen as a public health leader. You had the courage to introduce smoke free pubs; let us hope that you have the same courage to introduce a minimum price for alcohol.”

The second is from his submission to the Health and Sport Committee:

“If ... the Scottish Parliament does not introduce a minimum price, then it has to accept the consequences of its inaction: more Scottish deaths, more crime and more unemployment.”

What we have to consider today is this: no one will die if minimum unit pricing is introduced, but people may well die if it is not. I strongly support minimum unit pricing in Scotland.

Rhoda Grant (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

I am clear that Scotland has a problem with alcohol: we drink when we are happy, we drink when we are sad, we drink to celebrate and we drink to commiserate. Very little of what we do socially does not involve alcohol. This is a cultural issue; one that is catching on across the globe. The cost of alcohol abuse to the NHS in the Highlands and Islands is in the region of £12.3 million a year, which is massive, but the cost to families, particularly children, is immeasurable. Doing nothing is not an option. To the Government’s credit, it introduced the bill in an attempt to tackle the issue. That said, what the bill proposes and what is missing from it need to be challenged. Some measures in the bill will work well, but others will not.

In its briefing, Children 1st said:

“Minimum pricing is not a ‘silver bullet’ but we support it because it will help to put an end to cheap alcohol.”

Minimum pricing has gained such support because it is seen as the only option. That is not the case. It is our duty to ensure that the options that are put forward are workable and effective.

I was part of the Health and Sport Committee delegation to France and Finland, where we looked at policies and problems. In Finland, the price of alcohol is historically high due to taxation and the country always having a strong temperance movement. All off-licences are operated by Alko, the state-owned monopoly; supermarkets cannot sell alcohol apart from low-alcohol beer. That means that anyone who wants to buy alcohol has to go to Alko, where there are no special offers, no promotions and no enticements to drink more. When Estonia joined the EU, the Finnish Government recognised that Finland would be subject to cross-border trade and lowered taxation on alcohol to mitigate the effect. That led to a substantial increase in Finnish alcohol consumption, as a result of which the Government again increased taxation on alcohol over a number of years. It is clear that the falling price led to an increase in consumption. However, the rise in price did not lead to a fall in consumption.

In France, things are different. Historically, the French have had a very high alcohol consumption rate. Because of the strong wine industry lobby, it is almost impossible for the Government to raise taxes on wine, therefore it remains a low-cost product. However the Government has increased taxation on spirits, making them much more expensive. The overall rate of alcohol consumption in France has fallen, but that fall has masked a rise in spirit drinking—it is wine consumption that has fallen dramatically. Again, rising prices appear to have had little or no impact on consumption.

In both countries, people pointed to a range of factors that had helped to decrease drinking. In France, it was believed that wine consumption had fallen due to drink driving laws. Wine had been the drink of choice of the older generation, who tended to live in rural areas. When drink driving laws were enforced, those who had to drive had to stop drinking. In Finland, there has been a drop in consumption in the 18-to-24 age group. No research has been carried out into the reasons for that; the only explanation that people could offer was Alko’s advertising campaign, which focused on parents, encouraging them not to drink when their children were present and showing the impact on young people of their parents’ drinking. In France, people believed that they were moving from a Mediterranean drinking culture to a more global drinking culture that had much more in common with the drinking culture of northern Europe and involved young people binge drinking on spirits.

The main policy direction of the bill is minimum unit pricing, but there is no empirical evidence that a price increase leads to a decrease in consumption. However, there is clear evidence that lowering price leads to increased consumption. The bill looks at promotions, but it is not clear that it goes far enough in that area. In effect, promotions lower price, and it has been shown that lower price increases consumption. The bill needs to be strengthened in that regard.

Minimum pricing will not have the effect that is sought. That is borne out by the experience of other countries. The only supporting evidence is the Sheffield report, which uses modelling rather than empirical evidence to show effect. Increasing price has not impacted anywhere else, and there is no evidence that Scotland will be different.

I will touch on the social responsibility levy. The committee attempted to take evidence on the policy, but that became impossible due to a lack of detail. It appeared to me that there were three policy choices: a polluter-pays levy, a blanket levy and a levy with incentives for good practice. Different sections of the community and industry believed that levies would work, but it was difficult to build a consensus, due to the lack of detail. In the written answer to a question from my colleague Richard Simpson, it emerged that the cabinet secretary had not met the industry since August 2009, which makes it difficult to work through the process and to get more detail on the policy.

The Government argued to the committee that the levy could help to recoup the largesse of the minimum pricing policy. However, it was not clear whether only off-licences would have to pay the levy. It appeared that the on-trade, which would not benefit financially from minimum pricing, might also have to pay. Others argued that recent changes to the licensing laws had not been properly implemented and that proper implementation of those changes would negate the need for a social responsibility levy.

However, it was clear that the levy could provide finance to help local authorities to deal with the cost of problem drinking. Again, that issue needs further work. As I indicated, the cost of drinking to the NHS is massive. I ask the cabinet secretary to consider ways of ensuring that funding from the levy can be used to offset some of that cost. The cabinet secretary needs to return to the committee at stage 2 with a great deal more detail on the proposals, to enable the committee to scrutinise them effectively and to bring forward a policy that is fair and that works.

Regardless of whether it is or is not legal, minimum pricing will not tackle Scotland’s problem with alcohol. The Government needs to bring forward robust measures to tackle the problem, or the opportunity that the bill presents will be missed.

Mary Scanlon (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

We share all of the concerns that have been expressed about the high level of alcohol consumption in Scotland and our complex relationship with alcohol, to which other members have referred. I thank the Conveners Group for agreeing to fund the Health and Sport Committee’s visit to Finland and France, which we found extremely helpful.

We have examined the evidence base for the relationship between the minimum price of alcohol and reductions in overall consumption, and we do not think that minimum pricing will be effective in achieving its goal. However, we support many other measures in the bill, which will be effective in reducing alcohol consumption.

The first and second versions of the Sheffield study on minimum pricing varied considerably: the new version predicted 35 per cent fewer deaths attributable to alcohol, 43 per cent fewer alcohol-related deaths in 10 years and 20 per cent fewer hospital admissions in year 1. Unfortunately, all of the discussion with witnesses at stage 1 and everything that is contained in the committee’s stage 1 report was based on the previous Sheffield model, not the up-to-date, more accurate version, which contains Scottish rather than English data.

Also missing from the Sheffield study is the effect of cross-border trading, which we know can be significant. There is no mention of internet sales, in spite of the fact that Asda reports for alcohol

“very high, double-digit, year-on-year growth in internet sales.”—[Official Report, Health and Sport Committee, 10 March 2010; c 2909.]

The Sheffield study contains no analysis of binge drinking, which is one of our biggest problems. As other members have said, there is no mention of the effect on low-income families. There is also no examination of the substitution effect—for example, some younger people might use illegal drugs instead of alcohol.

The model, which has been likened to the weather forecast, is based on an increase in price to the minimum price and an assumed fall in demand, but other ways of buying alcohol—over the internet and from across the border—will negate any such fall. When prices were raised in Finland, people continued to consume alcohol at the same level—they just bought more from Estonia. Professor Beath confirmed that, as the price falls, more will be consumed, but that, as the price rises, people will find ways of continuing to consume at the same level, at lower prices. The committee saw and heard that throughout its evidence.

Given that minimum pricing will lead to increased revenues and potential profits for producers and retailers, the higher income will allow them to reduce the price of more expensive alcohol products, in order to sell a greater volume of alcohol while maintaining revenues and profits. As was stated in evidence, minimum pricing could result in an increase in overall sales of alcohol, not a reduction.

The 2008 Scottish health survey was the basis for mark 2 of the Sheffield study. It confirms that weekly consumption for men and women has fallen significantly, yet there have been no corresponding reductions in health or justice harms, which the Sheffield study predicts for reduced alcohol consumption. The survey also states:

“Levels of consumption were highest among women in managerial and professional households, in the highest income quintile and among those living in the least deprived areas.”

A minimum price is much less likely to reduce alcohol consumption by higher income earners, given that the price increase will be a smaller percentage of their income.

There is no doubt that culture is a major issue in the consumption of alcohol in Scotland. Audit Scotland’s “Overview of mental health services” states clearly:

“up to one in two people with alcohol problems may have a mental health problem.”

Paying more attention to early diagnosis and intervention for people with mental health issues might prevent them from resorting to alcohol as a form of self-medication.

During the committee’s visits to Finland and France, we were constantly asked why we were proposing to introduce a minimum price, which would increase profits for retailers and producers, rather than a tax, which would increase income to Government. People at the French Treasury found that incredible, as did many in Finland. That is clear from today’s debate.

Much has been said about whether the introduction of a minimum price is competent under EU law—an issue that is still to be resolved. The issue is not just whether the minimum price per unit will be 40p, 50p, 60p or 70p; the Parliament does not know how the approach can be compatible with EU law while we do not know whether it is the least intrusive method or whether the health benefits that are claimed for it are accurate. I was surprised that we did not receive further clarity in that regard.

The social responsibility levy has not been thought through and Government officials have not met the industry in six months.

There is no evidence for minimum pricing. We need clarity in promotional materials. The social responsibility levy has not been presented in a manner that gives confidence. On that basis, we will abstain in the vote on the motion.

Helen Eadie (Labour, Dunfermline East)

I share the view that there is no disagreement between the parties in the Parliament on Scotland’s severe alcohol problems. Every health professional and voluntary organisation that gave evidence to the committee made the case for policy development and financial resources in that crucial area of social policy. We are persuaded.

We have worked our way through the submissions and through the evidence that was gathered over many hours. For the removal of doubt, I will say that I am persuaded by that evidence that minimum unit pricing is not the magic bullet that some people would have us believe it is. I will seek to have the provisions on minimum pricing amended at stage 2.

I was not elected to contribute to the passing of legislation that will potentially line retailers’ pockets with billions of pounds at the expense of low-income families. The cabinet secretary was wrong in that regard. I refer her to pages 21 and 22 of the Health and Sport Committee’s report. The committee quoted Dr Petra Meier, who said:

“no separate modelling has been done by income group.”—[Official Report, Health and Sport Committee, 10 February 2010; c 2715.]

Dr Meier said clearly that the Government did not request that.

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee East)

Will the member give way?

Helen Eadie (Labour, Dunfermline East)

Not yet.

Throughout stage 1, I have been concerned about the impact of the policy on low-income families, among other things. The cabinet secretary acknowledged that in the Sheffield study insufficient attention was paid to that aspect, because of a variety of constraints, in particular the relatively small sample sizes.

No money will come to central Government under the proposal, at a time when the Government faces unprecedented financial challenges. In written evidence to the committee, Professor Tim Stockwell from Canada said that a fundamental concern when shaping such a public policy was that there was no financial return to the Government.

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee East)

On the member’s point about money going to supermarkets, I take it that, if it is clear that proposals on quantity discounting would also give money to supermarkets, the member will oppose them.

Helen Eadie (Labour, Dunfermline East)

I am more persuaded by the argument about the universal application of a social responsibility levy. I have considered the issue in detail, but I want to hear more views. I might be persuaded to go down that route.

When Labour’s alcohol commission produces its full report, we will identify other matters for Government action. Some issues in the bill are worth supporting, such as proof-of-age schemes, restrictions on promotions and the modification of licensing conditions, as well as the social responsibility levy—although, as Patrick Browne suggested in his submission, Fergus Ewing, who feverishly fought against such a proposal in the previous session of the Parliament, is in danger of being hoist by his own petard.

