Alcohol (Minimum Pricing) (Scotland) Bill

– in the Scottish Parliament at on 24 May 2012.

Alert me about debates like this

Photo of John Scott John Scott Conservative

The next item of business is a debate on motion S4M-02967, in the name of Nicola Sturgeon, on the Alcohol (Minimum Pricing) (Scotland) Bill. I call on Nicola Sturgeon to speak to and move the motion. The cabinet secretary has a generous 10 minutes.

Photo of Nicola Sturgeon Nicola Sturgeon Scottish National Party

For the purposes of rule 9.11 of the standing orders, I wish to advise the Parliament that Her Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the Alcohol (Minimum Pricing) (Scotland) Bill, has consented to place her prerogative and interests, so far as they are affected by the bill, at the disposal of the Parliament for the purposes of the bill.

I thank the Health and Sport Committee’s members and clerks for their attention and input to the bill. A great deal had already been said about minimum pricing by the time that the Health and Sport Committee in this session of Parliament came to scrutinise the bill, but I appreciate the fact that members came to it with a fresh eye. I thank them for that and for the amount of work that was done on the bill.

I also thank sincerely all my officials and my bill team for all their hard work, advice and support during the passage of the bill. Anyone who has not witnessed the bill process at close quarters cannot really appreciate how much work is done behind the scenes to support the passage of any bill—even a bill as short and focused as this one.

We are today debating and—I hope and expect—passing a bill that will have a significant and historic impact on Scotland’s relationship with alcohol. It has been a long time in the making, but I am delighted that this moment has at last arrived.

The bill will kick-start a change in our alcohol culture by addressing a fundamental part of that culture: the availability of high-strength, low-cost alcohol. During the passage of this bill and the previous bill, the Parliament has come to accept that a pricing intervention is part of the solution; it is not the whole solution, but it is part of the solution. The Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives have reflected on their previous positions and they are now supportive of minimum pricing being that intervention and are, at the very least, prepared to give the policy a chance. I should mention the Greens, who have, of course, supported the policy not only in this session of Parliament but in the previous session.

Who knows, even at this late hour, it may be that those on the Labour benches will allow themselves to see the bigger picture and will finally, at the 11th hour, drop their petty, party-political opposition to the bill and join the rest of us in Parliament in voting for minimum pricing.

I accept and appreciate that there are those who are sceptical about whether the bill will have the impact that I believe it will have, but the sunset clause provides the reassurance that if minimum pricing does not work, it will not continue. On that basis, I think that Parliament should come together at 5 o’clock and pass the bill unanimously. Support for minimum pricing across the whole of the Parliament will send out a very strong signal to Scotland as a whole that we are serious about tackling the levels of alcohol misuse that this country suffers from.

We have seen support for minimum pricing continue to grow. It has support from doctors, nurses, the police, children’s charities, faith groups and significant sections of the alcohol industry, for which I thank them all. I see people in the public gallery who have given the measure their unwavering support, and I put on record my sincere thanks to them for that.

In addition to that coalition of support in Scotland, other countries are beginning to take our lead. Ireland and Northern Ireland are discussing introducing a minimum price, and the United Kingdom Government is now committed to introducing minimum pricing for England and Wales and is consulting on the price.

Scottish Labour is in abject isolation on the policy. Its position has been rendered all the more ridiculous—if that is possible—by the fact that Labour south of the border also agrees with the Scottish Government. We are leading the way in Scotland; others are following and still others are interested in following.

Photo of Nicola Sturgeon Nicola Sturgeon Scottish National Party

If Jackie Baillie wants to comment on Diane Abbott’s support for the Scottish Government, I will be delighted to take an intervention.

Photo of Jackie Baillie Jackie Baillie Labour

I thank the cabinet secretary for her generosity. First it was the First Minister, and now the Deputy First Minister is following Diane Abbott. I am delighted that they have the time to follow Labour MPs on Twitter.

Yvette Cooper, the shadow Home Secretary, who speaks for Labour on the issue, said that

“the Government needs to make sure it does not just create a cash windfall for the supermarkets” and that it supports

“better prevention and treatment of alcohol abuse”.

Surely we can come together at 5 o’clock to agree with that.

Photo of Nicola Sturgeon Nicola Sturgeon Scottish National Party

What Jackie Baillie does not tell members is that, before saying that, Yvette Cooper said that she supported minimum pricing. That is the position of Yvette Cooper and of Labour south of the border. No matter how hard Scottish Labour tries to find the fig leaf to hide its embarrassment, its position is one of isolation and—if it has any sense—complete embarrassment and shame. However, it is not too late for Labour members to redeem themselves at 5 o’clock by joining the consensus in favour of the policy.

Having used five minutes of my generous 10 minutes, I will address issues that have arisen in the debate. Early in the debate, people often posed the question why, if we had powers over excise duty, we would not prefer to use excise duty as the best way to address the issue. In answer to that question, I pose a question: if using excise duty is the better way to proceed, why has the UK Government, which has excise duty powers, also opted for minimum pricing? The answer is that the UK Government has come to the same conclusion as we came to, which is that minimum pricing is a more effective way of targeting the cheap, high-strength alcohol that is causing so much damage in our society.

I say to those who are concerned about the impact of minimum pricing on various groups that, as I said during consideration of amendments this afternoon, we will monitor and evaluate the impact and we will consider the effect on people such as those on low incomes, harmful drinkers and young drinkers.

To those who say that the policy is not legal, I reiterate my view that minimum pricing per unit of alcohol complies with European Union law, provided that it is justified on the basis of public health and social grounds. I am confident that the policy is justified in Scotland.

I take the opportunity to tell Parliament that, following the bill’s passage, we will commence the process of EU notification under the technical standards directive. The draft order that sets the price will be notified as soon as possible, with all the accompanying documents, including the bill—or act, as it will be. That process will happen as quickly as possible, and notification will certainly take place well within one month of the bill’s passage today.

Minimum pricing will make a significant difference, but it is not—and I have never argued that it is—a magic bullet. We should not forget that we have in place many other measures to tackle alcohol misuse. The framework for action sets out more than 40 measures that seek to reduce consumption, to support families and communities, to encourage more positive attitudes and positive choices and to improve treatment and support services.

That broader approach also focuses on education, diversionary activity, support for families and preventive measures, such as alcohol brief interventions. We have made record investment of £196 million to tackle alcohol misuse since 2008. The bulk of the funding is being invested in local prevention, treatment and support services. Along with minimum pricing and other measures, such as the approach to quantity discounts and irresponsible promotion of alcohol, that wider package will help to create the cultural shift that is required if we are to change our relationship with alcohol.

The inescapable fact is that alcohol misuse affects each and every one of us. Whether we drink a lot, a little or not at all, each and every one of us pays £900 every year towards the cost of alcohol misuse. That money could be better spent elsewhere.

