Stephen McGowan , Director of Licensing and Gambling – Lindsays

Minimum pricing has engendered a lot of debate in the mainstream media, with images of boozed up street-wanderers and depictions of “Alcohol Apocalypse” making good copy. But minimum pricing is also controversial because the concept is fraught with difficulties


The Alcohol (Minimum Pricing) (Scotland) Bill was introduced by Nicola Sturgeon & Co to the Scottish Parliament on 31 October 2011. It is a single issue Bill, and is a repetition of the previously botched attempt under the Alcohol etc (Scotland) Act 2010. 

This attempt at addressing the nation’s difficult relationship with alcohol will be the third time the SNP administration has tried to get a minimum unit price for alcohol on the statute.

The fact that this is a single issue Bill speaks volumes. The amount of licensing legislation which has spewed forth from Holyrood in the last few years has been voluminous to say the least so at least here they are trying to keep it simple. Licensing has always suffered from the headline-grabbers, seeking to get their oar in in order to be seen to be addressing the nation’s health problems. That sort of governing has led to a red-tape explosion, so much so that in order to understand licensing law you need to be familiar with at least 3 pieces of primary legislation, 40 regulations, 31 local board policies, and, of course, be a bit mad. Much of this has one aim – to try and get us to drink less.

And so we are at it again with minimum pricing. The Scottish Government is absolutely convinced that minimum pricing is the magic bullet, but what exactly is it? It is MPU x S x V x 100. That is, Minimum Unit Price x Strength x Volume x 100. The effect is entirely dependent on the level at which the minimum unit price is set – current thinking seems to be 45p a unit.

On the whole, I think it is fair for me to say that the on-trade is supportive of the proposal, whereas the off-trade is not. That is partly because at 45p a unit the on-trade will not be affected. A typical pint of lager is 2.5 units. That would mean a minimum price of £1.35 a pint. You’ll be hard pressed to find a pub selling at those prices.

It is easy to have some sympathy with the on-trade which for many years has been the folk-devil in the health lobby agenda. That changed recently, but only after the health chaps finally realised that it was unfair to attack pubs offering a secure and regulated environment whilst dealing with the detritus of the local house party where folk have been consuming unsupervised measures in advance of leaving for the pub or club – a phenomenon known as “pre-loading”. The off-trade point to difficulties with exports and how this may affect the trading of our national commodity, whisky. That is something which cannot be overlooked.

Then there is the spectre of EU competition law to deal with. There is an argument that minimum pricing would contravene competition law on the basis that it is a form of price fixing. There are arguments on both sides, with some suggesting that the competency issue can be overcome with regard to the fact that this is a necessary health measure. However, that view has its detractors, and it has been suggested that a better approach would be through taxation. That would see additional revenue go the treasury rather than into retailers bank accounts.

On 24 November 2011 the Institute of Fiscal Studies produced a report which supported the idea of taxation as preferable to minimum pricing. Meanwhile, Westminster’s position seems to be that minimum pricing is probably illegal, Nicola Sturgeon has been summoned to a Subordinate Legislation Committee because parliamentary clerks have said that the EU question can only be answered when the unit price is set – and Holyrood has just commissioned a 3 year study into how minimum pricing might affect the most hardened drinkers. Add all of this up and you have a question mark over whether the Bill will ever become law.

Be assured that I applaud the Government for trying to address the problem but my personal view is that minimum pricing unfairly attacks all drinkers and I would be surprised if 45p per unit makes any dent in the habits of those who wish to drink alcohol to excess and the detriment of themselves and others.

Kenny MacAskill and Nicola Sturgeon have been quoted often as saying “It’s not the drink – it’s the way we drink it”. Why then, so much focus on the way we sell it?

The trade has been battered relentlessly with legislation influenced more by Daily Mail headlines than a proper understanding of how the licensing system works. We have been here many times before throughout history. Even as recently as the late 19th and early 20th century the temperance movement was influencing alcohol legislation but that too was a failure.

Governments have, in fact, been tinkering with licensing law for hundreds of years. It is time that there is an acknowledgement of something more fundamental at play, and the focus shifted from demonising an incredibly regulated and important sector of industry to investing in education and finally taking the idea of individual responsibility seriously. Have a look at the conviction rates for licensing offences and you will see how little emphasis is placed on the individual who chooses to drink to excess.