Minimum unit pricing is a step too far. I agree with the commentators who have said that the focus is on blunt and ineffective measures that fail to target problems where they occur. The Sheffield study was the focus of much of our discussion. Its authors’ claim that their solution would work in Scotland was based on modelling. Witnesses and sometimes committee members sought to impress on me that modelling is a well-established tool on which to base our decision—Ross Finnie dwelled on that point—and cited examples that they thought would persuade me to accept their arguments.

Many members are sceptical about modelling that has led to change, not always for the better. For example, modelling led to the introduction of absurd traffic schemes in parts of our country. What about the books and websites on financial modelling and the courses on options derivatives and financial mathematics? They talk about robust financial dealings, but let us consider where modelling got many banks and companies. The Sheffield paper lacked empirical evidence and relied entirely on a theoretical approach. Research over recent days into a variety of academic papers on modelling has shown me that modelling comes with not-insignificant health warnings.

Dr Petra Meier advised the committee that modelling was like weather forecasting. Professor John Beath of the University of St Andrews told the committee that modelling could produce results that were consistent with the data but not necessarily realistic. He described how harmful drinkers can become more addicted and find it particularly difficult to cut back on consumption, and said that other non-model issues had not been factored into the Sheffield study. He told us:

“substantially increasing the price of a particular good encourages people to consider other ways in which to get that good, such as through the internet or cross-border shopping. What happens in Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland is an excellent example—there are even rural routes across the border and a lot of cross-border trade.”—[Official Report, Health and Sport Committee, 24 February 2010; c 2781.]

Professor Beath said that the scale of such issues is “extraordinarily difficult” to judge.

The cabinet secretary and her officials have hugely underestimated the impact of cross-border and internet sales. I agree that that is a matter of political judgment, but I think that her judgment is wrong. David Paterson, from Asda, told the committee:

“In Northern Ireland, our store in Enniskillen, which is on the border, is the number 1 performing store in our UK chain and the number 6 performing store in the global Walmart chain.”—[Official Report, Health and Sport Committee, 10 March 2010; c 2909.]

Finland changed its policy because of the impact of cross-border and internet sales. The cabinet secretary should take note.

Many witnesses gave us reasons why we should not accept minimum pricing or the modelling approach. Michel Perron, the chief executive officer of the Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse, said:

“The issue is not so much consumption as the manner in which and the purpose for which alcohol is consumed ... the evidence will remain equivocal.”—[Official Report, Health and Sport Committee, 23 March 2010; c 2997.]

For many reasons, I oppose the Government’s proposal on minimum unit pricing. However, I support many measures in the bill.

Maureen Watt (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

I have not been a member of the Health and Sport Committee, but I congratulate its members on their detailed work and I welcome the debate.

I cannot think of a bill that has generated more debate among a wide cross-section of the community than the Alcohol etc (Scotland) Bill has done. Our young people have become extremely interested in the debate and, as a result, in the wider politics of health, crime and social responsibility. I am the mother of an 18-year-old student youth and a 17-year-old who is younger than her classmates, and goodness knows I have had my ear bent during the past year or so.

As the debate has progressed, more and more people have become aware of their drinking habits and the alcohol problem that blights Scottish society. The problem not only makes a night out in our town and city centres a frightening experience, creating no-go areas for decent folk who want a good night out, but denies people access to health services that they require. I cannot be the only member who has spent night shifts with the police or the Scottish Ambulance Service and witnessed alcohol-related incidents. Are we serving the public to the best of our abilities if ambulances are being diverted to incidents that are the result of binge drinking at home or on nights out, instead of meeting the needs of elderly people, who might have less dramatic symptoms but more serious long-term illnesses?

Aberdeen royal infirmary is not the only hospital in which, on any night of the week, beds and trolleys are blocked by people who are sleeping off the effects of too much drink. I recently obtained figures that show that alcohol-related hospital discharges in Aberdeen have increased by 30 per cent since 2004-05—that is the second highest percentage increase in Scotland. At any time, never mind in a period of public spending austerity, do taxpayers think that that is a good use of taxpayers’ money and health professionals’ time? I do not think so.

Scots have the eighth highest consumption of alcohol in the world. Half of all prisoners in Scotland’s jails were drunk when they committed their offence. As others have mentioned, 14 of the 18 murders in Strathclyde since 1 April were drink related. An estimated one in 20 deaths in Scotland is attributable to alcohol. Our relationship with booze is killing our country. The total cost of alcohol misuse to the Scottish economy is £3.56 billion annually. Harmful drinkers spend far less per unit than moderate drinkers do, so minimum pricing would clearly have a greater impact on them, as it is intended to do. Harmful drinkers represent an estimated 6 per cent of all drinkers but represent 41 per cent of the anticipated reduction in hospital admissions.

Murdo Fraser mentioned the Scotch Whisky Association’s opposition to minimum pricing. I have worked in the whisky industry, and I remember the days when employees were given a dram at lunch time and in the evening. That practice was replaced with the provision of a bottle a month. I do not think that that happens now. Perhaps the industry has recognised the problems of harmful drinking. Murdo Fraser was selective about the information in his speech. For example, was Whyte & Mackay not forced to concede that a 40p minimum price in Scotland would mean that job losses were unlikely? Murdo Fraser’s call to wait for the outcome of one budget decision on alcohol from Westminster is, frankly, derisory.

Both Richard Simpson’s and Richard Baker’s opposition to minimum pricing at all costs—the costs to our nation’s health and wellbeing—without proposing any alternatives and kicking the proposal into the long grass by setting up a commission cannot lead to any conclusion other than that they are playing party politics with the nation’s health.

Richard Baker (Labour, North East Scotland)

Does Maureen Watt accept that we have proposed a range of alternative measures, including alcohol treatment and testing orders and action on caffeinated alcohol? What consideration has she given to the potential for minimum unit pricing to increase the illicit sale of alcohol and, indeed, increase crime?

Maureen Watt (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

When the committee gets to stage 2, it will of course consider all of that. Of course, the bill proposes aspects other than minimum pricing.

Thank goodness that I belong to a party that was principled enough to support the Liberal Democrat-Labour Executive when it took up SNP members’ suggestion on smoking legislation, instead of opposing for the sake of it. It seems that Labour opposes minimum pricing only because the SNP proposes it. Otherwise, why did Labour choose to come out against minimum pricing on the day that the bill was published and before it had heard any evidence?

I accept that minimum pricing is not a silver bullet—we have never said that it is—but it will tackle the serious problem of overconsumption of alcohol. I was in Alberta on the day that it introduced restrictions on promotional activity, sales and licensing for alcohol, and I have been interested to watch the results of that. In Scotland, the price of alcohol is at its lowest for 30 years—that must be addressed. Minimum pricing will mean that people, especially young people, will go out drinking on fewer days of the week, because they will simply not be able to afford to do otherwise. For the Opposition to say that minimum pricing should not be tried means that it is burying its head in the sand.

Hugh Henry (Labour, Paisley South)

I regret the comments from both the cabinet secretary and Maureen Watt about party politics, because, as far as I can hear, not only today but during the course of the debate, the only people who have tried to introduce party politics into the debate have been members of the SNP, who have consistently refused to listen to and talk and work with members of other parties. Indeed, for the past two years, I and others have called for a consensual approach and joint party working to try to come up with a solution to the problem. However, the minister and the cabinet secretary have refused to meet and work with the other parties to bring anything constructive forward.

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Govan)

Hugh Henry might like to reflect on the last thing that he said, because I have met other parties and have always said that I would work with them on a range of proposals. Does Hugh Henry accept that there is a consensus on minimum pricing, which includes not just the SNP but doctors, nurses, the police, the royal colleges, the chief medical officers and a host of children’s charities? There is a consensus—the problem is that Labour is not part of it.

Hugh Henry (Labour, Paisley South)

The cabinet secretary may well have met people individually. The point that I have made consistently for the past two years is that there should have been a cross-party initiative or working group to meet with experts to come up with something sustainable. I commend ministers for their initiative in stimulating an alcohol debate but, unfortunately, they have refused to engage constructively with others in the Parliament, which I regret.

As others have said, the extent of our problem with alcohol is a matter of record. We now have one of the highest cirrhosis rates in western Europe—it is much higher than the rate in England. Over the past 30 years, UK cirrhosis mortality has risen by over 450 per cent across the population, with a 52 per cent increase in alcoholic liver disease between 1998 and 2002. In Scotland, chronic liver disease mortality more than doubled between 1982 and 2008.

No one can doubt the need for action. Indeed, I agree with Maureen Watt’s point about the alcohol-related problems for our NHS and the impact that they have on others. The BMA has said that, in 2008-09, there were 41,922 alcohol-related discharges from general hospitals in Scotland. I know of the problem from personal experience because I remember that when my elderly father—God rest him—fell and broke his hip on Christmas eve, he had to wait nearly three hours for an ambulance. The ambulance staff were apologetic about the length of time that it had taken, which was because of the drunkenness and mayhem that they had had to deal with on Christmas eve. That is the human consequence of the problems that we face.

We face a growing impact, too, from women drinking to excess, and Richard Baker and others have spoken about the law and order problems that excess alcohol consumption causes. In that regard, I and some of my colleagues in the west of Scotland met the chief constable of Strathclyde this week and heard about the 14 murders that were alcohol related. The chief constable was right to point out the mayhem in towns and cities across Scotland every Friday and Saturday night, which we need to address. We need to have a view in this country that that kind of public drunkenness is just unacceptable and will be dealt with. We need to stop being frivolous and making jokes about drunkenness being okay and something to aspire to. We also need action to remove licences where that is appropriate. We need more rigorous testing of alcohol sales, as Richard Simpson, Richard Baker and others have said, to ensure that young people do not have access to alcohol. I support, too, Richard Baker’s call for the problem of caffeine-based alcohol drinks to be addressed, because that is a chronic problem.

I agree with the concept of the polluter paying and with social responsibility payments. However, the mayhem on the streets is not necessarily caused by pubs and other small establishments. Many young people drink before they go out. Why should the publicans pay for the problems that are caused by cheap alcohol that is sold by supermarkets? Indeed, if we are talking about the polluter, surely the polluter is the intelligent drunk person with money in their pocket or purse whose drunkenness and loutish behaviour costs the rest of society dearly. They are the people who need to be challenged and penalised for the pollution that they cause. We need more action against public drunkenness and bad behaviour.

I agree that the cost of the alcohol that is sold in supermarkets is an issue. Michael Matheson posed the point that stopping discounting would surely just put more money in the supermarkets’ pockets. Well, the way I understand marketing to work is that stopping discounting reduces sales, reducing sales reduces revenue and reducing revenue reduces profits, so stopping discounting does not have the impact that he and the cabinet secretary tried to suggest. I am also opposed to the idea of giving local authorities the ability to vary the age at which alcohol can be purchased from off-sales within their areas. In my part of Renfrewshire, would it be sensible to say that young people could buy alcohol in Johnstone but not in Linwood? What would that mean in terms of young people buying drink in other communities? Even if the legal age for off-sales was allowed to be varied between different local authorities, would it be sensible that young people could buy alcohol in Penilee, which is in Glasgow, but not in Ralston, which is in Renfrewshire? What would be the effect in places that lie on the borders between two local authority areas? Those sorts of inconsistencies would arise.

Although others have highlighted the issues with minimum pricing, one issue that has not been addressed in detail is the fact that not only would there be an increase in cross-border and internet sales but, in many communities, the criminal fraternity would then be able to sell cheap alcohol along with tobacco and drugs out of white vans. We should not underestimate the impact of that.