Last week I announced that I am minded to set the minimum price at 50p per unit. That was not an easy decision, because there is an important balance to be struck between the benefits to public health and the impact on industry. The decision was made after taking account of relevant factors, which have been updated since I proposed a price per unit of alcohol of 45p in September 2010. Factors included the updated modelling that has been carried out by the University of Sheffield, and data on alcohol sales, price bands, affordability and harm. In addition, I took account of the fact that the earliest the policy is likely to be implemented is April 2013.

Taking all those factors into account, 50p per unit is broadly equivalent to the 45p that was announced in 2010. More important, it is estimated that the minimum unit price will deliver significant benefits. I remind the Parliament of those benefits: 60 fewer deaths in the first year, 1,200 fewer alcohol-related illnesses in the first year and 1,600 fewer hospital admissions in the first year. It is also estimated that there will be around 3,500 fewer crimes per year. Over 10 years, we expect 300 fewer deaths per year and nearly 4,000 fewer illnesses and 6,500 fewer hospital admissions.

I absolutely accept that people ask whether the modelling will translate into reality. However, if we think that benefits on anywhere near the scale of those in the model are within our grasp, we have a moral duty to go for them. That is what the Government is doing.

Presiding Officer, I suspect that your generosity is running out, so I will come to a close. Tackling alcohol misuse is one of the most important public health challenges that we face in Scotland. The Parliament has the opportunity today to take a significant step towards reducing alcohol-related harm. I sincerely hope that members of all parties will support the bill and create an historic moment for the public health of Scotland’s people.

It gives me great pleasure to move,

That the Parliament agrees that the Alcohol (Minimum Pricing) (Scotland) Bill be passed.

Photo of Jackie Baillie Jackie Baillie Labour

I, too, welcome the opportunity to participate in the stage 3 debate on minimum pricing, and I too record my thanks to all involved.

Throughout the passage of the bill, Labour has been clear that there is much on which we can agree. We agree on the scale of the problem and the need for cultural and generational change. We agree that a range of measures is required to tackle a complex and multifaceted problem. We agree that there is a relationship between price and consumption. However, we disagree on the best mechanism for achieving our aims. In essence, we do not think that minimum unit pricing is the answer. However, I acknowledge the parliamentary arithmetic, so it is important that we seek to mitigate the unintended consequences of the bill.

There is no doubting the scale of the problem of alcohol abuse, which happens across the board and is not defined by age, gender or income. The cost to our public services is significant, as is the cost to people’s lives.

We should focus on reducing the volume of drinking, but we need to consider how people drink. There is a particular problem with binge drinking in Scotland, which simply is not addressed by price and has not been modelled by the University of Sheffield—I hope that the cabinet secretary will consider the need for such work in future. North and south of the border, the price is the same, yet we drink 25 per cent more than people in England, so there is clearly an underlying problem, which is currently unaffected by price and is perhaps more to do with culture.

Photo of Margo MacDonald Margo MacDonald Independent

Could the member briefly examine whether that figure of 25 per cent is a mean figure across the country? I doubt that it is. I am sure that there are areas of the country where people drink a lot more than 25 per cent more than people in England do. In my area, they do not drink nearly enough.

Photo of Jackie Baillie Jackie Baillie Labour

I think that the figure varies by income, which I think is the point that the member is making. I am sure that people will look forward to drinking more with Margo MacDonald in future.

Drinking is not just a problem of the poor. I heard a telling comment from an Edinburgh wine merchant who told a middle-class audience that they should all support minimum unit pricing because it would not affect them—“We drink wine, not cider,” he said. However, the greatest growth in the number of people abusing alcohol involves middle-aged, middle-income women. Indeed, the rise in consumption in Scotland since 1994 is wholly explained by wine, while the consumption of beer and spirits has declined in that period.

We have concerns about three main areas: the legality of the measure; its efficacy; and, related to that, the windfall of £125 million, which will go, in the main, to supermarkets. On the issue of legality, I note that the cabinet secretary is offering to notify the price-setting order to the EU, and that is welcome. However, the bill itself should be notified, and not simply as an accompanying document. The cabinet secretary knows that there is a difference. The bill forms an important context. It describes how minimum pricing will be applied and it contains the mechanism for calculating the price of products on the market. I believe that the Tories thought that the cabinet secretary had promised them that she would notify the whole bill, but she is not delivering that in full.

On the issue of efficacy, there is little impact on young people or on binge drinking and there is no impact on caffeinated alcohol products such as Buckfast, which we know causes wired, wide-awake drunks who engage in a disproportionate level of violence on our streets. As I said, of all alcoholic drinks, the consumption of wine is increasing at a considerable pace, yet the minimum unit price will have only a marginal impact.

I acknowledge that, for some people, the minimum unit price will have an impact. Further, at least people are talking about the issue and awareness has been raised in a way that it has not been before. Indeed, the level of consumption has helpfully, although slowly, been on a steady decline since the passing of the Licensing (Scotland) Act 2005, under the previous Administration.

The purpose of our reasoned amendment is to recoup the windfall of £125 million. The University of Sheffield model predicts that a minimum unit price of 50p will generate approximately £125 million each year as revenue for alcohol retailers. We know that supermarkets would be the biggest beneficiaries of that. The Confederation of British Industry believes that the figure will be in excess of £150 million. However, whatever the figure is, at a time when money is tight and the Scottish National Party is cutting the alcohol treatment budget by 7 per cent—more than £3 million—handing that money to supermarkets is, frankly, astonishing.

I am disappointed that the cabinet secretary has set her face against using—at least for the foreseeable future—the social responsibility levy, a measure that we supported. She could, of course, use the public health levy. Contrary to the SNP’s assertions, Labour supported the public health levy at the Local Government and Regeneration Committee when the order was debated. However, the public health levy takes back only £35 million in one year and applies only to retailers who sell tobacco and alcohol, yet a minimum unit price will generate £125 million each year, which is four times more than the cabinet secretary will claw back.

I know that the cabinet secretary believes that the supermarkets will reduce the price of bananas, which is, frankly, naive. Already I hear proposals to decrease the price of premium drink as a marketing ploy and to stock supermarket own-brand products in preference to others, but not one peep do I hear from the supermarkets about reducing the price of bananas.

This will be a massive leap of faith. Labour believes that there will be significant unintended consequences if the windfall remains with supermarkets, and that they could undermine the very purpose of the bill. That view is supported by the Institute of Fiscal Studies.

Our preference would have been to build on the alcohol duty escalator that was introduced by Alistair Darling and has been continued by the coalition, which brought about rises of 2 per cent above inflation, which this year meant a rise of 7 per cent. We supported a proposal from the alcohol commission that would create a duty floor, added to which would be the price of invoicing—the French have been using such a measure to good effect. We even suggested on a cross-party basis in the chamber that the restructuring of duty to link it to alcohol strength would be preferable; that was later suggested by the Institute for Fiscal Studies.

