LABOUR ALCOHOL PLAN COLLAPSES

For immediate use: Wednesday 15th September 2010


Attn: NEWSDESKS


POLITICAL / HEALTH CORRESPONDENTS


LACK OF EVIDENCE EXPOSED AS COMMISSION FAILS UNDER QUESTIONING


Labour’s proposals to tackle Scotland’s problem with alcohol collapsed under questioning in the Health Committee today as the Labour party’s handpicked Commission;


· admitted there was no evidence for Labour’s proposal of floor price for alcohol


· admitted Labour’s plans for a floor price would be regressive and have the most impact on the less well off


· said they had “no idea” what level tax should be set at to have an impact on consumption


· that they had no idea how “cost” price could be assessed


· that no consideration was given to the implications of cost price on Scottish manufacturing jobs in the alcohol industry


· and that they had no grounds for their attacks on Sheffield University’s study into minimum pricing.




Professor Brown also had to admit that the Labour party handpicked the members of the Commission.


Labour’s proposals to ban caffeinated drinks were also questioned by representatives from Strathclyde Police and the Centre for the Study of Violence who said the main problem was irresponsible drinking overall not specific drinks.


SNP MSP Michael Matheson, a member of the Health Committee said:


“This was the opportunity for Labour’s Commission to show they had an alternative to minimum pricing and they failed abysmally.


“They had not a shred of evidence for what are now clearly unfounded attacks on the Scottish Government’s proposals and no evidence for Labour’s proposal to use taxation to tackle alcohol consumption.


“Even Labour’s proposals for banning caffeinated drinks failed to stand up to scrutiny with witnesses raising concerns over unintended consequences and the Commission clearly lacking in evidence.


“This was a deeply disappointing performance and Labour’s Commission has been exposed as the political stitch up it always was.


“It is deeply unfortunate that what could be reasonable suggestions in the report now have to be questioned after the Commission’s evidence was found to be so slim.“


“After today’s session it is clearer than ever that to take action to tackle Scotland’s relationship with alcohol we must move forward with minimum pricing as part of our efforts to improve Scotland’s health and wellbeing.”


ENDS


1. An initial analysis by the Scottish Parliament Information Centre (below) shows that there was only one respondent in favour of Labour’s proposal of a floor price of tax + duty + vat and that more people disagreed with or questioned the evidence for a ban on caffeinated drinks than supported it.




Ban on Sales Below Duty + VAT + Production




Table 4: Breakdown of opinion on a below cost sales ban based on Duty + VAT + Production


Type Yes Unclear/no comment Total
Police 1 1
Other 9 9
Local Authority 9 9
Licensing Body 3 3
Industry - On Trade 2 2
Industry - Off Trade 2 2
Industry - Manufacturing 1 7 8
Individual 3 3
Health 24 24
Consumer Organisation 1 1
Children & Young People Organisation 5 5
Alcohol Organisation 9 9
Academic 4 4
Total 1 79 80




One submission recommended a below cost sales ban based on ‘Duty + VAT + Production’. This was from the Edrington Group. No other submissions specifically mentioned this proposal.




Caffeinated Alcohol




Table 5: Breakdown of opinion on restrictions on caffeine in alcohol


Type Yes No Evidence/more research unclear/no comment Total
Police 1 1
Other 1* 8 9
Local Authority 4 5 9
Licensing Body 1 2 3
Industry - On Trade 2 2
Industry - Off Trade 1 1 2
Industry - Manufacturing 1 1 6 8
Individual 3 3
Health 3 1 3 17 24
Consumer Organisation 1 1
Children & Young People Organisation 5 5
Alcohol Organisation 2 2 1 4 9
Academic 1 1 2 4
Total 11 5 7 57 80
* The ‘other’ in this instance was the Portman Group




Of the 80 submissions, 11 were supportive of restrictions on caffeine in alcohol and 5 were opposed. On this occasion, there was also another category of respondent (n=7) who questioned the evidence base for such a move and felt that there was a need for more research. The remainder either did not comment or express a clear opinion.