I hope that there is still time for us to come together as a Parliament and have a sensible debate on alcohol. I commend the cabinet secretary and her colleagues for what they have done so far, but it is time for them to face up to the fact that they should listen to the will of Parliament.

Bill Kidd (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

We all know that alcohol is an intrinsic part of Scottish culture. From christenings to weddings to funerals, and at every point in between, drink forms not so much a social cement as a synovial fluid that is used to allow Scots to adopt bonhomie, sentimentality, joviality, aggression and faux self-confidence in equal measure. Indeed, it sometimes provides all those personality traits at the one time. The booze can bring people together to celebrate and commiserate and, just as easily, it can rip them apart in anger and recrimination.

Do not get me wrong. It is not only the Scots who fall out over drink, but it seems that only we can fall out over how we get drink out of our culture, which it pervades at the moment. When ChildLine, Children 1st, the BMA and the churches all tell us that the issue of the excess consumption of alcohol is too important for party politicking, I believe that it is incumbent on us to listen to them and to do the business on behalf of our young people in particular.

When I was young and at school or college, drinking was hardly unknown but drink was much less available and the price was proportionately much higher than it is today. Back then, no alcohol advertising was aimed directly at young people. Drinks were not deliberately priced at pocket-money levels. No sober-minded person thinks that alcohol being sold at less than the price of bottled water is acceptable.

The Reverend Ian Galloway, who is convener of the Church of Scotland’s church and society council and a man for whose opinion I have the highest regard, has said:

“We urge you to step back from the debate about details and support the principle that addressing the affordability of alcohol through minimum pricing is a crucial part of the solution to our problems with alcohol.”

Robert Brown (Liberal Democrat, Glasgow)

I accept that argument about principle, but surely to goodness the issue for the Parliament is to have legislation that works in practical terms and does the business. Is that not what today’s debate should be about?

Bill Kidd (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

That is what the debate has been about. There might be a question over what the minimum price should be, but the cabinet secretary has already told us that that information is coming and will be central to how the bill progresses. At stage 1, we need to discuss why in principle we should advance proposals to cut the devastation that alcohol causes across Scottish society.

I for one take note of the opinion of Ian Galloway and others that the debate should not be about the SNP against Labour or Tory or Lib Dem along what might be called 40 proof ideological lines. The debate should be about what the Parliament can do for the betterment of everyone in our society and the future of our young people. Therefore, I ask for steady heads and clear vision on the part of those who, for party-political reasons, intend to oppose the bill at stage 1. We should take Scotland’s problem with drink seriously enough to work together to address the social ills that excess alcohol consumption can cause.

Malcolm Chisholm (Labour, Edinburgh North and Leith)

My starting point for this subject is the health graph that I saw in a presentation from the chief medical officer a few months ago. The graph showed that chronic liver disease has increased by 500 per cent in Scotland over the past 25 years and, even more alarmingly, there has been an incredibly steep rise in the number of deaths over the past six or seven years. In response to that, there is no doubt that a range of measures is required. In that context, I welcome the proposals that have come forward from Labour’s alcohol commission.

Where I differ from my colleagues, however, while respecting their views, is that I believe that minimum unit pricing must be part of the mix of measures and, indeed, is the glue that holds that mix together. Some people have highlighted culture as the problem, but price is a key part of culture. I do not believe that culture can be effectively changed without dealing with the dirt-cheap prices that are a roadblock to culture change.

There may well be public resistance when we talk about minimum unit pricing in the abstract but, when we make the issue concrete by talking about the cheaper-than-water offers in supermarkets, the public acknowledge the problem and agree that something must be done about price. The fact is that no alternative effective measures to deal with the price problem have been suggested this morning—although I accept that Labour’s commission’s proposals on price have still to be submitted.

I am as concerned as anyone about the potential effect on low-income drinkers, which is an issue that I certainly take very seriously, but let me make two points in response. First, as others have said, poorer communities suffer the most from alcohol. Indeed, the death rate in such communities is 13.5 times greater than in the most affluent communities.

Richard Simpson (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Does the member accept that there are more hazardous drinkers—the people who drink really heavily—in the richer income groups? What happens is that, when people get addicted and have become dependent on alcohol, they lose their jobs, their families and their houses and they drift down the social scale and end up in poverty. That is one of the main reasons why there are much higher rates of death in the lower groups.

Malcolm Chisholm (Labour, Edinburgh North and Leith)

I will come on to precisely those points.

My second point is that analysis of the Scottish health survey indicates that people in the poorest quintile are most likely to drink nothing, to drink little or to drink very heavily. In fact, 80 per cent of people in that quintile are in the first two categories and would be minimally affected. There is, of course, a significant minority of low-income drinkers who drink very heavily. Minimum unit pricing would impact on that group and would, all the evidence suggests, lead to a reduction in their alcohol consumption.

Low-income heavy drinkers would not be the only ones whose health would benefit, given that only 9 per cent of alcohol at 40p per unit or less is sold to moderate drinkers. As Professor Anne Ludbrook shows in her study, low-income groups are not the main purchasers of cheap alcohol, because so many of them drink moderately or do not drink at all.

A wealth of evidence shows that individuals with alcohol dependence are as price sensitive as the general population. Specific as well as general evidence for that is given by Dr Bruce Ritson at column 2840 in the Official Report of the Health and Sport Committee meeting of 3 March 2010. A recent, very interesting study—by Black, Gill and Chick—of 377 drinkers with severe harm who attended the Royal Edinburgh hospital concluded in its key findings:

“The lower the price that a patient paid per unit, the more units he/she consumed.”

The Canadian experience is also relevant, although there was of course a different context in that country. The witnesses from Canada were extremely interesting because they backed minimum pricing as part of a basket of measures. They gave the interesting and very specific example of how, when the minimum price for 10 per cent alcohol beer was raised, its share of the market went down from 10 to 2 per cent. Crucially, there was a reduction in alcohol harm and alcohol problems.

Therefore, today’s debate is not just dependent on the University of Sheffield study. However, we should not rubbish that study, given that so much public health policy is based on modelling. Indeed, we in the Labour Party put forward the minimum wage, quite correctly, on the basis of modelling.

Arguments have been made, particularly by Murdo Fraser, about the effect on jobs that was cited in the evidence of the Scotch Whisky Association. In reply to that, I believe that we should consider the hundreds of jobs that have recently been lost in Scotland because of the problem of cheap supermarket drink. I think of the closure of the Threshers chain, which was attributed exclusively to that problem. When Cockburns of Leith in my constituency had to close, it also cited the supermarket booze problem. By the week, pubs are closing for the same reason. That is why the on-trade in general supports the policy.

The bill also contains other measures that I certainly support, such as the provisions on drinks promotions that will bring the off-trade into line with the requirements that were placed on the on-trade under the 2005 act. I also support the provisions for a social responsibility levy, which could offset any increase in supermarket profits. However, I rather feel that the increase in profits has been exaggerated, given that supermarkets have not exactly rushed to support the policy, which one might expect if the policy would boost their profits by hundreds of millions of pounds.

Minimum unit pricing is the glue that holds the mix of policies together. We should definitely consider the range of expert opinion that supports the policy: the World Health Organization, the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence, the police and health experts by the hundred. I could have spent the six minutes of my speech listing the eminent people who support the policy—some people might have preferred it if I had done that—and I could take another hour to cite the international studies that have been done over the years that show the link between price and consumption. No effective alternative pricing mechanism has been proposed today, so we must support the bill with the inclusion of minimum unit pricing.

Robert Brown (Liberal Democrat, Glasgow)

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 ensure 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 (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

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 (Liberal Democrat, Glasgow)

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 ensure 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.

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee East)

Will the member take an intervention on that point?

Robert Brown (Liberal Democrat, Glasgow)

I have to finish, I am afraid. 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.

John Lamont (Conservative, Roxburgh and Berwickshire)

As other members have pointed out, we need to acknowledge that our society faces significant challenges when it comes to our relationship with alcohol. Too many people drink more than is good for them, and that has a devastating effect on families, communities and individuals. Everyone in the chamber undoubtedly agrees that action must be taken to address those problems. In that respect, the debate has been encouraging, because it has highlighted our consensus that we must face up to the problems and look for a way for society to address them.

As we have heard from Murdo Fraser and Mary Scanlon, the Scottish Conservatives believe that many parts of the bill, however well intended, do not address the alcohol problem that we face. Murdo Fraser spoke in detail about the problems with the Scottish Government’s proposals to introduce a minimum price per unit of alcohol. We all agree that the price of alcohol will be a key part of addressing problem drinking. The difference is that Scottish Conservatives think that it should be targeted through the taxation system. Apart from the fact that the Government remains unwilling to specify the minimum price that it wants to introduce, its proposals would penalise moderate and responsible drinkers while ignoring the real issue of tackling the underlying problems that cause people to drink heavily in the first place. The minimum pricing proposals would punish rather than help those who decide to drink heavily.

Another key problem with the proposals, and one that would have a particular impact in my constituency in the Borders, is that they would create a new cross-border booze cruise culture. Individuals would be encouraged to buy more alcohol than they had planned if it was at a reduced price across the border. That comes into direct conflict with the initial intention of the bill to reduce the quantity of alcohol that is consumed irresponsibly.

The new coalition Government at Westminster has made it clear that it is opposed to a system that unfairly penalises responsible drinkers, pubs and important local industries. It would be bizarre for Scotland to introduce a system of minimum pricing that would encourage people to cross the border from Scotland to England, particularly from the Borders and central Scotland, to purchase alcohol. How would I explain to the owner of the local shop in Coldstream, where I live, why the Scottish Government has decided to drive its customers across the border to spend their money in off-licences in England? The minimum pricing proposals would encourage individuals who live in and around the Borders constituencies, such as my own, to make the short journey into English towns such as Cornhill and Berwick-upon-Tweed to purchase their alcohol.

There is considerable evidence from the Republic of Ireland that individuals are prepared to cross the border into Northern Ireland to make savings on their purchases and there are real concerns that the same behaviour could result in Scotland. Evidence from Ireland has also shown that one in four households have made the short journey across the border into Ulster to purchase alcohol from retailers to take advantage of reduced prices. As Helen Eadie highlighted, Asda’s best performing store in the whole of the United Kingdom is in Enniskillen, where alcohol is about 25 per cent cheaper than it is in Dublin, from where many of the customers travel. The bill, if enacted, would act as a catalyst for cross-border trade, taking away valuable business from Scottish retailers at a time when we should be giving them full support.

Ian McKee (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

Does the member not accept that in this country the very same principle has already been put into effect, in that people go past their own corner shops and buy their groceries in supermarkets because of the cheap alcohol, which takes them away from local shops? As a result, small shops all over the country are having to close down because of the unfair advantage that supermarkets have of being able to sell very cheap alcohol.

John Lamont (Conservative, Roxburgh and Berwickshire)

The bill, if it is enacted, would make matters even worse. It is important that we should be working with our colleagues south of the border to put forward a coherent proposal to minimise the impact of cross-border trade-offs.

We have concerns about other aspects of the bill. As members have heard, we oppose the social responsibility levy, which seems to be an arbitrary punishment on retailers, whether or not they act responsibly—I was particularly taken by the point that Mr Brown made in his closing remarks. The vast majority of retailers take a keen interest in preventing irresponsible behaviour by their customers; after all, they are often integral parts of the communities that they serve. Such a levy would also threaten to undermine much of the good work that many retailers do in supporting local sports clubs, charities and other organisations. That is another example of where the legislation imposes a blanket penalty, even for those who have a responsible relationship with alcohol—in this instance, responsible retailers.