All those things would have raised the price of alcohol considerably, and would have returned the money to the public purse to be used for public services. Under the SNP’s proposal, not one penny will be spent on education, enforcement or treatment. Instead, the SNP wants to give supermarkets, which make billions of pounds of profit anyway, even more money. The SNP is stuffing the supermarkets’ pockets with gold when budgets across the public sector are being cut and it is cutting the alcohol treatment budget. People in Scotland just do not understand that: it does not make sense.

In closing, I observe that the cabinet secretary’s closing speech at stage 1 was very big on rhetoric but quite short on detail, which is surprising. I expect more of the same as the debate carries on, but I gently suggest that she changes her tone—[Interruption.] I think that she should, because in her last speech she said that I was putting a blanket over my head on the issue, in an apparently witty reference to the lack of blankets in our hospitals, although she denied that at the time. That spectacularly backfired, so a bit of caution is required.

Tackling our relationship with alcohol is a serious issue. We have come forward with a serious suggestion to improve the bill and empower public services in tackling alcohol abuse in Scotland. There is time for the cabinet secretary to have a unified chamber, but she is in danger of losing it when she decides to fill the pockets—

The Deputy Presiding Officer:

I am afraid that the member is running out of time.

Photo of Jackie Baillie Jackie Baillie Labour

—of large supermarkets at the expense of hard-working public services.

I move amendment S4M-02967.1, to insert at end:

“but, in so doing, strongly believes that the Scottish Government should bring forward proposals to eliminate the windfall to large retailers arising from the minimum unit price by means of the proposed public health levy or other targeted levy.”

Photo of Jackson Carlaw Jackson Carlaw Conservative

Today is a significant day. Alcohol minimum unit pricing has been the centre of debate in the current session and the previous session of Parliament, almost to the detraction of the wider discussion that the Parliament needs to have about Scotland’s relationship with alcohol. I do not want to detract from what the cabinet secretary said a few moments ago about the bill being one of a raft of measures that are already in place, but it has undoubtedly preoccupied the debate in the chamber.

We Scottish Conservatives have changed our position. In the previous session of Parliament, we felt that the legislation that was implemented by the previous Labour-Liberal Democrat Administration had not had time to prove itself, and that the evidence base was not sufficiently balanced to allow us to support alcohol minimum unit pricing at that time.

In one of my first speeches to Parliament, I said that I personally did not rule out alcohol minimum unit pricing, and in supporting it today, I very much hope that it will work. I fear that the measure cannot achieve all that some have hoped for it as the bill has progressed through committee, but I believe that it will make a contribution. The Parliament must hope in passing the legislation that it succeeds.

I am pleased that, where Scottish Conservatives have led, London Conservatives have chosen to follow. That is a perfect example of Scotland and Scottish Conservatives showing our colleagues in the south the way forward in tackling major policy issues in public health.

We are concerned that some of what has been claimed for the bill may not be achieved, and we respect the views of those who, throughout the progress of the legislation, have argued that it cannot succeed. We understand that there is a degree of scepticism, even while we think that the balance of evidence has now tipped very much in favour of allowing the policy its moment to shine.

That is why we proposed the inclusion of a sunset clause, and we were grateful for the support of other parties in that regard. The cabinet secretary’s point is worth emphasising: for those who are sceptical about the policy, the sunset clause is their opportunity to know that, in the event that the policy demonstrably does not have the effect that is claimed for it, the legislation will fall.

On that basis, there is really no good reason for the Parliament not to unite tonight around the policy, and to give it the authority that would enhance it by having all-party support in the chamber so that the people of Scotland can see that we are all robustly in support of it and behind its every prospect of success.

We are keen that the legal position be established, and we are grateful that the Government will allow the legislation to be the subject of a voluntary notification. I hope that that process will be completed at the earliest possible date, because we want to know that—in proposing pioneering legislation that the rest of the world will be looking at—we did everything we could to establish the legal position in advance. I heard what the cabinet secretary said about legality. We very much hope that that is the case, and that the legislation can be implemented and take effect to the timetable that the cabinet secretary has identified.

Dr Simpson, for whom I have considerable respect, talked about the windfall tax being Labour’s red line. During the committee stages, I understood his reservations about the legislation—[Interruption.] I am sorry, but until stage 2, I never heard the Labour Party say that it would vote for the bill if agreement was reached on that one respect. In that regard, regrettably—I have no wish for a party-political debate—I have sympathy with the cabinet secretary’s argument that we are divided at this final stage for political reasons.

I have something to say to Jackie Baillie, to Richard Simpson, and to Drew Smith—clearly the front runner for the future leadership of his party. Does he want to have this stain on his character in future years when people come to look at what this Parliament did? They are lost in the detail of Dr Simpson’s experience and prejudices, to the extent that Labour has lost sight of the bigger picture. I do not think that Labour members sit behind him comfortable in what they are doing, and even now, I appeal to them to allow the chamber to unite and give the policy the authority that it commands.

The Deputy Presiding Officer:

We move to the open debate. Speeches should be of four minutes.

Photo of Bob Doris Bob Doris Scottish National Party

The arguments against minimum pricing on the basis of potential supermarket profits or increased revenues have been well and truly exposed this afternoon as deeply flawed. I do not take any personal satisfaction from that because, at times, that debate has got in the way of analysing the potential public health benefits of minimum pricing.

In that regard, I make a concession to Jackson Carlaw. He has accused SNP back benchers a number of times of being overtly evangelical in promoting the potential benefits of minimum pricing. Perhaps at times we have been, Mr Carlaw. However, it is vital to state clearly the estimated potential health benefits that the Sheffield modelling work suggests, and to once more put the details on the public record.

Those benefits include potentially 60 fewer deaths related to alcohol per annum, 1,600 fewer hospital admissions and 3,500 fewer crimes estimated in the first year. In 10 years’ time, the figures could increase to 300 fewer deaths and 6,500 fewer hospital admissions. Whatever the figures are, we have to accept that the health benefits that will be accrued from minimum pricing will be substantial. I accept that they may be a bit less than estimated but, conversely, they could be greater.

If, in 10 years, an additional 250 lives are being saved every year by minimum pricing, and not the 300 that were estimated by the Sheffield study, that would still be a significant achievement. In 10 years’ time, society will not be talking about the distinction between windfall profits, revenue or whatever. The argument will have moved on.

Whether it is in one year’s time or five years’ time, or whenever, the Labour Party will have to take a serious look at itself and ask why it was discussing a flawed argument on supermarket profits, when everyone should have been talking about how we could turn around Scotland’s relationship with alcohol. That is for Labour to answer, which it will have to do sooner rather than later.

Photo of Margo MacDonald Margo MacDonald Independent

I wonder if the member would like to answer a question for me. What does he see as the result of this measure? Does he see everyone drinking a little less or everyone changing from cider to wine? How does he see this measure having an effect on the individual?

