When I became Scottish Justice Secretary in 2007 it was clear that action was required on alcohol abuse. As sure as night follows day, when too much drink is consumed, misbehaviour and even tragedy can occur. Ten years ago, Scotland had the eighth highest level of alcohol consumption in the world, and almost 1,500 Scots were dying a year because of drink. The economic cost of this as a whole was £3.6bn; the cost of alcohol-related crime was £727m.
Price and promotion were critical factors. Offers for cheap drink were everywhere and the ways in which it was sold often highly inappropriate. Education on the consequences of abuse was also needed but suggestions that only this was required were quite absurd. It had been tried and failed, and firmer action was needed.
The steps taken on stricter regulation of sales and restricting promotions were welcomed by both the police and communities. However, it soon became clear it wasn’t simply a law and order issue. Nor was the problem confined to groups of youngsters or a marginalised minority, it was much greater and across all sections of society. Its consequences were straining the health service to its limits and damaging our society. A whole population approach was required to turn things around.
A Minimum Unit Price (MUP) of 50p was devised as a strategy to support the other reforms. It was passed overwhelmingly by the Scottish Parliament in 2012 with widespread public support and endorsed enthusiastically by health, police and alcohol awareness campaigners. Yet has still not been implemented due to legal challenges by the Scotch Whisky Association (SWA). These are reaching their conclusion as the final appeal to the Supreme Court is heard this week.
"Ten years ago almost 1,500 Scots were dying a year because of drink"The irony is that MUP won’t affect the cost of a fine malt or a dram in a pub. Instead it targets high-strength, low-cost alcohol, primarily ciders and vodkas. Drinks that sometimes can be purchased for less than a bottle of water. The evidence shows that it will save lives, as problematic drinkers are the ones most likely to be constrained by it. It is particularly badly needed since the banning of “two for one” alcohol sales in 2011 was undermined, with wine simply sold at discounted prices. Ideally, both policies would be blended together.
The SWA argues that the MUP is an infringement of EU free-trade law. But it has been sustained by both Scottish and European Courts, which have ruled that it can be invoked if clear health benefits can be shown. That’s a challenge for the government to get it right, not a preclusion on them doing so. Price it too low and it has no effect, too high and it can distort trade—but get the balance right, and it’s a safe tipple.
Suggestions that invoking MUP will see Asian countries swoop to regulate Scotch harshly are spurious. Many believe the fightback against MUP is more to do with interests of large drink manufacturers. Moreover, retailers seek to use alcohol as a loss leader for shoppers who are more likely to change from their usual store for discounted alcohol than, say, discounted aubergines.
"Alcohol is not just another commodity and shouldn’t be sold as one"The outcome of the Supreme Court case will be known later this year, and hopes are still high amongst government figures and campaigners. It is not simply Scotland paying attention but other jurisdictions that are keen to follow, with Ireland and Wales eager and England holding a watching brief.
The Supreme Court ruling in favour of MUP would be a real step forward: the number of alcohol-related deaths has fallen slightly since 2007, to 1,150 now, but this is clearly still unacceptably high.
But irrespective of the outcome, further change is needed. In those five years since MUP was passed, the nature of alcohol consumption has changed in Scotland. More than three quarters of alcohol sales now come from off-sales, primarily from supermarkets, rather than on the trade of pubs or clubs. England and Wales, likewise. The UK is becoming a nation of home drinkers, not bar flies.
Government actions also need to change. It is not just affordability but availability that needs to be addressed. As pubs are closing at an alarming rate, retail outlets for alcohol seem to be opening at a similar pace. When it’s advertised extensively and available ubiquitously there’s a problem. The proposed price of 50p may need to rise for inflation and action on other areas will be needed irrespective of outcome, on advertising and separate tilling, for example. Alcohol is not just another commodity and shouldn’t be promoted or sold as one.
The Supreme Court decision, far from closing the case on regulating alcohol, is simply another round in the fight.