As I said, there are areas of considerable agreement on the way forward. We agree that the practice of selling alcohol at below cost price should end. We also agree that better education on the dangers of binge drinking may be effective. However, it is clear that we really need better enforcement of the existing regulations. For the small number of retailers who flout the law, there should be tougher penalties and a crackdown on breaches of licensing rules.

Other members have highlighted the bill’s intention to allow licensing boards to increase the legal age for buying alcohol in particular areas. As I argued during a previous debate on the SNP’s proposals to increase the age limit, I cannot understand the situation in which an 18-year-old can vote, go to war and get married but cannot be trusted to buy a bottle of wine in an off-licence.

There is no evidence to support the SNP’s minimum pricing policy, so we urge the Parliament to support Murdo Fraser’s reasoned amendment at decision time to give us the opportunity to have a more coherent and joined-up approach to deal with this serious problem.

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

Like other members, I thank the committee for its efforts in scrutinising the bill and the Government for bringing the bill to the Parliament, because it has raised the level of debate, which I am sure will continue.

This debate was always going to be interesting. We all agree about the scale of the challenge that Scotland faces on its relationship with alcohol and we all agree about the need to take action. I agree with the cabinet secretary when she says that the mood of the country is for change; where we differ is over the effectiveness of the measures proposed.

I will deal with the less contentious parts of the bill first. We support the ban on quantity discounts, the restrictions on promotions and the age verification measures proposed. However, we oppose the power to vary the minimum purchase age, although we acknowledge that that is a compromise on the Government’s previous position of raising the purchase age to 21 across the board. I have concerns that the results from Stenhousemuir and Armadale do not conclusively show that the purchase age was the significant factor; the outcomes were perhaps more the result of intensive policing and additional youth work input, so we are not convinced on that measure.

We support the social responsibility levy in principle, but there is a lack of clarity about how it will operate and who it applies to. I believe that the committee was told not to worry about that because the Scottish Government was in dialogue with the industry and they would collectively work it out and bring the proposals back. Robert Brown is right to point out that, unfortunately, the working group on that very matter has not met since August 2009, which does not fill me—or, perhaps, members of the committee—with confidence that a solution is being worked through.

I turn to the subject that gave off the most heat, if not the most light in the debate. I say at the outset that I agree with the cabinet secretary that there is a clear link between price and consumption—we have said that for some time. I also agree with her comments about the WHO—it is clear and it says that price and availability are key in reducing consumption. We need to be mindful of that. I also agree with her when she says that we need real and effective action on price. That desire is genuine and it is shared across the chamber. I do not, however—and I believe that we should not—conflate price with minimum pricing. We do not believe that minimum pricing is the answer.

Ian McKee (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

Will the member take an intervention?

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

Let me develop the point; then I will be happy to give way.

We are not convinced that there is sufficient evidence, which is not to rubbish the University of Sheffield modelling report. I recognise the value of that approach, but I also recognise that one practical study of an aboriginal community in Cook Island resulted in the policy not proceeding.

There have been concerns about the legality of the proposal, which I leave to others much more qualified than I am to judge. Those concerns hinge on whether the measure is proportionate and that is in part determined by price. Ross Finnie is right that we need to know the price to scrutinise the bill effectively.

More seriously, there are concerns that minimum pricing does not have the impact that the Government claims, with little effect on young drinkers, harmful drinkers and those on reasonable incomes. Indeed, I am told that the greatest increase in consumption is among professional middle-aged women—the policy will have little impact on them. I am concerned that minimum pricing puts more money into retailers’ pockets—£113 million a year—which could be spent on education, enforcement and treatment.

Ian McKee (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

The member has clearly spelled out her and her party’s opposition to minimum unit pricing, and I do not doubt her sincerity, but I know that her party has also established a commission on alcohol. If that commission were to come out in favour of minimum unit pricing, would she accept its verdict or would she still be opposed to it?

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

I look forward to receiving the commission’s report over the summer. It has been told that there is no area that it cannot examine and I will take on board its conclusions as it reports them. I hope to engage the Parliament in a further debate about that.

Richard Baker rightly outlined the range of amendments that we intend to lodge on alcohol treatment and testing orders and on caffeinated alcohol. The alcohol commission that Labour set up, to which Dr McKee referred, will report in the summer and I hope that its conclusions will encourage further debate.

I turn to the Tory amendment and to Murdo Fraser. Like a very keen and overanxious puppy, Murdo, but three weeks into his new job, is eager to make a good first impression. Labour members will support his amendment because we agree with the principle, but it might more usefully have been left to stage 2 and the deliberations of the committee, which has clearly spent a lot of time on the issue. That said, the passing of the reasoned amendment will be significant: it will confirm that the majority of members in the chamber are opposed to minimum unit pricing and will, in effect, hole the policy below the waterline.

Christine Grahame (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

Will the member take an intervention?

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

If Christine Grahame lets me develop the point.

We have said for some time that we do not believe that minimum unit pricing is the silver bullet and we do not believe that it is the most effective pricing mechanism that could be deployed. There can have been no doubt in the cabinet secretary’s mind about that view, which has been shared across the chamber. I regret that it is only now that she talks about building a consensus for alternative measures and I regret that Hugh Henry is right in his analysis. On the one hand, she says that she is open to new ideas, but on the other she rubbishes any alternative suggestions. I could not help but recall her reaction to the interim report from Labour’s alcohol commission. We are up for working together, but I fear that this is a case of more talk than action coming from the SNP. [Interruption.] The muttering coming from Shona Robison suggests that she is not yet on message with the new approach.

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Govan)

Would Jackie Baillie confirm that I heard her correctly when she said, with some glee, that she wanted to hole below the waterline the policy of minimum pricing before her own commission has even had the opportunity to look at it and report? Does that not make the point, beyond any doubt, that Jackie Baillie and Labour have closed their minds to this policy for purely party-political reasons?

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

Absolutely not. [Laughter.] If members will listen, which is something that they would always do well to do, I will repeat what we have always said, which is that the issue about minimum pricing is its effectiveness, legality and impact on those who genuinely have a problem with alcohol consumption.

The cabinet secretary can shout all that she likes from a sedentary position, but we are genuinely serious about wanting to tackle Scotland’s problem with alcohol. What we will not do is take the lazy approach that conflates price with minimum pricing, because that, frankly, does not work.

Last night, I was told that the SNP’s defence against the reasoned amendment was that the Parliament could not call for such a move when it had not even been told the price yet. Well, we have only been asking for the best part of a year for the cabinet secretary to name the price. First, we were told that we would be told the price when subordinate legislation came forward, at some point after May 2011. Then we were told, by no less a personage than the First Minister, that it would be at stage 3. The committee has demanded, rightly in my view, that it should be told the price before stage 2, to enable it to do its job.

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Govan)

But the member has made her mind up.

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

I am glad that the cabinet secretary says that she will change her mind—she said earlier that she would “endeavour” to comply. The cabinet secretary has had a year in which to name the price; there should be no further delay.

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Govan)

Will the member give way?

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

I am happy to give way, if she wishes to name the price now.

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Govan)

Have I not demonstrated this morning that I am open minded and willing to listen to the committee? Is it not the case that, regardless of when the Government names the price, Jackie Baillie has confirmed that she has already made up her mind? She said that she wants to hole minimum pricing below the waterline.

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

I gave the cabinet secretary an opportunity to name the price, but she denied the Parliament the opportunity of hearing it.

We have always said that minimum pricing is not effective. Knowing the price that the Government will set will enable us to determine, first, its effectiveness and, secondly, whether the measure is legal. It is in the cabinet secretary’s gift to allow the Parliament to scrutinise the proposal, but she is denying the Parliament that opportunity.

Christine Grahame (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

Will the member give way?

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

I am sorry, but I am in my final minute.

All parties acknowledge the serious challenge that we face in properly tackling the overconsumption of alcohol. We are sincere in our desire to find the range of measures that will be required to tackle what is undoubtedly a complex problem, and we will work with others to do so. It is incumbent on the Parliament and the Government to take effective action. We are serious about that, and I detect that other parties are too. I genuinely hope that the Government can rise to the challenge. We will support it if it does.

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee East)

Like previous debates on alcohol, this one has provoked a great deal of impassioned argument, which is welcome. There have been some very good speeches from around the chamber, and I will return to them shortly.

The public expect us to show leadership and to implement policies that will have a real and lasting effect and will make a dent in the £3.56 billion annual cost of alcohol misuse. Enough alcohol is sold in Scotland to enable every man and woman over 16 to exceed the sensible male weekly guidelines every week of the year. Many speakers have outlined the scale of the problem, but that is not enough; we also need to come up with solutions. We need to progress our alcohol agenda based on the best available evidence and expert opinion. Just last week, the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence—the respected and independent assessor of effective interventions that is often quoted by Richard Simpson and others in the chamber—published a report for the UK Government that said that alcohol needs to be less affordable if we are to save thousands of lives each year. It specifically recommended minimum pricing as a targeted measure that was most likely to affect heavy drinkers, who typically buy cheaper alcohol.

I want to put on record my thanks to the youth commission on alcohol, which has spent a huge amount of time considering all the evidence and the issues. I welcome its support for the key elements of the bill.

I will now deal with some of the speeches that we heard during the debate.

Murdo Fraser was confused in that, although he seemed to say that he understood and accepted the link between price and consumption, he went on to cite, minutes later, the Scotch Whisky Association’s evidence against that link to back up his argument. He was not the only one who did that. A number of others in the chamber displayed a similar confusion about that link, even though all the evidence makes it clear that there is a link between price and consumption.

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I accept that there is a link between price and consumption, as I made clear in my speech, but the matter is complex. The link is not simple, which is why simply bringing in minimum pricing will not cure the problem. That is also why, at a UK level, we are committed to targeted increases in duty on problem drinks. We believe that that is the right way forward.

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee East)

If the member believes that there is a link between price and consumption, he should not lead with evidence that undermines that argument, as that undermines his position.

Murdo Fraser said that the evidence base is not there, but I am sure that his speech is the same one—almost word for word, if anyone cares to look back and check—that was used by the Tories when they opposed the ban on smoking in enclosed public spaces. Scotland was brave at that time and took the proposal forward, even though many people were saying, “Where’s the evidence? No one else has done it.”

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

Will the member give way?

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee East)

Not just now.

Murdo Fraser also said that we should listen to experts in the field, but that seems to apply only to people in the alcohol industry, not to health professionals. Why is that? If we must listen to experts in the field, surely we should also listen to experts on health. Murdo Fraser’s choice of experts seems to be selective.

Christine Grahame gave a good account of the tremendous amount of work that the Health and Sport Committee put into taking evidence from all sides of the debate and compiling a good report. Obviously, the report did not agree with everything in the bill, but it was a considered report, and we should pay tribute to the committee for it.

Richard Simpson’s speech was disappointing, and I mean that genuinely. He talked about the need to change culture. That is easy to say, but MSPs will be judged on their actions, not their words, and there was not one line in Richard Simpson’s speech that said anything about what Labour would do to tackle the link between price and consumption. He said that we must change the culture around drinking, just as we changed the culture around tobacco and drink driving, and that it might take a generation to do that. However, the Government legislated on those issues, which is why we need to legislate on alcohol. Richard Simpson was unable to provide any alternatives to the Government’s approach. The worst part of Richard Simpson’s speech—I mean this sincerely—was his attack on respected academics, who are not here to defend themselves. I think that he will live to regret that because, as others have said, the modelling that has been used in this context has been used in relation to other policies that Labour has backed and will no doubt be used in relation to policies that Labour will back in future.