Photo of Bob Doris Bob Doris Scottish National Party

It is not how I see it; it is what the evidence points to, which is that the most harmful drinkers will be most affected by these measures. That is what the evidence shows, and it is true across all income groups. The measure will have a “significant impact”—those are not my words; they are from the evidence that our committee carefully examined. We came to accept that as the most significant aspect.

Do we have four minutes, Presiding Officer?

Photo of Bob Doris Bob Doris Scottish National Party

Oh dear. I will be brief.

The health benefits of minimum pricing differ according to which group we are talking about. It is said that minimum pricing will have slightly less of an impact on younger people in comparison with the rest of the population but, as it will still have a significant as opposed to a negligible impact, it is a measure that is worth taking. In addition, it has been said that minimum pricing will not cut the frequency of binge drinking, but binge drinkers will drink significantly less during such episodes. Therefore, minimum pricing will bring health benefits across the board.

Like Mr Carlaw, I hope that, as a Parliament, we can unite and put party-political considerations behind us and support the bill unanimously. I am delighted to have spoken in this stage 3 debate.

Photo of Sandra White Sandra White Scottish National Party

I am grateful to be able to speak in the debate, given that I am not a member of the Health and Sport Committee.

I want to look at the bill in a slightly different way. The health issues, which are extremely important, have been covered, but I want to focus on two specific issues: overconsumption of alcohol and availability of cheap alcohol, and the problems that they give rise to.

As the constituency member for Glasgow Kelvin, I represent an area that has the greatest concentration in Glasgow—possibly in Scotland—of pubs, clubs, theatres and entertainment venues, which stretch from Byres Road in the west to Sauchiehall Street and the merchant city in the city centre. The area is the hub of Glasgow’s night life, where thriving businesses attract thousands of visitors—tourists and locals alike—at the weekend. They are what makes Glasgow famous and so vibrant.

However, it would be remiss of me not to say that in some—but not all—areas we have problems that are caused by overconsumption of alcohol. Overconsumption causes problems not just for the consumer of alcohol, but for the police, medics and the public in general. The issue must be tackled. Although, as the cabinet secretary said, minimum pricing is not a panacea, we must do something to ensure that we no longer see people lying on pavements or in gutters absolutely drunk. We must do so not just for health reasons, but for the sake of the economy and of the people who visit Glasgow and other parts of Scotland.

The pubs and clubs are not solely responsible for the problem; it is mainly a result of the so-called pre-loading of cheap alcohol that has been bought in supermarkets. In some cases, it is cheaper to buy a litre of alcoholic drink than it is to buy a litre of water. I have spoken to many people in the licensed trade in Glasgow. Paul Waterson of the Scottish Licensed Trade Association says that we need minimum pricing because there is no control over the drinking of people who buy alcohol from supermarkets at knock-down prices. He believes that some people drink for drinking’s sake. Pre-loading of cheap alcohol has become endemic. People who go to licensed premises drink in a controlled environment, but if they drink at home, there is no control. When people go out after getting tanked up on cheap supermarket booze, it is the pubs and the clubs that have to deal with them. We should listen to the SLTA.

The Deputy First Minister mentioned the fact that the pub trade is struggling, and she is absolutely right. Once-thriving pubs, many of which used to be hubs of their communities, are indeed struggling because supermarkets are selling cheap booze. Local pubs that were once social meeting places for many people are closing. I think—I know that the licensed trade does, too—that the balance has shifted too far, so we need to look at restoring the balance.

At one time, people would go out to pubs to enjoy the sociable atmosphere, but with the availability of cheap booze, that is no longer the case. I have some figures that illustrate that. Off-trade sales increased by 52 per cent between 1994 and 2010, whereas the on-trade experienced a fall in sales of 29 per cent. I am talking about the city centre of Glasgow and other areas that I represent; I am talking about pubs that are hubs in their communities and are social gathering places. It is time we listened to the licensed trade. I hope that we can resurrect some of those local pubs, which do so much for communities.

As I have said, minimum pricing is not a panacea, but it is a start, and we should all fully support it.

Photo of Graeme Pearson Graeme Pearson Labour

I thank Jackie Baillie for covering most of the ground on the thinking behind Labour’s approach to the bill. Equally, I thank Sandra White and Bob Doris, who have outlined many of the problems on which the bill seeks to deliver.

In that context, it is unkind of the cabinet secretary to describe our position as “ridiculous” and embarrassing. As rehearsed at stage 3 and in this debate, it is true to say that Scottish Labour members still have legitimate reservations about the bill. It is not just about the windfall that we have discussed; concerns have also been expressed by the Conservatives about the bill’s compliance with European law, which is why we have asked repeatedly for access to the legal advice that the Government obtained earlier. It has been tricky to nail that down. Nevertheless, the cabinet secretary remains adamant that the measure is legal, so I welcome her voluntary reference to the EU and the impact of the act, should the bill be enacted at the end of the day.

As the bill stands, it will generate a significant windfall. Whether it be £68 million, £98 million or £125 million, most of it will end up benefiting the largest supermarkets. I would like to see that money go to treatment, diversionary activities for young people, policing and the cleaning up of areas that are affected by considerable alcohol consumption and antisocial behaviour. As the cabinet secretary herself said during the stage 1 debate, mechanisms are available that could deal with the windfall so, if the Scottish Government accepts our amendment, we will add our support to the bill.

I am pleased to note that the latest figures on alcohol-related admissions to hospitals show a fall for the second year in a row. However, we recognise that that is only one of many measurements of success in the future, and action still needs to be taken to combat the problems that alcohol causes in our communities.

The cabinet secretary has continually criticised Labour, but we have launched a consultation on a range of measures that are designed to help to tackle the problems that alcohol can and is causing in many of our communities. The cabinet secretary did not seek to engage in that consultation. Was there no merit in our consultation at all? Does the cabinet secretary not think that all, or some of, alcohol arrest referral, banning orders, bottle-tagging, alcohol drug treatment and testing orders, and alcohol fine diversions could play a part in addressing the problems in the future? Surely she does not think that minimum pricing is the magic bullet? More has to be done and we are keen to play a role in that. I trust that the Government will rethink its position.

Before coming into the chamber this afternoon, I had a look at a poll that is being conducted by The Scotsman. Of 15,500 people who have contributed to that poll, 93 have indicated that they do not believe that the provisions of the bill will be effective by themselves. We need to think about what the public is saying to us in that poll.

Photo of Tricia Marwick Tricia Marwick None

The member has no time. He has precisely 10 seconds left.

Photo of Kenneth Gibson Kenneth Gibson Scottish National Party

I have to say that I do not agree with the cabinet secretary because I do not think that Labour’s pitiful opposition to the bill is a fig leaf so much as it is a tea leaf. Last year, caffeine was the smokescreen; now—suddenly—Labour members are all really worried that supermarkets are going to have plenty of money. We have now heard from Mr Pearson that it is really electoralism that is at the heart of the opposition, given his comments on the poll in The Scotsman. I take it that he meant 93 per cent rather than 93 respondents out of 15,000.

