The Press and Journal (Inverness, Highlands, and Islands)
Court of Session ruling clear win for first minister
Audrey Ferrie,
There is no little irony in the fact this ruling in favour of the Scottish Government is partly down to the curious situation that it is the UK which is the EU member state and not Scotland.
What is clear is that this is a comprehensive win for the first minister’s drive to challenge Scotland’s damning alcohol-related health statistics.
The Scotch Whisky Association (SWA) and allied parties must doubt the merits of seeking leave to appeal to the Supreme Court.
The SWA argued there was an alternative measure to minimum pricing – taxation – but the Scottish Government countered that a tax would not be as effective and had to demonstrate minimum pricing was necessary and proportionate.
The Court of Session ruling highlighted the anomaly that it is only the UK Government – the EU member state – as opposed to the Scottish Government, which has the reserved power to impose legal if the same end could not be achieved in a way less restrictive to trade.
Their ruling pointed to tax rises as an alt e r n a t i v e means of inc r e a s i n g the cost of dr ink , wh i ch taxation. The ruling also pointed out there that it is something of a guessing game as to what impact minimum pricing will have on alcohol sales.
The judges said that “the only way in which minimum pricing can be tested is by trialling it”.
A so-called “sunset clause” built into the legislation means minimum pricing will have to be reviewed after six years and within a period of five years the government has to produce a report on the impact it is having.
In rehearsing the history of the legislation and background to the case the court does say it took a step back to look at the whole purpose of the legislation and to consider Scotland’s relationship with alcohol.
The judges conceded that in some comedic settings this reputation can be quite amusing – but the fact is there are issues with excessive alcohol consumption in Scotland and this partly justifies the stance of the government. would allow traders to retain the freedom to determine their selling prices. But the question was transferred back to the domestic court for a final decision on whether other measures would be as effective in achieving the desired public health benefit. Yesterday, the Court of Session dismissed the appeal
Post-Brexit and over the course of the next few years EU law may no longer be relevant and the appellants may feel somewhat aggrieved that the government’s case rested partly on the “tax issue”, but that would be to discount one sub heading in an overall robust judgment which found against them.
The Scottish Government met the test that minimum pricing has a legitimate aim, which is the proportionate protection of life and health, and I find it difficult to see where there would be grounds for appeal. against the plans for a second time, on the basis the grounds submitted were “not well founded”.
The judges said the court’s previous ruling “correctly concluded that whatever arguments may be deployed against it, there was evidence which demonstrated that the alternative of increased tax, with or without a prohibition on below-cost sales, would be less effective than minimum pricing”.
Scottish Public Health Minister Aileen Campbell said she was proud Scotland had led the way and insisted the judgment should mark the end of the legal process.
She added: “The SWA represents some of Scotland’s finest whiskybrands, and while they were entitled to raise this action,
“They met the test minimum pricing has a legitimate aim”