Richard Simpson and other Labour members said something else that requires some explanation. One of the Opposition’s key reasons for opposing minimum pricing is that it will put money into the pockets of supermarkets, but the same argument can be made in relation to legislation on quantity discounting, which Labour supports. Labour cannot have such an inconsistent position in its arguments if it hopes to have any credibility whatsoever on the issue.

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

Does the minister agree that we should seek to have the money that is accrued from discount bans invested in treatment, enforcement and education? Does she acknowledge that the University of Sheffield’s modelling shows that the impact of discount bans is far greater than the impact of minimum unit pricing?

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee East)

No, on the second point; that is absolutely not the case. On the point about how we address the issue of quantity discounting and avoid the scenario that Jackie Baillie claims to be concerned about, the answer is that we should use the social responsibility levy, in the same way that we would use that measure to deal with any income that was raised by supermarkets in relation to minimum pricing—exactly the same mechanism, exactly the same solution.

Ross Finnie gave a reasonable speech. He made the important point that the modelling that is used in the Sheffield study is commonly used in other policy development, particularly in public health policy. However, the Liberal Democrats are in some difficulty on one issue. Robert Brown tried to compare minimum unit pricing with prohibition, which was a rather silly point in what was otherwise a good speech. We must remember that, when the Liberal Democrats developed their manifesto for the general election and they included minimum unit pricing, all the matters were presumably considered, and the Liberal Democrats were obviously persuaded by the merits of minimum unit pricing. It is disappointing that they have been unable to follow that through in the Parliament. I hope that they will reflect on that.

Michael Matheson made a good speech. He dealt well with the arguments about the impact on low-income households and the fact that so many of the organisations that represent families who live in poverty support minimum unit pricing.

Richard Baker made a far more measured speech than he has perhaps made on other occasions, but he failed to make the case that removing caffeine from alcohol would be an effective measure to tackle a problem of this scale. I do not think that anyone on the Labour benches can seriously argue that a ban on caffeine in alcoholic drinks, which would affect such a small proportion of alcohol products, would have such an effect. The Food Standards Agency has made the point that there is no evidence whatsoever to back that up. We have never said that minimum unit pricing is a panacea. Richard Baker alluded to that. What we have said is that it is part of a package of measures.

Ian McKee gave an excellent speech. His point was twofold. First, he said that, if everyone waited for someone else to act, nothing would be done. How true that is, particularly in public health policy. We have to be bold, to try things out, and to gather the evidence from that. The ban on smoking in enclosed public places did just that, and look at what has happened—countries throughout the world are emulating that policy. Ian McKee also said that low-cost alcohol is used as a loss leader to get customers through the supermarket doors. That is a fundamental point in the debate.

Like many members, Rhoda Grant seemed confused about whether there is a link between price and consumption. A number of people on the Labour benches seemed to question whether that link exists. That goes to the heart of Labour confusion on the issue. Labour members need to be clear about where they stand on it.

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

I must ask you to close, minister.

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee East)

Some other good points were made. Malcolm Chisholm’s speech was head and shoulders above many others. His position is not an easy one to adopt and he should get credit for it. Perhaps his experience as a health minister contributed to it.

I am happy to support the motion in the name of Nicola Sturgeon.

Alcohol etc (Scotland) Bill: Financial Resolution

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

The next item of business is consideration of motion S3M-5691, in the name of John Swinney, on the financial resolution in respect of the Alcohol etc (Scotland) Bill.

Motion moved,

That the Parliament, for the purposes of any Act of the Scottish Parliament resulting from the Alcohol etc. (Scotland) Bill, agrees to (a) any expenditure of a kind referred to in Rule 9.12.3(b)(ii) of the Parliament’s Standing Orders and (b) any charges or payments in relation to which Rule 9.12.4 of the Standing Orders applies, arising in consequence of the Act.—[Shona Robison.]

The question on the motion will be put at decision time.

Midlothian Community Hospital

Rhona Brankin (Labour, Midlothian)

1. To ask the Scottish Executive when the Midlothian community hospital will open and what services it will offer. (S3O-10836)

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Govan)

Although an opening date for the Midlothian community hospital has not yet been agreed, it is anticipated that the pre-commissioning handover will be on 9 August 2010 and that all services will be operating before mid-September. That is earlier than the originally anticipated fully operational date of 4 October 2010.

The hospital will offer four in-patient ward areas and a day hospital area. There are also a number of clinical consultation rooms and diagnostic and therapy services that will be accessed by visiting patients.

Rhona Brankin (Labour, Midlothian)

Will it have an out-patient department that includes X-ray services, child health and physiotherapy, with four treatment rooms? Will it include provision for out-of-hours services? Will the cabinet secretary confirm that those services will be part of the new hospital? What assurance can she give that the planned services at the hospital will be unaffected by the cutting of 333 nursing and midwifery posts in Lothian?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Govan)

I would have thought that Rhona Brankin might welcome the fact that a major new community hospital will be opening in her constituency earlier than anticipated. I think that that is really good news, but as usual we get the glass-half-empty approach from Labour.

I am happy to send Rhona Brankin a full list of the services that will be available in the Midlothian community hospital but, for example, we will have, on the ground floor, primary care out-of-hours services, radiography, physiotherapy, podiatry, occupational therapy and a range of other facilities. I am more than happy to send her a full list of the facilities, and I certainly look forward to seeing what I am sure will be a fantastic new facility being fully operational as soon as possible.

Newly Qualified Teachers

Sarah Boyack (Labour, Edinburgh Central)

2. To ask the Scottish Executive what action it is taking to help newly qualified teachers into work. (S3O-10835)

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

The Scottish Government has taken a number of actions to help to support post-probation teachers into work. We made the difficult decision to reduce the intake of student teachers, which will free up more posts for newly qualified teachers, and we created a scheme to allow local authorities to borrow up to £10 million to cover the up-front costs of early retirement, and so free up jobs for newly qualified teachers. It is disappointing that only two councils have applied to participate in the scheme. However, we know that some councils—including Fife Council and North Ayrshire Council—are encouraging teachers to retire early and are choosing to manage that through their existing resources.

We continue to work closely with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and local authorities to achieve better reconciliation between local and national teacher workforce planning with a view to re-establishing an appropriate balance between teacher supply and demand.

Sarah Boyack (Labour, Edinburgh Central)

I thank the minister for his warm words, but I tell him that the real worries are for this year’s probationary teachers, who look at the statistics and know that only 30 per cent of the 2008-09 cohort obtained a permanent contract. That is down from more than 50 per cent a couple of years ago. Of that group, nearly 14 per cent have still not found jobs—double the rate of two years ago. The minister talks about work with local authorities, but given that there were only 20 vacancies in Edinburgh’s primary and secondary schools in February, what reassurance can he give new teachers who trained in Scotland that they will get jobs here rather than having to leave the teaching profession or look for jobs further afield?

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

I am closely engaged in the issue. I entirely accept Sarah Boyack’s concern; nobody wants newly qualified teachers to be unable to find full-time, permanent employment. A strong discussion is going on to see how we can help at every single part of an individual’s professional progression through training into education. However, the sharp point is that local authorities are having to make differences to their expenditure and there are problems in employment.

With the best will in the world, let me ask a question that was posed by Hugh Reilly in his column in The Scotsman yesterday. Of course, it is a rhetorical question. I recognise that question time is for others to ask questions and not for me to do so, but this rhetorical question is worth posing. He asked whether it is true that the Labour Party would

“immediately order the hiring of thousands of teachers”

if it came into government. Does it recognise the difficulty of doing so? Will it work with everybody to assist in addressing the difficulty rather than trade on it politically? By doing that, the Labour Party is attacking the very people it claims to be helping.

Cardiovascular Disease and Oral Hygiene

Helen Eadie (Labour, Dunfermline East)

3. To ask the Scottish Executive how it plans to respond to the findings by Professor Richard Watt of University College London that people who rarely brush their teeth are 70 per cent more likely to suffer heart disease than those who brush twice a day and his view that these results confirm the link between oral hygiene and the risk of cardiovascular disease. (S3O-10840)

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee East)

We acknowledge Professor Watt’s finding of an association between oral health and the risk of cardiovascular disease, and we await further research in the area. However, the best way of preventing gum disease is to have a regular effective toothbrushing habit from an early age. The childsmile programme will ensure that all children who attend nursery are offered daily toothbrushing, which paves the way to establishing long-term good oral health throughout adulthood. Only this week, a report on the national dental inspection programme showed that the Scottish Government has successfully met the target of 60 per cent of primary 7s having no obvious signs of tooth decay.

Helen Eadie (Labour, Dunfermline East)

I am disappointed that the minister will await further research before she takes any action. How does she propose to address the concerns that are raised in Professor Watt’s report, given that Scotland has unacceptably high levels of heart disease? In particular, will she focus her actions and attention on middle-aged and older people who have particular issues in that regard?

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee East)

I thought that Helen Eadie might have brought herself to welcome the announcement that the target of 60 per cent of primary 7s having no obvious signs of tooth decay has been met. I am pleased to say that, in Fife, 67.2 per cent of primary 7 children are free of dental decay. That should lead Helen Eadie to believe that what we are doing with the childsmile programme is working and delivering, and will help to avoid some of the risks of cardiovascular disease that Professor Watt’s findings show. I hope that Helen Eadie can for once welcome some good news.

Tricia Marwick (Scottish National Party, Central Fife)

Does the minister agree that having access to a national health service dentist is the best way to improve oral hygiene? Is she aware that, in 2006, not a single dentist in Glenrothes took new NHS patients and that thousands of people were deregistered, and that, since 2007, two new NHS practices have been opened in Glenrothes and a new dental centre is planned for Glenrothes and Methil? Is she aware that 50,000 more people in Fife are registered with an NHS dentist than were registered under Labour in 2006?

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee East)

Tricia Marwick has shown the Government’s determination to deliver improved dental health for the people of Fife. To add to what she has said about the success of new premises, Fife was allocated £6.11 million from the primary and community care premises modernisation programme, and the number of dentists who provide general dental services increased from 177 in 2007 to 198 in 2009. I know that Labour does not like to welcome good news, but perhaps for once it can get behind our dentists, who are doing a very good job in Fife and elsewhere.

Agenda for Change (School Nurses)

Kenneth Macintosh (Labour, Eastwood)

4. To ask the Scottish Executive whether it is taking action to help school nurses resolve outstanding claims under the agenda for change programme. (S3O-10856)

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Govan)

The primary responsibility for taking forward all aspects of agenda for change implementation lies with national health service boards in conjunction with local staff side partners. The Government continues to monitor the process closely and has put in place measures to support boards where they are required. Those measures include the blocked matching protocol, which can be employed where there is a failure to agree on outcomes locally. The protocol is being applied in respect of school nurses in the Greater Glasgow and Clyde NHS Board area.

Kenneth Macintosh (Labour, Eastwood)

Does the cabinet secretary think that it is acceptable that school nurses throughout Scotland have been graded in band 6, whereas those in Glasgow have been asked to accept band 5? Is she aware that those school nurses have not had a pay rise for the past five years because of that initial banding? Rather than let the matter drag on for another summer, is there a date by which the cabinet secretary will intervene and take action rather than just monitor the situation?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Govan)

I am sure that Ken Macintosh appreciates and understands that, as we have in place a process involving review panels that has been agreed locally with unions, it would be wrong of me to express an opinion on which band somebody should be matched to. I have explained to him and others before that, under the agenda for change system, just because people in different parts of the country have the same job title, that does not mean that they have exactly the same job responsibilities or that they will be matched to the same band.