Today we have heard from the Labour Party curmudgeonly and desperate speeches that were mainly unenthusiastic, and I doubt that many Labour back-benchers are tripping over themselves to press their buttons against the bill tonight. The reality is that there is opposition for this bill because it has been promoted by the Scottish National Party. That is what SNP members believe and, I think, that is what other members in this chamber believe. That really appears to be it.

Richard Simpson and Graeme Pearson will not be very popular with their former colleagues—in the national health service and in the police respectively—because the people who are on the front line—those who have to deal with Scotland’s alcohol problem—are not only the families of people who misuse alcohol, not only their friends and their workmates, but are the police officers who have to face the problem day in and day out and the NHS professionals who have to deal with it. The bill is overwhelmingly supported by groups including the churches, the British Medical Association, the police, and charities here, there and everywhere because it is the right thing to do for the people of Scotland.

As Jackson Carlaw pointed out on the nonsense about supermarkets, if the bill is successful income to supermarkets will decline markedly. We have to look at what the bill is ultimately trying to do. I studied economics at university; a rule of economics is that as price goes up, consumption goes down. Harmful drinkers will have fewer instances of ill health as a result of that drop in consumption. That is what the study says.

My colleague Bob Doris hit the nail on the head: the bill is really about saving lives, saving people from illness, saving families from domestic breakup, and saving people from losing their jobs. That is why we are doing it. I am pleased that when the Labour Party in North Ayrshire controlled the council, which it did up until 3 May—I am glad to say that it is now an SNP council—it had the courage to support the SNP Government on the bill. Perhaps that was because the number of alcohol-related deaths in North Ayrshire—the area that my constituency of Cunninghame North is in—is 91 per cent higher than the Scottish average. The problem is particularly acute there.

The more that people drink, the greater the risk of health and social problems. That impacts directly on healthcare services, on the criminal justice system and on our wider economy. Let us appreciate what we are trying to do. As the cabinet secretary said, the framework for action contains 40 measures in addition to minimum pricing. Minimum pricing has for our party never been the sole way forward—we can do so many other things for the people of Scotland in this area and we are doing them. However, minimum pricing is a keystone—it is fundamental to the bill. Many years from now, it will be like the Smoking, Health and Social Care (Scotland) Act 2005. The Conservatives opposed it at the time, but I believe that they realise on reflection that perhaps they should not have opposed it.

Our passing the bill will make today a great day for the Scottish Parliament. The bill will take Scotland forward socially and it will help to change the culture that so many members have spoken about. I welcome the bill and I am pleased that it will be supported by an overwhelming majority of members of Parliament and of organisations that have to deal with the scourge of alcohol on a day-to-day basis.

Photo of Willie Rennie Willie Rennie Liberal Democrat

I thank Nicola Sturgeon for pioneering the bill. It is pioneering legislation and she is out there in front, proposing a measure that a lot of people will not like. We talk about the bill in Parliament as if it will be immensely popular. However, if it is going to be effective, a lot of people will not like it. Introducing such legislation takes a certain amount of courage, so I thank Nicola Sturgeon for the effort that she has put in over a number of years, despite opposition from my party, from the Conservatives and from Labour.

I have always believed in minimum pricing. I had to be relatively quiet about that in the past, but I have always been supportive of it—I always was at Westminster. The party in Scotland was finely balanced—it was not absolutely against minimum pricing, but the decision that the party came to was that it did not support it. I had to charm party members and I had to work on them when I became leader. Fortunately, they agreed with me and they now support the bill. I am pleased that we have put our differences with the SNP aside and are now working for the bill.

For me, the evidence is quite clear. The important connections, as referred to by Kenneth Gibson, are the connection between price and consumption, and between consumption and harm. If we look back 30 years, drink is more affordable now by between 45 per cent and 70 per cent. Price has gone up by 22 per cent, but incomes have gone up dramatically more than that—by 97 per cent in that period—so drink is much more affordable.

In the same period, consumption has gone up by 20 to 22 per cent and the number of deaths has doubled. As I have mentioned previously, I used to work in my father’s shop and I cannot see a dramatic difference between the prices of whisky now and the prices that my father used to sell it at. That is simple and straightforward evidence that everybody can see.

I have seen at first hand in Dunfermline the problems in our communities. There is antisocial behaviour and families that are absolutely wrecked by alcohol abuse and the health problems that it causes. People are desperate to get into hospital to get treatment so that they can deal with their alcohol problems. That is clear evidence and a clear result.

We could easily go down the route of just doing the simple things that everybody suggests, such as education and information, but the reality is that the tougher we make the measures, the more impact they will have. I ask the Labour Party how long we have to wait for the perfect solution before we move ahead? The bill might not be exactly right and it might not have exactly the desired effect according to the predictions, but let us get on with it because the situation is dire.

I referred earlier to public concern. I am a frequent user of Facebook and whenever I put up something about alcohol minimum pricing, the negative reaction is considerable. People out there will be angry about the measure, but if they are not angry, that is because we are not having an effect. For measures to be effective in reducing alcohol abuse, some people will have to feel them. That is why it is important that we move ahead with the bill. We have to be prepared for the backlash that I am sure will come.

I am grateful for the support of the organisations that are represented in the public gallery. Health bodies such as the British Medical Association, the Royal College of Psychiatrists and Alcohol Focus Scotland support the bill, but there are also some surprising supporters, including Tesco, as I have mentioned previously. That is the kind of backing that we will need to get us through the coming period. The battle to deal with the problem has just begun. We need to ensure that we are effective in that so that we deal with the blight of alcohol on our society.

Photo of Richard Lyle Richard Lyle Scottish National Party

As a member of the Health and Sport Committee, I welcome the opportunity to speak in the debate. Alcohol minimum pricing is the latest step to change the drinking culture in Scotland. It is crucial that minimum pricing be implemented because, without it, our previous steps will prove to be less effective, because alcohol can be sold at rock-bottom prices.

As I have said previously in the chamber, before I was elected to the Parliament, I was not convinced that minimum pricing was the right way to change our drinking culture; I did not agree with the policy. However, after hearing the evidence that the Health and Sport Committee collected, I have changed my view. It is encouraging that all the major parties, apart from Scottish Labour, recognise the need for minimum pricing and are prepared to support the bill at stage 3. That type of cross-party approach will help to eradicate Scotland’s drinking culture. I implore the Labour Party to change its position on the bill and to vote for it at decision time.

The culture needs to be changed. Let us not lose track of why it is important that we pass the bill. Alcohol is connected with more than 60 types of disease as well as to disability and injury, and people in Scotland are drinking hazardously or harmfully. Scotland has one of the highest cirrhosis mortality rates in western Europe and is currently ranked eighth in the world for alcohol consumption per head of population. Alcohol is a contributory factor in a wide range of health and social problems, including accidental injury, violence and mental ill-health. Scotland has one of the highest rates of liver disease in the world and the figure continues to rise at an alarming rate.

