There’s plenty going on this week which demonstrates the Coalition government should pay more heed to where Scotland is and what she thinks. Nonetheless, David Cameron’s proposal on minimum pricing for alcohol is undoubtedly inspired by Scotland’s lead.
Maybe you missed it in a boozy blur between Christmas and New Year, but David Cameron has instructed civil servants to pull together plans for minimum pricing for alcohol sales in England. According to The Daily Telegraph, this could either be the Scottish model, banning the sale of alcohol priced below 45 pence per unit, or as taxes based upon the number of units in a drink.
Whitehall’s strategy on alcohol will be published in February. The Scottish Government’s Bill is at Stage 1 at Holyrood, after being introduced by Nicola Sturgeon back in October. Labour at Holyrood don’t believe minimum unit pricing is the answer to Scotland’s alcohol issues as “it will not target problem drinksâ€. But might they be compelled from February onwards to take an opposing view to Labour at Westminster?
Despite introducing 24 hour drinking in England while in government, in early 2010 Andy Burnham, the then Health Secretary, indicated that Brown’s government were at least open to considering the introduction of minimum alcohol prices, saying:
“We need to balance the rights of people who drink responsibly with those who buy ludicrously cheap booze and go out and harm themselves and others… There is no shortage of research that shows the link with price and people drinking harmful levels of alcohol – there is no debate about that.â€
Back then, Andrew Lansley, now Health Secretary, dismissed calls to set a minimum price for alcohol from both the Chief Medical Officer and the Commons Health Select Committee. Although the Coalition has banned supermarkets selling booze as a loss leader, and introduced higher duty on super-strength beer and cider, Lansley reportedly favours a voluntary approach on the part of the seller, indicating that Cameron has over-ruled him with the minimum price move.
A split between government ministers is always fun for oppositions. But with his previous comments, as well as many Labour-controlled councils within Greater Manchester and Merseyside considering the introduction of bylaws to set minimum alcohol prices, it won’t be so easy for Burnham to dismiss Cameron’s move for minimum pricing if it is included in proposals come February.
Of course, Burnham didn’t do anything when in power about minimum pricing, and his somewhat cool comment above could mean Labour will oppose any move by the coalition to introduce minimum pricing. But Burnham’s performance during Labour’s leadership elections in 2010 sees him regarded as a considerate centrist, while his recent campaign for the full disclosure of Hillsborough papers means he’s unafraid to grab emotive, powerful public issues. I would bet he won’t oppose minimum pricing just because Cameron wants it.
Meanwhile, Scottish Labour is gone too far on record opposing a minimum unit price to adapt to it developing from a Scottish to a UK debate. If Burnham backs Cameron’s measures, Jackie Baillie has to stand alone.
Labour in Holyrood’s not wrong in saying minimum pricing isn’t enough on its own to tackle Scotland’s demon drink problem. But I think they are mistaken to not back minimum pricing.
To survive Scottish Labour needs to develop an identity, both political and on policy, to distinguish itself from the Westminster party. But trying to do that on legislation that will save people’s lives should not be the place to start.
#1 by GMcM on January 11, 2012 - 12:29 pm
I’m sorry Kirsty but you ahven’t painted an accurate picture of Scottish Labour’s position on tackling alcohol abuse.
We have consistently said that minimum unit pricing on its own won’t do enough to tackle problem drinking but we have also stated that this is a policy area that would be most practicably dealt with across the UK. That way we could recoup the additional revenues and direct that cash into the NHS.
The SNP have consistently claimed that Scottish Labour are completely opposed to minimum pricing and that is not true. We are opposed to the narrow legislation that the SNP are proposing.
This is reminiscent of the so called ‘sectarian’ legislation which is more about appearing to do something rather than doing what is best to tackle a given problem.
If it is a valid criticism to label Labour as oppositionalist in the approach taken to minimum pricing I feel it is also valid to label the SNP as stubborn. If you don’t agree with what they propose then there can be no consensus. Why haven’t the SNP opened up their policy for greater amendments to really tackle the scurge of alcohol abuse?
#2 by Don McC on January 12, 2012 - 7:20 pm
The problem, though, that even as Jackie Baillie was abdicating her responsibilities and claiming we couldn’t sort this ourself and needed the guiding hand of Westminster to implement a solution instead, Call Me Dave was saying he had absolutely no interest in doing so. Now, because CMD’s announcement co-incided with Ms Baillie’s, almost to the hour, the SNP were’nt stretching the truth that far by stating Labour were opposed to minimum pricing. After all, arguing for something that you know has little chance of happening isn’t much different from arguing against it.