That said, I understand the frustration of school nurses and others for whom the issue has not yet been resolved. The issue relating to school nurses in Glasgow is not that the reviews have not been carried out; it is that the review panels have not been able to agree on the banding. That is why the blocked matching protocol has been introduced. Under that protocol, posts can be referred to the Scottish terms and conditions committee, which will consider the evidence and, if necessary, set up a fresh national level matching panel process. Greater Glasgow and Clyde NHS Board has now written to STAC on accessing that protocol for school nurses.

I understand the frustration of people in such a position, but it is important that the right banding is arrived at following a robust process. I hope and expect that the process will be concluded for school nurses as soon as possible.

Affordable Warmth

David Whitton (Labour, Strathkelvin and Bearsden)

5. To ask the Scottish Executive what steps it is taking to improve affordable warmth. (S3O-10871)

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

The Government is proud of its work to improve affordable warmth. Through our acclaimed energy assistance package, we have helped more than 67,000 households. Some 13,000 homes will have been improved under the 2009-10 budget, of which at least 11,500 will have heating system measures. We are also reducing the cost of heating for many other households with the delivery of insulation through the home insulation scheme and the boiler scrappage scheme, under which old, inefficient boilers will be replaced. Social landlords are continuing to work towards achieving energy efficiency aspects of the Scottish housing quality standard for social landlords.

David Whitton (Labour, Strathkelvin and Bearsden)

The boiler scrappage scheme, which the minister mentioned, was launched on Monday 24 May. In Scotland, only 5,000 vouchers were available compared with 125,000 vouchers in England, and they were fully allocated within 36 hours. That left many people disappointed, including one of my constituents, who discovered when he called on launch day that, in order to have had any chance of getting a voucher, he would have needed all the paperwork and quotes ready there and then. How many boiler scrappage scheme applicants were left disappointed due to a lack of Government funding for the scheme? What plans does the minister have to assist them?

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

Some 4,600 people have received assistance through the boiler scrappage scheme, which is very popular. If our budget had not been cut by £500 million this year, we would have been able to do much more. We would have liked to have done much more but, unfortunately, the Labour Government cut our budget.

Jamie Stone (Liberal Democrat, Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross)

The minister will be aware, as I have raised the issue in the chamber before, that when elderly and less well-off people shop around for the best deal for oil and gas heating, they are faced with a take-it-or-leave-it minimum quantity that they must purchase, and that minimum quantity is often larger and far more costly than they can possibly afford. Will the minister agree to consider that problem while we still have time before the onset of the winter?

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

I am happy to consider that problem, although it is primarily an issue for the Office of Gas and Electricity Markets. I am happy to make representations to it on the issue, as it affects quite a number of people throughout Scotland.

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

Question 6 was not lodged.

Bannockburn Heritage Centre

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

7. To ask the Scottish Executive whether it has had further discussions with the National Trust for Scotland since September 2009 regarding the future of the Bannockburn heritage centre. (S3O-10876)

I refer to my membership of the National Trust for Scotland in asking that question.

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

Yes. Historic Scotland, the National Trust for Scotland and the centre for digital design and visualisation have been working together successfully to progress the preliminary stages of the battle of Bannockburn project. The first draft of the business plan is in production. The project will form one of the centrepiece developments for homecoming 2014, planning for which has already started.

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I thank the minister for that welcome news. As we know, the 700th anniversary of the battle of Bannockburn, which is during the 2014 year of homecoming, is coming up. I am sure that the minister agrees that the Bannockburn visitor centre is now looking very tired and in need of refurbishment. Will she consider the model that the National Trust developed at Culloden battlefield, for example, as one that could be followed to develop a fitting visitor centre at Bannockburn that will attract visitors to the Stirling area and, indeed, to Scotland?

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

I assure the member that the plans for Bannockburn are extremely ambitious and exciting. We are nearing the end of a European tendering exercise. Submissions are about to be made by an appointed architect-led design team.

I recall that the last time Murdo Fraser asked me about the work of the National Trust for Scotland at Bannockburn was when he objected to school pupils from far-flung areas being given funding to take buses to visit Bannockburn. He might want a new centre; it is just disappointing that he does not want children to be able to get there to see it.

Scottish Fishermen’s Federation (Meetings)

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

8. To ask the Scottish Executive when it last met representatives of the Scottish Fishermen’s Federation. (S3O-10918)

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, Moray)

I last met representatives of the Scottish Fishermen’s Federation at the fisheries expo in Glasgow on 21 May. The most recent meeting with officials took place last week.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

Has the cabinet secretary had an opportunity to discuss with the federation the concerns that appear to be growing about the conservation credits scheme and the operation of the conservation credits scheme steering group? The retrospective application of the reduction in the base rate of days at sea, the manner in which monkfish quota transferability has been handled by his Government and the threatened loss of the deepwater edge along the so-called French line are all causing concern and division in the industry. The conservation credits scheme was set up to provide credits for developing and complying with initiatives, in partnership, so that the industry would have a more secure future. Will the cabinet secretary give urgent attention to the growing concerns about the group and the way in which the scheme is operating?

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, Moray)

I assure the member that I am giving urgent attention to a number of the concerns that face the white-fish sector, in particular, at the current time. The conservation credits scheme is one of a number of innovative steps forward that we have taken by working closely with the fishing industry against the challenging backdrop of the damage that the common fisheries policy is causing to Scotland.

The member mentioned the amendment to the number of days of sea that has been implemented by the conservation credits scheme steering group this year. One of the innovative results of that new relationship is that we can buy back some of the days that were cut by adopting the further conservation measures that the fleet could put into practice. That is a significant achievement, which has been made despite the constraints of the common fisheries policy.

I will give my attention to a number of the issues that the member raises.

General Practitioner Practices (Premium-rate Numbers)

Angela Constance (Scottish National Party, Livingston)

9. To ask the Scottish Executive how many GP practices use 084 premium-rate numbers and whether it has any plans to actively discourage the use of such numbers by GP practices. (S3O-10892)

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Govan)

As at 3 June this year, there were 44 GP practices using 084 telephone numbers, which represents just over 4 per cent of the total number of practices in Scotland.

We intend to discuss the issue with the Scottish general practitioners committee, which is supportive of the idea that all patients should pay local telephone rates and is considering offering guidance to those practices that use 084 telephone numbers to encourage them to review their current telephone contracts. The Scottish Government would support that.

Angela Constance (Scottish National Party, Livingston)

I am sure that the cabinet secretary will recall the representations that I have been making on behalf of many of my constituents, who are having to bear the increased costs associated with the use of such telephone numbers by GP practices. Does she agree that it is wholly unacceptable for patients to bear those increases in their phone bills, which, for the many who need to make regular and repeated calls to their doctor’s surgery, have been significant?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Govan)

I can understand that view and the frustration on the part of patients. I am sure that Angela Constance will appreciate that only a small number of GP practices in Scotland use 084 telephone numbers, but the practice can lead to increased costs for the patients who use such services. That is why it is important that we work with the general practitioners committee to encourage GP practices that use such numbers to offer local telephone rates instead, if possible. I will be more than happy to keep Angela Constance updated on the progress of those discussions.

Crofting Communities (Rabbits)

Alasdair Allan (Scottish National Party, Western Isles)

10. To ask the Scottish Government whether it plans to assist crofting communities that are facing large increases in their local rabbit population. (S3O-10889)

Roseanna Cunningham (Scottish National Party, Perth)

There are no plans to provide additional assistance to crofting communities for the control of rabbit populations, but there are wide-ranging consents that enable land managers to control rabbits. In addition, measures are available under the rural priorities element of the Scotland rural development programme to control rabbit populations, where those are directly linked to a management option.

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

Mr Allan, I must ask you to be brief.

Alasdair Allan (Scottish National Party, Western Isles)

I will be. I thank the minister for her reply, but she will be aware that many communities, such as Ness in my constituency, have seen the rabbit population grow to a ridiculous extent and would be grateful for any clarification of the legal options for dealing with the problem.

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

Please be as brief as possible, minister.

Roseanna Cunningham (Scottish National Party, Perth)

Shooting, trapping, snaring, ferreting, long netting, gassing and the use of electric or other rabbit-proof fencing are all legal methods of rabbit control.

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

Thank you for the brevity of that answer. That concludes general questions.

Engagements

Iain Gray (Labour, East Lothian)

1. To ask the First Minister what engagements he has planned for the rest of the day. (S3F-2457)

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

I have a range of engagements to take forward the Government’s programme for Scotland including, I am delighted to say, the announcement of 5,000 new modern apprenticeship places, which have been made possible with the use of European social fund money. Those extra modern apprenticeships, which are for all ages, bring the total number of opportunities for work-focused training in Scotland to almost 40,000 this coming year. I know that Iain Gray will want to congratulate Skills Development Scotland on its success in this initiative.

Iain Gray (Labour, East Lothian)

The First Minister well knows that I always welcome apprenticeships. That is good news indeed. Unfortunately, when it comes to the economy in Scotland, it is not all good news. We have also read today about the loss of 350 printing jobs in Dundee. Unemployment is still higher in Scotland than it is in the rest of the country, our growth is still trailing that of the United Kingdom and this week we saw that small business start-up rates are lower in Scotland than they are in the rest of the UK. Alex Salmond said that he would make Scotland the most competitive nation in the UK. What has he actually done?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

Of course, through every year of Labour’s term in office, Scotland underperformed against the UK and just about every country in Europe in terms of growth. Iain Gray is right in the sense that we face serious challenges with the economic situation. Therefore, when examples such as the work of Skills Development Scotland and efforts to internationalise Scottish business bear fruit, we should congratulate those who are involved.

That is why I was delighted to see the new UK regional trade estimates on the value of UK goods exported up until the end of March, which were published just an hour or two ago. In this serious situation of recession, exports from England fell by 4.8 per cent; from Wales by 16.8 per cent; and from Northern Ireland by 17.4 per cent. However, the report shows that up until March 2010 exports from Scotland rose by 3.5 per cent. That is an extraordinary performance by Scottish exporters who are facing the most difficult international climate. Although we should of course congratulate the individual companies involved, we should also welcome the efforts of our agencies in promoting international trade.

Iain Gray (Labour, East Lothian)

My question, of course, was about what the First Minister has done. One of the things that he has in train is a revaluation of business rates. In the past, he has said that most businesses will benefit from this revaluation. However, I have with me the figures for a typical Scottish high street. In the town of Ballater, there are 18 small businesses that are all just getting by in tough times. I acknowledge that, last year, 12 businesses did not pay any rates because of the small business bonus; however, this year, that has turned into the small business bombshell for those businesses, all but two of which face a massive rates increase. None of them is better off and, this year, Ballater’s high street will pay about 470 per cent more in rates than it did last year. Can the First Minister tell us how much extra money his Government is raking in from these punitive increases in small business rates?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

I will try to explain the process of rating revaluation. It is set by independent assessors and does not benefit the Government for the obvious reason that 60 per cent of businesses in Scotland will be no worse or better off as a result. If we were to introduce a transitional scheme, it would mean that the people who would benefit—those who had been evaluated independently, their businesses found to be struggling so that their business rates came down—would have to pay for those who had been revalued upwards.