Alcohol misuse affects not only the individual drinker, but has far-reaching consequences for friends and family, wider communities and society at large. Misuse of alcohol in Scotland costs £3.5 billion every year in direct and indirect costs. There is a growing consensus among professional bodies including the World Health Organization and the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence that minimum pricing could be the most effective means to reduce alcohol consumption.

The University of Sheffield has carried out various studies and has done modelling on minimum unit pricing, and Professor Tim Stockwell from the University of Victoria in Canada has said that introducing a minimum price for alcohol can bring significant health and social benefits that can lead to significant savings in the health service. Research has also indicated that minimum pricing will target high-alcohol products that are sold cheaply. Such products are often consumed by harmful drinkers and are very popular with young drinkers.

It is clear that alcohol consumption is a problem in this country and that something needed to be done to ease the social and economic problems that are caused by it. Studies have shown that the best way of tackling the problem is by introducing a minimum price for alcohol. Alcohol is a serious national health problem that must be tackled because it has a significant impact on the health of our nation.

I say to Scottish Labour that if I can change my mind over this issue, I am sure that others—in particular Labour members—can change their minds, too. Scottish Labour must show leadership. Its do-nothing attitude has isolated the party in the Parliament. Labour members can bluster all they want, but they have got it wrong and they must now see that. I agree with Jackson Carlaw that Scottish Labour should support the bill now.

Photo of Alison Johnstone Alison Johnstone Green

I am very pleased that we are introducing minimum pricing of alcohol. The Scottish Greens have supported the bill in this session and we supported the similar bill in the previous session, before my time here. The bill alone will not achieve the policy aim of changing Scotland’s unhealthy drinking culture, but it is an important contribution, as the cabinet secretary pointed out.

BMA Scotland, Alcohol Focus Scotland and Scottish Health Action on Alcohol Problems stated in their joint briefing for the stage 1 debate:

“Without action on price, any other measures to reduce consumption and harm will be swimming against a very powerful tide. If we want to change ‘culture’ then price is a good place to start.”

The bill is a good place to start, but the narrowness with which it was drafted has not allowed the fullest debate on other possible ways and complementary mechanisms to address our deep-seated issues with alcohol.

It was disappointing that the Government and Labour in the previous session were unable to work constructively together to produce a better bill. Proposals for legislation to deal with caffeinated alcohol have merit and are worthy of proper consideration. I am disappointed that in this session we did not manage to have the SNP and Labour sit down and work together on the windfall to large retailers and other issues. Such legislative opportunities are rare and it is important that we use our windows of opportunity in that regard to the best of our ability.

Throughout the bill process, the Greens have called for measures to tackle the structure of the drinks industry. To change our high-volume drinking culture we need to challenge the high-volume drinks industry. We also need to support community pubs and small-scale producers whose business models rely on quality produce, and we need to tackle the power of big brewers and producers, for whom shifting large volumes is the aim of the game.

This is a difficult issue, but I think that we all recognise that it is not only individuals who are responsible for what they drink, because their choices are made within a wider cultural setting that is heavily influenced by the nature of the drinks industry, its marketing message and the way in which it runs and supplies pubs and clubs.

So, where next? I welcome Dr Richard Simpson’s and Graeme Pearson’s members’ bill consultation, which puts some good proposals up for debate, including limiting the caffeinated alcoholic drinks that I mentioned earlier, improving community involvement in licensing decisions and banning alcoholic drinks advertising in public places. The object of the ban would be to help to “de-normalise”—to use the consultation’s language—alcohol for children.

It is essential that we achieve the culture change that we all seek. I agree with Children 1st that passing the bill will be a huge step forward in beginning that process.

Photo of Fiona McLeod Fiona McLeod Scottish National Party

I welcome the debate that we have had, I welcome the bill and I welcome the fact that, at 5 o’clock tonight, it will become the law of Scotland. I also welcome the fact that the Liberal Democrats and Tories have finally seen sense and have moved from oppositional to evidence-based politics. However, I am sorry that Labour is still playing politics with Scotland’s health; indeed, Labour members are making statements even today that are not based on any evidence.

It is important that the Parliament remembers why we had to introduce the bill. The figures for alcohol misuse in Scotland are both stark and frightening. Last autumn, Dr Peter Rice from the Royal College of Psychiatrists in Scotland—he is in the gallery—gave a presentation to a group of MSPs. In the past 20 years, the rate of alcohol-related mortality has gone from 15 to 40 per 100,000 of the population, and the incidence of cirrhosis of the liver has climbed from 28 to 72 per 100,000 of the population. At the same time, affordability of alcohol through off-sales has similarly rocketed. Beer has become 135 per cent more affordable and wines and spirits have become 110 per cent more affordable in that period. As we see the correlation between low prices and alcohol-related ill health, so the international research going back over a century proves that raising the price of alcohol leads to consumption falling—and when consumption falls, the incidence of alcohol-related ill health falls.

Professor Tim Stockwell, who has been mentioned, looked back over 20 years of pricing of alcohol in Canadian states and was able to show that a 10 per cent rise in the cost of alcohol led to a 3.4 per cent drop in consumption. Most relevant in that research is how harm reduction increases as price increases. Jackie Baillie and Margo MacDonald both referred to that, and Bob Doris went a long way in defending it. I refer any member who does not believe in the harm-reduction effects of the bill to the work that was done in 2009 by Meier et al. The highlight of that research, for me, is the finding that the groups whose consumption is most responsive to a rise in the price of alcohol are young people and high-risk drinkers. Those are the people in Scotland whom I hope we all want to help and support out of alcohol abuse.

In 2006, Scotland was bold with its ban on smoking in public places. We should again be proud today that Scotland learns from her mistakes and leads the way where others will follow.

Photo of Jackson Carlaw Jackson Carlaw Conservative

This has been a short but slightly depressing debate in the sense that, even at this late stage, the argument about the bill has continued even though, after all the discussion that we have had about it over a considerable period, the balance of evidence has shifted and, despite the Labour Party’s concern about and position on the alleged windfall, there is a clear view across the chamber that alcohol minimum pricing’s time has come and there is support for it from all sides of the chamber.

Willie Rennie’s speech encapsulated—for the first time in all the discussion that we have had—the question of the public’s reaction to the policy when it is implemented. It has been said before that the Conservatives are fond of using Scotland as a guinea pig for new taxes—maybe that is not an argument that I will revisit this afternoon. In essence, however, this is a pioneering policy that we are implementing first in Scotland ahead of anywhere else.

