Chamber and committees

My final question is on a point that was raised with the committee, which was about including someone with trans identity in the review team. Did you consider doing that?

Thank you, minister, for your opening statement. I am interested in some of the other measurements that we might look at around MUP. We have seen strong evidence and reports about how MUP impacts on health harms and affects the industry, but have you received any views or seen any evidence on some of the other indicators, both positive and negative, in relation to whether MUP helps to reduce crime and other social harms? Is there any evidence to suggest that people have moved to other addictive substances? Is there a need for more evidence in that area, or could you point us to some?

Yes, it had been suggested that that might happen, but there is some evidence—

To be clear, as this is an important policy that we will be voting on, is the Government confident that it worked in the area that it should have worked in and is the Government committed to looking at some of the evidence around the issue and any work that we need to do in that other area?

I confirm that Scottish Labour supports continuation of the MUP and its uprating to 65p.

We also support Public Health Scotland’s work on the issue. As we have heard, the data that has been produced is complicated, but we believe that it is clear that the MUP worked while 50p was an effective price and that lives were saved, as a result. That is undoubtedly significant, and it is only right that we continue the policy and look more at the impacts that an uprated MUP will have on public health. The MUP is, however, not and will never be effective on its own, so I welcome the minister’s acknowledgement of that.

In relation to dependent drinkers, as we have discussed this morning, Public Health Scotland concluded that

“There is limited evidence to suggest that MUP was effective in reducing consumption for those people with alcohol dependence. Those with alcohol dependence are a particular subgroup of those who drink at harmful levels and have specific needs. People with alcohol dependence need timely and evidence-based treatment and wider support that addresses the root cause of their dependence.”

Scottish Labour supports that statement.

The long-term underfunding of alcohol and drug partnerships, the cutbacks to health services and council budgets, and the real-terms cuts to investment in this year’s budget suggest that the Government could become overreliant on MUP as a unitary method of tackling alcohol harm. That will not work—experts tell us as much—so I hope that the Government will now outline what further commitment it will make to services that offer support in our communities. We believe that we cannot continue MUP for much longer without ensuring that the profit that it creates for larger companies is reinvested in publicly funded public health initiatives. We feel that that is only right, and we would seek to work with colleagues to achieve that.

The continuation of MUP is, in my view, a positive step, and it has Scottish Labour’s support. Once again, I urge colleagues to ensure that work is undertaken by the Government to properly fund and support services that will save lives, and that the Government commits to vital services in areas of highest deprivation. If we do not do that and act with purpose, we will quickly see the benefits of MUP fade, which is not something that any of us want. I know from today’s debate that that is the minister’ position, so I hope to work with her to put those things together.

I am interested to know a wee bit more about the consultation and, in particular, whether you feel that you were able to reach out to people who, as you acknowledged, have opposing views on the issue. How did you go about the consultation and make sure that you sought the views of both sides?

Thank you, minister, for your opening statement, which links to the theme that I have been asked to cover, which is the impacts on people accessing services for healthcare, and on those who wish to keep their rights to their views on the matter. Do you believe that we can do both of those things with the bill? What will that impact look like if the bill is passed?

We heard a lot of views from people who were involved in vigils about the literature that was being given out to people who sought healthcare and why they felt that they had to provide it. Did the consultation touch on that issue? Did you form a view on the issue of literature?

Did people who said that they were fearful of having the zones offer alternatives? If so, did you consider the alternatives that were offered?

That is very helpful—thank you.