But you talk about being stubborn? What’s the difference between minimum pricing and a minimum floor price? Well one was an SNP idea and therefore opposed. The other was a Scottish Labour idea and therefore supported.
That’s really being stubborn.
#3 by GMcM on January 13, 2012 - 9:38 am
No, Labour never said “couldn’t”. Labour have conistently said that we shouldn’t do this on our own but have a joined up approach across the UK. The SNP would never support this position, stubbornly, as they don’t believe in devolution and co-operation between nations of the UK unless it co-operation with the devolved governments to attack the nasty English.
The SNP obviously feel they cannot be seen to make devolution work properly or else it will undermine their case for independence.
The SNP have made it their goal to stoke up resentment (whether based on fact or not) against the rUK. We said that would happen in 2007 and we have been proven correct. Also, don’t try and defend this sh*t-stirring as ‘standing up for Scotland’; this is a case of the SNP looking for problems where none exist or looking to complain about irregularities rather than seeking to resolve them in a grown up manner (again because this would show that devolution works).
However, I don’t want to get in the way of ‘positive’ SNP politics for fear of being labelled negative.
#4 by Aidan on January 11, 2012 - 3:30 pm
How will the proposal to tax drinks on a per-unit basis differ from current duty situation which imposes higher rates of tax on higher alcohol drinks?
#5 by Indy on January 11, 2012 - 4:29 pm
Nobody has ever said that minimum unit pricing on its own will tackle problem drinking. But the concensus is that without action to tackle low price booze sales other measures will not be effective on their own.
And it’s a big consensus – this is not something the SNP came up with on the back of a fag packet. It’s the entire medical profession basically plus the police, other agencies, charities, voluntary sector etc. I’m not saying that government always has to do what professionals advise them to – but when you have such a solid block of expert opinion saying this is something that is necessary there would need to be a good reason to ignore that and Labour haven’t given one.
The reason it has to be unit pricing rather than just taxation is that big supermarkets could easily afford either to absorb the increased tax or to pass it onto customers on other products. The only way to stop alcohol being sold at pocket money prices is to set a minimum price for each unit of alcohol.
And talk about being able to recoup additional revenues also misses the point. The purpose of minimum pricing is not to raise money from alcohol abuse – it is to reduce the amount of alcohol that is sold.
#6 by GMcM on January 11, 2012 - 4:53 pm
The point you make in the first paragraph is entirely in line with what I’m saying. The legislation needs to be opened up as on their own none of these policies will be trully effective. Why won’t the SNP do this?
Well we all know the SNP will act without the consensus of Parliament or civic Scotland – ‘sectarian’ Bill anyone?
Supermarkets could easily afford to absord the increase in tax? Yeah just like petrol companies do when fuel duty goes up, they just leave it as is and take the hit. C’mon Indy, if duty goes up suppliers put their prices up.
I think you miss the point about recouping additional revenues. The point is that if the price is going up who should benefit from the increase? Should it be the retailers or should it be the NHS and other organisations that work to tackle problem drinking, domestic abuse etc?
#7 by Indy on January 11, 2012 - 6:29 pm
What are you talking about? There was an Alcohol Bill passed by the Scottish Parliament in November 2010. It was wide open to amendment – we had a majority of one at that time, remember? What amendments have Labour got now that they didn’t have then? The only reason that there is going to be separate legislation on minimum pricing is because Labour and the Tories blocked that part of the Bill in 2009/10. Don’t try and re-write history please, especially such recent history.
You still don’t get the very basic point about minimum pricing. In the long term it should be cost neutral. As alcohol prices go up, consumption should go down. That is the whole entire point of it. I repeat we are not seeking to raise additional revenues from alcohol abuse in order to treat alcohol abuse. That’s a dead end policy. The point is to reduce the amount of alcohol that is purchased and consumed and therefore reduce the medical and social harm.
#8 by GMcM on January 12, 2012 - 9:30 am
Indy I get the point of minimum pricing but even you said ‘should’. I’m saying that if consumption did NOT come down to a tolerable level and there was additional money being made from the scheme that it would be better going to the public purse to be distributed around the NHS etc.
Whether you use the SNP proposal or the UK-wide duty proposal you would hope that the policy is cost neutral. As the financial penalty is implemented (in whater guise) you see a reduction in overall consumption and therefore a reduction in alcohiol abuse and the health and social problems we see related to it.
My point is – when you have two proposals that would have the same cost neutral goal, why would you choose the one that in event of some kind of failure in policy the retailers benefit and not the NHS?