When we were discussing the amendments, I made the point that, although the Conservatives would have liked duty to have been used, the sad truth is that, although duty ultimately raises money for the Inland Revenue and the Exchequer, the public perception of duty is not that it raises money to improve public health, but that it simply raises money for the Government. However, the very point of minimum pricing is that it does not raise money for the Government. Therefore, it cannot be argued—as Willie Rennie put it in discussing the policy’s unpopularity—that the Government is implementing the policy because it wants to raise cash. The integrity that underpins the policy—the fact that the Government is implementing it because it believes that it will have a material effect on public health in Scotland—stands as a virtue.

We would like to see a participative relationship with the industry, and I hope that that will be forthcoming.

I want to return to the arguments of the Labour Party. I suppose that, in some ways, I should be pleased that the auld enemy is going to vote differently on the policy and to stand apart, but I genuinely do not believe that that is what Labour members, in their hearts, wish to find themselves doing, and the legislation will not benefit from that happening. They have made the windfall argument their red line, but I have to repeat that I do not recall, even when we discussed our joint scepticism of the legislation in the committee, that they stood up and said, “Look, we might finally be persuaded that this will work, but we’re not going to support it for as long as there will be a windfall, as we see it, for the retail industry.” That was never said until, suddenly, at stage 2, it became the rock on which everything was subsequently to depend.

It is clear that, unfortunately, Labour is not prepared to support a policy that emanates from a Scottish National Party Government unless Labour’s imprimatur is on it and Labour can claim ownership of it in some way. The Parliament could unite behind a public health measure that will advance the public health of Scotland. In the final analysis, of all the reasons to oppose the bill, for Labour to oppose it simply because the SNP proposed it is the saddest, most reprehensible and most depressing fact of all.

I know that there are members sitting behind the Labour front bench who do not want to be on the wrong side of the argument, who work closely with the police, the public health service, consultants and people in accident and emergency services, who have said to them, “This policy will advance public health in Scotland.” I say to Labour members, although they will probably not believe it, that if they change their minds, we will not exploit that.

The Parliament has an opportunity to put its differences behind it and to unite behind a policy that we hope will work, which we must see does work, and which will advance the public health of Scotland.

Photo of Richard Simpson Richard Simpson Labour

In 2001, as the Deputy Minister for Justice, I recognised that Scotland had a growing problem with alcohol and that we were well into the third wave in our history of the sort of problems that were outlined by Jackie Baillie, the cabinet secretary, Richard Lyle and others. Although the level of consumption remains well below that which was reached in 1900, the increases were alarming.

In addition, it was clear that, although the price of alcohol was the same across the UK, Scots had been consuming 23 per cent more. What that said to me was that, although affordability was an issue, availability of the sort that was described by Sandra White and the culture that was described by other speakers were as important or more important.

The action that I took then was the Nicholson committee and the result was the Licensing (Scotland) Act 2005. The concern was availability, because the number of licences had increased by 5,000 over the preceding 20 years, from 12,000 to 17,000.

Labour tackled some of the problems. The sales areas for alcohol in supermarkets are now restricted. No more do we have the pile it high, sell it cheap approach at the front door, which was previously beloved of managers. There are now fewer licences, and licensing boards are at long last challenging any expansion where there is high density, using the unique provisions in the 2005 act on the public health interest and the protection of children from harm.

All that public debate and action over the past decade is having results. Consumption is down. Non-drinking reports in 13 to 15-year-olds are moving in the right direction. The proportion of consumer spend is down. Deaths are down by 15 per cent. Self-reported hazardous drinking has gone down year on year from 28 to 22 per cent, and even hospital discharges fell between 2008 and 2009 by more than the predicted fall in the first year under the Sheffield proposals.

Action is also being taken at the UK level. Labour and the coalition have increased excise duty by 2 per cent above inflation annually. To give it its due, the coalition has introduced a lower tax on lower-strength beer and increased tax on higher-strength beer. That has worked extremely well in Australia, where the only evidence for minimum unit pricing exists. Minimum unit pricing was not adopted in Australia. The definition of cider has also been tightened, and I hope that that will have a beneficial effect. The industry, which has been participative, as Jackson Carlaw would like it to be, has agreed to take a billion units of alcohol out of sales by 2015.

However, the bill is about minimum unit pricing. No matter how often the cabinet secretary repeats that the bill is not a magic bullet, it was drawn in such a way that nobody could amend it. I hope that, once we get minimum unit pricing out of the way, the SNP will sit down with us and the other parties and seriously consider some or all of the 14 measures that are proposed in the consultation on my bill which, as it says on the tin, is designed to shift the culture.

As Jackson Carlaw and Graeme Pearson said, we need a common way forward now. We achieved that with drug misuse. As Alison Johnstone indicated, it is regrettable that we have not tackled caffeinated alcohol. The cabinet secretary is still in denial about that being a problem. We could and should have a collective approach; we owe it to the people of Scotland to have that in the future. As I said, however, the bill is about minimum unit pricing, and it still irks me that even Jackson Carlaw has been convinced by the constant rhetoric from the SNP about our being against the bill because it is an SNP bill.

We are against the bill for a variety of reasons. Richer households are more likely to buy alcohol, and they are more likely to buy more alcohol than poorer households. They buy more expensive alcohol. For example, the wealthiest currently spend 50 per cent more per unit on cider than those in poorer households. Cider is one of the contentious issues. Moreover, there is a difference in the types of alcohol that people buy. For the lowest income group, 40 per cent is spent on spirits and 28 per cent is spent on wine. For the richest income group, 16 per cent is spent on spirits and 52 per cent is spent on wine. The biggest increase is in wine, and the richest people will not be affected. There will barely be any effect.

Photo of Richard Simpson Richard Simpson Labour

No.

The Sheffield report predicted that off-licence sales will fall by a quarter for the poorest, but by only 12 per cent for the richest. To summarise, the rich drink more and pay more. They drink more wine and will barely be affected by minimum unit pricing.

There are more hazardous drinkers with each rising decile of income. It is the hazardous drinkers whom we need to tackle, not the harmful drinkers—they are a matter of medical treatment.

All price increases are regressive, but minimum unit pricing is far and away the most regressive measure that we can put in place. To put things simply, the UK coalition will impose a granny tax next year, and the SNP is imposing its own granny tax. A pensioner couple who want to enjoy a single dram each evening will pay £100 more annually from April 2013. [Interruption.]

The Presiding Officer:

Kenneth Gibson should be quiet.

Photo of Richard Simpson Richard Simpson Labour

Every year, more goes straight to the alcohol retailers. It does not go to the hard-pressed national health service or the police, and it does not go on alcohol treatment; it goes straight to the retailers who behaved irresponsibly in the first place. As Nigel Hawkes said in his excellent article in the British Medical Journal, minimum unit pricing

“is a deal not worth doing” because of that. In a poll in the British Medical Journal, 67 per cent of doctors said that it would not have an effect on drinking.

How will heavier drinkers respond? I have always said that they might show some response. Fiona McLeod has not read the evidence. In the 2008 Sheffield study, Petra Meier indicated that the price elasticity for hazardous and harmful drinkers was half—not twice—that for moderate drinkers. That reinforced the study by Chisholm in 2004, which said that harmful drinkers were around a third less sensitive to price. Therefore, at best, the jury is out.

