Minimum pricing is not the answer

THE views of experts are likely to feature heavily in the debate on the Alcohol Bill as it is dragged through the Scottish Parliament. The latest witness for the Scottish Government’s case, Professor Ian Gilmore, says politicians have a duty to back the plans for minimum alcohol pricing. His views are based, he says, on compelling scientific evidence of the link between consumption, pricing and harm.

The president of the Royal College of Physicians of London says failure to act now will damage children and families and cost lives. He is right on the urgency of the situation in Scotland, where the problems of alcohol misuse have been well aired.

The assertion that the best tool available to change attitudes is pricing does not stand up to scrutiny.

Using tax to change behaviour has a poor track record. Increasing fuel and road tax has done little to curb the rise in the use of cars. In fact, the idea that it is anything other than a revenue-raising measure is now rejected by most politicians.

Likewise with tobacco and ordinary duty on alcohol. The hardened drinker and smoker will sacrifice elsewhere in their lives to fund their vices.

Given also that minimum pricing is not even a revenue earner for the Scottish public purse, the idea should be shelved until other options have been examined.

There is something uncomfortable, and probably illegal, about governments interfering in free markets to set price floors.

Scotland’s social and cultural issues surrounding alcohol have been around longer than cut-price supermarket drink offers. A more sophisticated approach is needed.