I am pleasantly surprised that Iain Gray has mentioned the small business bonus. My clear recollection is that that extraordinary business bonus scheme, which has benefited 100,000 and more small businesses throughout Scotland, has been criticised and attacked by the Labour Party. If Iain Gray’s question represents a conversion to the significant efforts that are being made to boost small business in Scotland, I will join the Small Business Federation in suggesting that it is better that one sinner repenteth.

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

I ask both participants to speed up a little. We are six minutes in and have got only two questions out of the way.

Iain Gray (Labour, East Lothian)

The trouble is that nobody in the business world believes that 60 per cent of businesses are better off. Last week in the Parliament we had 26 nursery owners from Fife, all of whom will see their rates soar; seven of them will pay 150 per cent more and one of them will pay 200 per cent more. In my constituency, Alexander Pollock Ltd engravers’ rateable value has gone up from £25,300 to £41,800. The Scottish Chambers of Commerce tells me that the worst example that it has been able to find is in Ballater again, where a restaurant faces an increase of over 400 per cent in rates payable. The First Minister should probably not drop in there for lunch on his way home tomorrow. Does he understand that such hikes in rates could close those businesses down?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

I do not know about Iain Gray’s understanding of geography—it would be a substantial detour to go to Ballater on the way to the north-east of Scotland. Nonetheless, there is no doubt that Iain Gray’s knowledge of Ballater is greater than his question suggests.

Information on the effect of the rates revaluation, which exists in statute and is independently revalued, is there for all to see. It is a fact that 60 per cent of businesses will be no worse or better off. It is also a fact that among the range of incentives and supports that are offered to not just small businesses but to businesses across the business rates range, our position is far superior to anything else in these islands. In particular, the small business bonus scheme, which has been bitterly opposed by Iain Gray’s party throughout the past three years, is the envy of every other country in the United Kingdom and is supported by every small business in Scotland.

Iain Gray (Labour, East Lothian)

It is a fact that small and medium-sized enterprises employ thousands in Scotland. It is a fact that the rates hikes put those jobs in danger. It is a fact that in England, the same changes are staggered over five years. It is a fact that in Northern Ireland they have stopped the process because of the damage that it will do to the economy.

If Alex Salmond will not listen to me, perhaps he will listen to the managing director of Alexander Pollock, who says in his letter to me:

“This is Scottish Industry we are talking about and our own legislators are doing their best to put us out of business.

Can you help?

Yours despairingly”.

The First Minister can help. Will he stop this crazy revaluation right now?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

Rates revaluation is in statute and is part of the process of business rates. Rates are independently evaluated. I repeat that if we introduced a transitional scheme, those who would benefit—the majority—from the rates revaluation would have to pay more. I am sure that even Iain Gray would not suggest the unfairness of saying to businesses whose rates have been revalued downwards as a result of an independent process of revaluation that they should be asked to pay for Labour’s recession.

The most important point of all is that there is no benefit for the Government in a rates revaluation. Rates are evaluated according to an independent process. However, the support that is on offer to small businesses in Scotland is unparalleled and unrivalled across these islands.

Given that the Labour Party’s only response to the huge and serious budget pressures that it has created is to suggest that we should go ahead with £332 million of further cuts this year, people knowing that and noting the apparent concern that has been expressed for businesses will find it very difficult to reconcile how Labour, in calling for cuts in public spending in Scotland this year, can be in a position to offer help to anyone, whether in public services or in the business community.

Secretary of State for Scotland (Meetings)

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

2. To ask the First Minister when he will next meet the Secretary of State for Scotland. (S3F-2458)

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

I met the Secretary of State for Scotland on Monday and Tuesday of this week.

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

I have asked the First Minister on numerous occasions to spell out his plans for sorting out the mess that Labour has made of the UK finances. No answer has he given. Labour has left this country with the biggest national debt that we have ever seen. Although it is Labour’s mess, it is also the First Minister’s responsibility to sort things out in Scotland. The buck stops with him.

Do not take my word for it, Presiding Officer. The First Minister’s colleague, Andrew Welsh, convener of the Finance Committee, says that the Scottish Government needs to show far greater leadership,

“to set out more fully”

what the Government will do and to

“demonstrate real leadership by setting out spending choices in an open and transparent manner.”

Does the First Minister agree with Andrew Welsh?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

I agree that we will set out the

“spending choices in an open and transparent manner.”

That is exactly the process that is being engaged in by the independent budget review, which will be reporting shortly. Every public service in Scotland is making preparations for the time of austerity to come.

Annabel Goldie is being a bit disingenuous not to accept that her new Chancellor of the Exchequer announced only this week a public consultation on the comprehensive spending review. Unless Annabel Goldie is telling me that the objectives and detail of that spending review have already been decided before the public consultation, she surely wishes us—in the atmosphere of respect and acknowledgement that exists between the Governments north and south of the border—to contribute to that discussion. Substantial risks will be taken with recovery and employment if the chancellor’s reported plans go ahead unaltered.

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

Not for the first time I see a complete lack of connection between my question and the First Minister’s answer. I am not asking about George Osborne’s budget; I am asking about the Scottish budget, as known to the First Minister. I have been asking the First Minister about it for well over a year now, and the Finance Committee has now backed that call.

The First Minister might rely on bluff and bluster to duck his responsibility, but this is at a new level. Members of the Parliament are now demanding his plans. Members of his own party, however embarrassing it may be to him, are now demanding his plans. Why is the First Minister dodging the issue?

John Swinney has admitted that on his desk are secret plans to make savings—

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

“Secret plans”. My goodness!

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

Order.

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

Something that exists but that is not disclosed to others is a secret. Secret plans to make savings have been drawn up by John Swinney’s civil servants. Now is the time to be transparent. We should be told what the Scottish Government is going to do. The First Minister should show some leadership and stop the secrecy. When is the First Minister going to come clean about his budget?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

I remind Annabel Goldie of the process under which the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government operate at present. The funding comes through a block grant, substantially from Westminster. We know what the block grant is for this year, and we have set a budget for this year as a result.

We do not know what the block grant will be for next year, for the year after or for the year after that, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer has not announced his emergency budget yet, never mind the comprehensive spending review, which will be published in the autumn. As I have just said, I am willing to say that every public service is preparing for times of fiscal austerity, acknowledging the previous chancellor’s remarks that the cuts to come will be tougher and deeper than those of Margaret Thatcher. However, even Annabel Goldie would not expect John Swinney—far-sighted though he is—to know the figures on which to set his budget before they have been set by the Westminster chancellor who is responsible for handing down 90 per cent of that budget. Annabel Goldie should give us the figures and not make them a secret. She will then find that John Swinney is able to do the job.

Cabinet (Meetings)

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

3. To ask the First Minister what issues will be discussed at the next meeting of the Cabinet. (S3F-2459)

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

Issues of importance to the people of Scotland will be discussed.

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

Last week, the First Minister wrote directly to the councillor who is in charge of education in each of Scotland’s 32 local authorities. There were lots of issues that he could have raised, including school buildings, places for probationer teachers, the curriculum for excellence, strikes in the classroom, teacher training and his broken class-size promise. Will he tell Parliament today what his letter was about?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

I wrote a letter specifically at the request of a former MSP, Dennis Canavan, who piloted a bill for a St Andrew’s day holiday through the Parliament. Many of us think that a public holiday on our national day would be a substantial and progressive move. Given the fact that the Parliament passed the bill not unanimously, but by a substantial majority, I hope that there is no reneging on the issue by the Liberal Democrats. Dennis Canavan approached me at a meeting some weeks ago and suggested that we renew our efforts to see whether local authorities around Scotland would be able to follow the policy lead that was taken by the Scottish Parliament, and I wrote to local authorities on that subject.

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

So, it is Dennis Canavan’s fault. Despite all the problems in Scottish education, Alex Salmond says that that is the “important matter” that merits a letter from the First Minister. It turns out that the SNP Government has written to councils about the matter before, without much luck. The First Minister’s letter says:

“I was disappointed to discover … only four authorities actually got back to us with their views”.

Only four education conveners out of 32 replied, even though 12 of those 32 are paid-up, card-carrying members of the SNP. Not even they think that the matter is important enough.

When will the First Minister write to education conveners about education? Does he not believe that his priority is just wrong? In August, 54,000 children will start a new curriculum and Scottish schools are not ready. Teachers cannot get jobs. Why does the First Minister think that it is more important to write about a holiday than it is to sort out what is happening in our classrooms?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

The curriculum for excellence is being pursued by the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning, who has announced a range of initiatives to help with its implementation. The vast majority of people in the Parliament and throughout the country support the curriculum for excellence, even if Tavish Scott is doubtful about its objectives.

I have known Dennis Canavan for many years as a parliamentarian both at Westminster and in the Scottish Parliament, and I am proud to be associated with the initiative that he piloted through the Parliament. I think that it is a thoroughly good thing to have St Andrew’s day—the day of our patron saint—established as a public holiday in Scotland. Once upon a time, the Liberal Democrats, when they were a party of Opposition in London and a party of Government in Scotland, believed that as well. In the past few days, we have seen the dramatic conversion of Murdo Fraser to the concept of a new Bannockburn visitor centre with all its attendant symbolism and importance for Scotland. One day, we will see the re-conversion of Tavish Scott to a patriotic national holiday for the Scottish people on St Andrew’s day.[Interruption.]

Joe FitzPatrick (Scottish National Party, Dundee West)

I wish to declare an interest, in that my brother works for D C Thomson and has been informed that his job is at risk, and my dad is in receipt of a works pension.

The First Minister is aware of the potential 350 job losses at D C Thomson in Dundee. Like mine, nearly every family in Dundee has a connection to D C Thomson, which employs about 2,000 people from the city. It has a loyal workforce, many of whom would want to continue to work for the company. I am pleased to have heard a commitment from the management to minimise the number of compulsory redundancies. I know that the Government’s partnership action for continuing employment team will work with any staff who are made redundant to identify re-employment opportunities and training needs.

I ask the First Minister whether the Scottish Government can direct the PACE team to consider the possibility of working with D C Thomson to support retraining of staff to allow redeployment within the D C Thomson organisation.

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

I share the constituency member’s concern. Even in a city, 350 job losses is a substantial number. I spoke to the chairman of D C Thomson earlier this week. I can confirm that the Scottish Government has acted immediately to offer support through PACE. That initiative will be available to those D C Thomson employees who face redundancy.

The national PACE manager spoke to the D C Thomson head of employee relations at 10 am this morning to outline the support that is available through PACE and to provide further information on PACE support for the company to consider. I understand that the company intends to set up a job shop on site. PACE representatives will contact the company again next week and will maintain close liaison to ensure that affected employees receive the maximum support possible. Although the PACE initiative, by definition, is there to ameliorate and respond to a major industrial closure, it has had substantial success in placing people in new jobs in a number of serious situations. We all wish it well in responding to this one in Dundee.

Joint Ministerial Committee (Meetings)

Jamie Hepburn (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

4. To ask the First Minister what matters were discussed at the most recent meeting of the joint ministerial committee. (S3F-2462)

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

John Swinney, Fiona Hyslop and I attended the plenary session of the joint ministerial committee on Tuesday 9 June, which was hosted by the Prime Minister. There were a number of substantial outcomes, one of which was a commitment that ministers of the Scottish Government and the other devolved Administrations will attend and speak at European Council meetings and, where appropriate, represent the United Kingdom at those meetings.