Perhaps young binge drinkers are the public’s and doctors’ greatest concern. As Dr Holmes from the Sheffield team said, they are least affected of all the groups by minimum unit pricing. With a price of 45p, 18 to 24-year-olds will drink half a pint less a week on average.

The Presiding Officer:

The member needs to wind up.

Photo of Richard Simpson Richard Simpson Labour

As always, Presiding Officer, time is against us.

As I have said before, I do not believe that this measure will work, although it will have some effect on harmful drinkers. The cabinet secretary has the opportunity to enable us to move forward unanimously in Parliament, despite our reservations, if she agrees to our reasoned amendment, which we first put forward at stage 1. I hope that that will happen, but I regret that it will probably not. I hope that minimum unit pricing will demonstrate that we were right and the others were wrong, but we should come together—[Interruption.]

The Presiding Officer:

Order. The member is winding up.

Photo of Richard Simpson Richard Simpson Labour

We should come together to tackle Scotland’s problem, which can be tackled by price measures at a UK level and excise duty. Minimum unit pricing will affect only harmful drinkers; it will not benefit other groups.

Photo of Nicola Sturgeon Nicola Sturgeon Scottish National Party

Richard Simpson talks of a reasoned amendment, but there is not a shred of reason in Labour’s position on the issue.

For Richard Simpson to accuse anyone else in the chamber of being in denial suggests that he has an issue with self-awareness. When Labour members say that they are right and everyone else is wrong and are clearly wishing the policy to fail, they are not insulting me or anyone else in the chamber but are saying that they know better than the experts, the doctors, the nurses, the police officers, those who work with children, and the faith groups, who see the problems day in, day out. That is the arrogance of Labour’s position and it is unacceptable.

It is a privilege for me to deliver what will be the final speech in support of the Alcohol (Minimum Pricing) (Scotland) Bill. It has been a long journey—it sometimes feels as if it has been very long—to get to this point. However, I am very glad that we are here now.

It is no exaggeration to say that it was one of the more frustrating experiences of my time in politics when, in the previous session of Parliament, we won the argument—as I believe we decisively did—but still lost the vote. However, following an election, which was fought on a manifesto with minimum pricing at its heart, we are here today winning the argument and winning the vote.

There have been many very good speeches in the debate. I mention Jackson Carlaw, Bob Doris, Sandra White, Willie Rennie, who I thought made an excellent speech, Dick Lyle, Fiona McLeod and Kenny Gibson. I make particular mention of Kenny Gibson, because let us remember that he was the member who first introduced plans to introduce a smoking ban in Scotland. If Kenny Gibson had not had the guts to introduce his proposals, which were later taken up not only by SNP members but by Labour, the smoking ban would not be in place and saving lives.

We have heard quality evidence from a range of experts during the passage of the bill. Those are the experts who Labour members think they know better than. As I did in my opening speech, I publicly put on record my sincere thanks to all those experts.

I know that many retain a healthy scepticism about the bill. I want to say to them openly and honestly that I understand that scepticism. This is a deliberately bold move. Willie Rennie is right that the measure is controversial. Not everybody will agree with it and it will not be popular in every quarter of Scottish society, although I think that, in the years in which I have been proposing and advocating the policy, public opinion has shifted decisively in its favour.

This is a policy that has never been tried in this form anywhere else, which is why the robust evaluation that we talked about earlier and the sunset clause are so important. Let us not forget that it is backed by robust, credible modelling and emerging empirical evidence from Canada. It is a big policy that is designed to tackle a big issue and a big problem.

Alcohol misuse costs all of us—whether or not we drink—£900 each, every year. The truth is that we simply cannot afford to do nothing about pricing if we are serious about tackling alcohol misuse.

I said that I understand those who retain a healthy scepticism, but I deliberately exclude Labour from that understanding, because Labour’s position is not healthy scepticism but crude oppositionalism. Opposition for opposition’s sake is never a particularly clever or attractive place to be. On an issue as important as our nation’s public health, it is a disgraceful place to be, and Labour members should be ashamed of themselves.

Members should make no mistake: Labour’s position on the issue is shameful. Let us cast our minds back. Before the SNP proposed minimum pricing, people such as Richard Simpson supported it. However, on the day when the first bill on minimum pricing was introduced in Parliament and before the Health and Sport Committee or anyone else had taken a single word of evidence, Labour announced that it opposed minimum pricing. Ever since then, Labour has squirmed on the shifting sands of its petty party-political opposition as, one by one, its arguments have been demolished.

The process started with the counsel of despair that we could not introduce minimum pricing because no one else had ever done it. After we heard about the Sheffield work, the expert opinion and the emerging evidence from Canada, we suddenly did not hear that opinion from Labour as much.

We were then treated to the statistical contortions of Richard Simpson. He quotes Sheffield when it suits him and rubbishes it when it does not. He argues that, because the measure might have less impact on some groups than on others, that somehow invalidates the whole policy. All the time, he ignores the fact that the policy will have a big impact through 60 fewer deaths, 1,600 fewer hospital admissions and 3,500 fewer crimes in year 1 alone.

We heard that the policy would hit those with the lowest incomes hardest. Scottish Labour did not clear that line with Diane Abbott, who said on television last week that minimum pricing is not about hitting the poor. Scottish Labour’s argument ignored the fact that 80 per cent of people in the lowest income groups do not drink at all or drink fewer than five units a week. However, people in those groups who drink are more likely to drink dangerously. Death rates among those groups are six times higher than those in the population as a whole. The reality is that the lowest income groups have the most to gain from minimum pricing.

The last, desperate line of defence was the fig leaf of so-called supermarket profits. The party that voted against the public health supplement now wants us to introduce a public health supplement. Labour’s so-called reasoned amendment calls on us to “bring forward proposals” for something that already exists and which Labour voted against. If the issue was not so serious, that would be laughable.

Labour’s position of putting petty party politics ahead of public health is morally flawed, and its position—in which Labour members are isolated even from the rest of their party—must also count as the biggest example of political ineptitude in the Parliament’s lifetime. However, Labour members can still prove me wrong at 5 o’clock this evening, in just over a minute’s time. If they do, I will be the first to congratulate them.

Those of us who will vote to pass the bill are in a very different place from Labour. We know that the policy is bold and controversial and that it must be tested in practice. We know that it might still face hurdles along the way. However, in passing the bill, we are saying something powerful and profound. We are saying that our big public health problems are not inevitable. They do not need to be an unchangeable fact of Scottish life. Things can be different. However, to be different, we need to have guts and we need to be bold and brave.

I am very glad that a clear majority of the Parliament will show today that they have the guts and gumption to do the right thing. I hope that the will of the Parliament will be respected, that the policy can be put into practice and that we can get on with changing the nation’s relationship with alcohol for the better.