Also Labour did put forward amendments to the Alcohol Bill and they were rejected even though they were supported by health professionals also. Why do the SNP want to listen to health professionals when they agree with their policy but not when they agree with a Labour Party proposal?
#9 by Indy on January 12, 2012 - 10:35 am
But they don’t have the same goal, don’t you see? As long as you oppose setting a minimum price on each unit of alcohol there is nothing – absolutely nothing – to stop the major retailers continuing to sell drink at pocket money prices. If duty goes up they can either absorb it or pass the cost on to customers on other products. I don’t know why you appear to think that an increase in duty on alcohol would automatically lead to an increase in the cost of drink. It would be much more likely to lead to an increase in the cost of other products. Because the reason drink is sold so cheaply is because that is what the supermarkets and other retailers are competing on. That’s why none of them would unilaterally put prices up – they would lose custom. If you set a minimum price however the cost of drink goes up across the board. Which would also, incidentally, help level the playing field between the big players and smaller shops which sell alcohol and have to cut prices to compete. It’s a vicious circle and that is what we need to break.
#10 by Indy on January 11, 2012 - 6:46 pm
And by the way can you provide any evidence of “civic Scotland” being against minimum pricing? I know the big supermarkets are – but who else?
Cos off the top of my head every voluntary sector agency working in the field supports minimum pricing and they have been actively campaigning for it, as of course has the medical profession – doctors, nurses, chief medical officer etc. The police support it, so does the Children’s Commissioner and various children’s and family charities, and so do various licencing boards and community health partnerships, even those in Labour run councils. The list is enormous.
I realise of course that Labour think they know better than any of these people but I am interested in who else – other than those who make a profit selling alcohol – is strongly opposed to the idea.
#11 by An Duine Gruamach on January 11, 2012 - 11:32 pm
You can add the Kirk’s “Church and Society” council to the list of civic institutions that supported it. A council convened by one Rev. Ewan Aitkin.
#12 by GMcM on January 12, 2012 - 9:20 am
I was talking about the so called sectarian Bill, that was quite clear. The point I made regarding that is precisely what you have tried to make against Labour in your last paragraph above. (think we know better than any of these people) The sectarian Bill was an obvious example of the SNP going against the advice of the majority of experts on that particular issue and ties in perfectly to your comment about a government not always having to do what x, y and z tell them to do.
So yes I agree that there is a large groundswell in support of some sort of minimum pricing being imposed on alcohol to curb over consumption – but I never suggested otherwise!
#13 by James Macdonald on January 11, 2012 - 7:58 pm
“Labour said minimum pricing isn’t enough on its own” – I don’t think anyone said it would be enough on its own.
#14 by Craig Gallagher on January 12, 2012 - 1:05 am
Good article, Kirsty. I think Labour’s position has been untenable on minimum pricing from the start. We hear a lot from them about changing the culture of alcohol, a policy that also reflects their sectarianism policies, and I am heartily in favour of such an approach in theory.
In practice, though, such efforts have hardly dented this nation’s penchant for getting blootered. I recognise that it’s hardly very left-wing to start hiking prices on products consumed mainly by the poor (unless you take the view that the state knows best) but at the same time, enforcement on alcohol culture has been proven to work in the past. Just look at America’s prohibition era. Yes, there were countless famous examples of illegal “moonshine” and the black market made a literal killing off the trade of illicit liqour, but despite all that, many scholars credit the 15 or so years that America was dry of breaking the pub culture they had largely adopted wholesale from British society in the same period. Now, Americans might go to the bar in the evenings, but they don’t have any of our ridiculous “traditions” like rounds at the pub, liquid lunches and other social trappings that are designed to get people drinking more and often excessively.
#15 by Indy on January 12, 2012 - 7:54 am
What people don’t take into account when they use the argument that we need to change the culture rather than tackling pricing is that the two are intrinsically related. It is the prevalence of low cost high volume booze that has helped create such a harmful drinking culture. Just to take one example, a few decades ago most drink was bought in licensed premises – today most drink is bought in supermarkets and drunk at home. But if you look at the consequences of that it’s actually led to people drinking much more and it’s also removed the social controls, the rules of drinking, which prevailed in pubs and clubs.
We want to get people back into pubs really, rather than driving them out of them. It’s only by addressing the huge disparity in pricing between supermarkets and licensed premises that we can start to change the culture of drinking to ridiculous levels of excess that we are currently seeing. As long as people can get tanked up on supermaket booze for a couple of quid they will do it, whereas that would only buy you one drink in a pub.