Minimum price will target problematic drinkers, judges say

The Supreme Court ruled that any interference in markets caused by minimum alcohol pricing should not outweigh the health benefits intended by the policy.

In their verdict, the justices said that the impact on producers and exporters was “unpredictable” but could be reviewed if required.

The Scotch Whisky Association and two Belgian drinks organisations had argued the initiative would breach EU rules banning restrictions on imports, and questioned whether “less restrictive measures”, such as taxation, could achieve the same goals.

But, the justices backed the view that “taxation would impose an unintended and unacceptable burden on sectors of the drinking population”.

They added: “In contrast, minimum alcohol pricing will much better target the really problematic drinking to which the government’s objectives were always directed and the nature of which has become even more clearly identified by the material more recently available.”

The court found that it was the Scottish Government’s right to decide to target problem drinking and its effects, and “their right to make it militates strongly against intrusive review by a domestic court”.

The ruling stated: “That minimum pricing will involve a market distortion, including of EU trade and competition, is accepted.

“However, I find it impossible, even if it is appropriate to undertake the exercise at all in this context, to conclude that this can or should be regarded as outweighing the health benefits which are intended by minimum pricing.

“In the overall context of the Scottish or, on the face of it, any other market, it appears that it will be minor, though it will hit some producers and exporters to the Scottish market more than others.”