Jamie Hepburn (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

I welcome the achievements of the Scottish Government in getting the JMC structure to deliver some positive changes for Scotland. Is there a lesson in the outcome of this week’s meetings that the devolution settlement must never return to a situation in which any UK Government treats Holyrood simply as a department of Whitehall, to be bullied or ignored as it sees fit?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

There is a substantial amount in that question. I should remind members that the tendency of some people in central Government to treat this Parliament and, indeed, other assemblies and Parliaments in that fashion did not arise with the advent of the SNP Government but predated it. Indeed, the JMC plenary, which is the key meeting between ministers, First Ministers and Prime Ministers, did not take place between October 2002 and June 2008, when it was revived.

I welcome the fact that the Prime Minister chaired the meeting on Tuesday. There are substantial differences, particularly in the approach to economic policy and public spending, between all three of the devolved Administrations and the coalition Government in London. Nonetheless, on a variety of issues that are important for the people of Scotland, progress was achieved on Tuesday, and I welcome the commitment of the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister in attending that meeting.

VisitScotland

Lewis Macdonald (Labour, Aberdeen Central)

5. To ask the First Minister when he last spoke to the chairman of VisitScotland and what matters were discussed. (S3F-2468)

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

I last spoke to Dr Cantlay on Tuesday 25 May 2010 about homecoming.

Lewis Macdonald (Labour, Aberdeen Central)

Does the First Minister acknowledge the statutory duties of the chief executive, as VisitScotland’s accountable officer, to be responsible for the proper use of public funds? Does he believe that Scottish ministers have been kept informed of any changes that are likely to impact on the strategic direction of VisitScotland, as required by the agency’s management status? Will he tell us who, today, is VisitScotland’s accountable officer?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

The strategic direction is as was laid out in the statement from the tourism minister last week. All of that has been accorded with. I hope that Lewis Macdonald is not seriously suggesting that ministers direct personnel matters at VisitScotland. That is not the job—[Interruption.]

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

Order.

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

The meeting of Tuesday 25 May was actually a press conference at which Dr Cantley and I announced the independent research into homecoming Scotland 2009. It showed that homecoming generated £53.7 million of additional tourism revenue for Scotland—22 per cent above target. That is an example of the strategic direction that was set by ministers and which is proving to be an extraordinary success, despite the carping criticism throughout of Lewis Macdonald.

Iain Smith (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

Given that success, does not it seem a bit strange that VisitScotland seems to be intent on sacking its chief executive? Will the First Minister now answer the questions that we tried to get answered last week? Which ministers discussed the future of the chief executive with the chairman of VisitScotland before his appointment, during the appointment process or since his appointment? We did not get clear answers to our questions last week. We need those clear answers.

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

Other ministers answered that last week. As far as I am concerned, I spoke to Dr Cantley on Tuesday 25 May about homecoming. I did so in front of the majority of the Scottish press corps. I was entitled to do that—it was a thoroughly good thing to do. The success of homecoming 2009 is to be welcomed across the chamber. I join Murdo Fraser in hoping that homecoming 2014 will be an even greater success.

Public Sector Staff Bonuses

Jeremy Purvis (Liberal Democrat, Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale)

6. To ask the First Minister whether the Scottish Government is taking action to restrict the payment of bonuses to the highest-paid staff in the public sector. (S3F-2475)

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

We are taking action to reduce the maximum bonus that is available to chief executives of public bodies. This year, we are again asking chief executives to waive all or part of any bonus, as many of them agreed to do last year. Within the Scottish Government, performance pay for senior civil service staff has been halved in 2010-11, compared with last year.

Jeremy Purvis (Liberal Democrat, Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale)

In March, the First Minister told Parliament that reviewing the remuneration packages of the chief executives of quangos would

“give rise to a host of legal problems and, quite possibly, to court challenges.”—[Official Report, 25 March 2010; c 25099.]

In his answer of 7 May to a parliamentary question that I put, John Swinney confirmed that

“Since this administration took office, the Scottish Government has approved reviews for”—[Official Report, Written Answers, 7 May 2010; S3W-32990.]

19 chief executive posts. Given that those reviews took place under his Administration and that our top three public sector officials were hired under contracts that his Administration issued, will he confirm that none of those people will receive bonuses this year and next?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

I am delighted to say that a number of recent new appointments and new posts do not have bonus arrangements. For example, that is the case for Creative Scotland, the Scottish Futures Trust and the Scottish Police Services Authority. I hope that Jeremy Purvis accepts that it is somewhat easier to introduce a no-bonus policy for new appointments and new bodies than it is to try to rewrite contracts that were signed at a time when the Liberal Democrats were in coalition government with the Labour Party.

Margo MacDonald (Independent, Lothians)

I would not wish to push a wages policy on the First Minister, particularly as could not carry one out in any case—he does not have the powers to do so. What will he do to encourage people in the private sector to exercise restraint and to show some sensitivity to the folk who are losing their jobs?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

The Government has some powers over wages policy. For example, in the “Public Sector Pay Policy for Staff Pay Remits 2010-11”, we set out the pay parameters for staff in public bodies, limiting basic awards to 1 per cent. It is true that senior staff in the public sector are governed by pay arrangements from Westminster, but there are a variety of pay bodies in the public sector into or on which the Scottish Government has a strong input or impact. I join Margo MacDonald in saying that, in the toughest imaginable times to come, people throughout the public and private sector will have to show restraint in terms of their wages. I support the view that those with the broadest shoulders should bear the largest burden.

12:29 Meeting suspended until 14:15.

14:15 On resuming—

Fossil Fuel Levy

Gil Paterson (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

1. To ask the Scottish Government what progress has been made in releasing the funds that have accumulated under the fossil fuel levy. (S3O-10909)

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

The United Kingdom Government has given a commitment to

“review the control and use of accumulated and future revenues from the Fossil Fuel Levy in Scotland.”

The Scottish Government continues to work with UK Government ministers and officials to agree a resolution to the issue to ensure that the levy is released for investment in renewable energy in a way that is additional to the Scottish budget.

Gil Paterson (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

Has the cabinet secretary calculated the impact on the Scottish economy and the number of jobs that could be created if the fund was repatriated to Scotland?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

I have not made the precise calculation to which Mr Paterson refers, but I can say that the advantage of the fossil fuel levy and the real imperative for us to secure access to the resources in a fashion that is additional to the Scottish budget is that it would enable us to pursue what is widely appreciated throughout the Parliament to be the enormous opportunity in the potential of renewable energy in Scotland.

The Government has made a number of preparations to ensure that we are well placed to support the development of the renewables industry. Much of that work is formulated around the “National Renewables Infrastructure Plan”, which is an ambitious plan that we hope will not only attract support through the fossil fuel levy resources but capture resources from the private sector, which would observe the Government’s significant investment in this activity.

John Scott (Conservative, Ayr)

Like other members of the Parliament, I have many constituents who applied for support under the boiler scrappage scheme and were disappointed to learn that it was oversubscribed in just 36 hours. In the event that funds from the fossil fuel levy are released, will the Government consider using some of them to extend the boiler scrappage scheme, which has clearly been both popular and successful?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

I hear Mr Scott’s concerns on behalf of his constituents. Statute is clear that we must use the resources from the fossil fuel levy only for investment in renewable energy. That is the test for investment that would have to be applied, and any investments would have to be made against that particular benchmark. However, I will of course consider the issue that Mr Scott has raised.

Lewis Macdonald (Labour, Aberdeen Central)

Does the cabinet secretary agree that the funding of infrastructure requirements associated with renewable energy may well meet those criteria, even though they are not directly involved in the generation of electricity? If that is the case, how will the cabinet secretary undertake consultation on the use of any such funds with those who have an interest in ensuring that the right infrastructure is in place throughout Scotland?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

That is an aspiration to which we would all subscribe. We must have in place the appropriate infrastructure to ensure that Scotland can retain the leadership that it has in many areas of renewable activity—that is the case particularly in wave and tidal activity, but we are in an exceptionally strong position on offshore wind into the bargain. It is essential that the infrastructure that we put in place meets all the demands and requirements.

The “National Renewables Infrastructure Plan” has been developed on the Government’s behalf by Scottish Enterprise. There has been wide consultation in the sector on the components and interventions that would make a difference. We will continue that dialogue, and if we have a successful outcome to the current discussions with the UK Government on the fossil fuel levy we will be able to utilise the base of consultation that has been undertaken already and which will be taken further forward in the event of our being successful in accessing the resources.

Libraries (Book Contract)

Des McNulty (Labour, Clydebank and Milngavie)

2. To ask the Scottish Executive whether it will reconsider its decision to centralise the book contract for public and school libraries, given concerns expressed by small publishers, librarians and principal teachers. (S3O-10860)

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

The tendering exercise is being conducted by Scotland Excel, acting on behalf of all the local authorities that are its members. The Scottish Government is not a decision maker on this contract.

Des McNulty (Labour, Clydebank and Milngavie)

But the Scottish Executive has overall responsibility for the Scottish economy and is, as far as I understand it, in charge of educational policy. It cannot be good for Scotland for small book publishers to be placed at risk and for librarians, particularly school librarians, to lose direct access to local companies that currently provide them with books. Can the Scottish Government really do nothing whatever to remedy a situation that is directly affecting jobs and services for people in Scotland?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

I acknowledge members’ concerns about this issue; Mr McNulty has written to the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning and other members have written to me. As I said in my answer, which was not meant to be evasive in any way, the Government is not the decision maker on the contract—Scotland Excel is taking forward this procurement—but within the boundaries of what I am able to say about this, I can tell the chamber that I am advised that in this area of activity about 75 per cent of existing supplies of books are delivered by companies that are outwith Scotland and not of the character that Mr McNulty referred to in his question. They are not small, local, Scottish publishers. I am advised, therefore, that the focus of the tender is on delivering greater value for the 75 per cent of annual expenditure that currently flows through wholesalers based outside Scotland. The other 25 per cent of the market—or £2 million-worth of supplies per annum—that is made up of specialist titles will in no way be affected by this tender. In other words, Scottish providers and suppliers should not be affected by these developments.

That is the information of which I have been advised. I have discussed the issue with Scotland Excel because I feel that, when I receive a number of letters of this nature from MSPs, it becomes incumbent on me to do so. The organisation is midway through a procurement exercise and has assured me that the concerns that have been raised will be properly and fully addressed once the tendering process and procurement procedure are complete.

West Lothian Council (Transport)

Mary Mulligan (Labour, Linlithgow)

3. To ask the Scottish Executive when it last met representatives of West Lothian Council to discuss transport issues. (S3O-10861)

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

The Scottish Government’s senior bus development adviser met representatives of West Lothian Council on 28 April 2010 to discuss various aspects of the provision of local bus services in West Lothian.

Mary Mulligan (Labour, Linlithgow)

When I spoke to West Lothian Council officials recently, they were unable to confirm what Scottish National Party councillors in Falkirk were telling local hauliers, which was that the Scottish Government was about to provide finance for the Avon gorge crossing to be started and completed. Will the minister confirm that that is the case? If not, when is he likely to make such an announcement?

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

I recognise that Falkirk Council and West Lothian Council have for quite a long time been carrying out very substantial work on this matter. The priorities of the current roads programme in the strategic transport projects review are clear and we will consider the A801 upgrade and other measures promoting access to Grangemouth in particular as we consider future spending reviews.

Scottish Executive Staff Bonuses

Iain Smith (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

4. To ask the Scottish Executive how much was paid to its core departmental staff in bonuses in 2008-09. (S3O-10924)

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

During the period 1 April 2008 to 31 March 2009, performance payments totalling £1,887,514 were paid to staff in the Scottish Government’s core directorates. The payments were made on a taxable, non-consolidated and non-pensionable basis.