 o'r next item of business, which is a statement by Shona Robison on the UK Supreme Court judgment on minimum unit pricing of alcohol in Scotland. The cabinet secretary will take questions at the end of her statement, so there should be no interventions or interruptions. I would encourage all members who wish to speak, or who wish to ask a question rather, to press their request-to-speak buttons now, and I call on cabinet secretary Shona Robison. Thank you, Presiding Officer. It is with great pleasure that I come to Parliament today to make my statement on minimum unit pricing of alcohol in Scotland. Members will know that on Wednesday, 15 November, the UK Supreme Court handed down a unanimous judgment rejecting the legal challenge to our pioneering legislation. The judgment was a resounding endorsement of our approach, which was approved unopposed by this Parliament in 2012. The Supreme Court bench comprising seven justices, including Lady Hale, the newly appointed president of the court, and her predecessor, Lord Neuberger, concluded that minimum unit pricing was targeted, proportionate and lawful. The Scottish courts had already reached this conclusion on two separate occasions. We now have the decision of the UK Supreme Court, and I am delighted that the case has been finally decided in our favour. As the present carrier of the baton on minimum unit pricing, with Kenny MacAskill, Nicola Sturgeon and Alec Neill preceding me, it is a privilege for me to make this landmark statement to the Scottish Parliament. There has been tremendous support for the policy over the last decade from an array of organisations and businesses, including within the alcohol industry. SHAP, the Scottish Health Action on Alcohol Problems and Alcohol Focused Scotland, were often at the forefront. Today, I wish to pay particular tribute to Dr Evelyn Gillan, who sadly passed away in 2015. In her role as chief executive of alcohol focused Scotland, Evelyn was a passionate advocate for minimum unit pricing. Today, I remember her lasting contribution to Scottish public life, and I feel extremely proud to have worked alongside her. I have overseen the majority of the litigation at the Court of Session in Edinburgh, the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg and the UK Supreme Court in London. Throughout, I had absolute certainty that our case was supported by evidence and policy analysis of the highest calibre. Some MSPs in this chamber had differing views on minimum unit pricing in the past. However, I welcome supportive commentary from across the benches these last few days, and I will shortly outline the next steps towards implementation. As I do, I hope that all members will act in the spirit of consensus and get behind minimum unit pricing. My justification for seeking parliamentary consensus is about more than warm words. Given the high and enduring levels of alcohol-related harm Scotland experiences, I believe that the electorate deserves no less than a chamber that unites to tackle the scourge of cheap, high-strength alcohol that causes so much damage across our nation. I expect that I need not remind members that alcohol misuse costs Scotland £3.6 billion each year, £900 for every adult. You need not cast your net far to see at first hand the devastation caused by alcohol misuse. Published only this morning, the annual NHS hospital statistics tell us that there were 36,235 alcohol-related hospital admissions in 2016-17, an increase of 2 per cent on the previous year. In August, we learned that there had been 1,265 alcohol-related deaths in 2016, an increase of 10 per cent on 2015. Behind every statistic is an individual, a family and a community. On average, alcohol misuse causes about 697 hospital admissions and 24 deaths a week in Scotland, so let me be clear that that is wholly unacceptable. Of course, we have never claimed that minimum unit pricing is a panacea. Our alcohol framework is comprehensive and has attracted international acclaim. It contains more than 40 measures across the prevention and support spectrum. Much of that work remains on-going, and we plan a refresh of the strategy shortly to build on our achievements to date. Since 2008, we have invested more than £689 million to tackle problem alcohol and drug use. Furthermore, our recent programme for government commits an additional £20 million per year for alcohol and drug services subject to parliamentary approval through the budget process. Our commitment to providing treatment and recovery support is absolute, and the Minister for Public Health and Sport Aileen Campbell intends to update Parliament shortly on our plans for reinvigorating the approach to alcohol and drugs treatment. There can be no doubt that Scotland pays a high price for alcohol-related harm, and that is precisely why the Government has an obligation to intervene in the market in order to set a minimum unit price. The benefits of minimum unit pricing will be substantial. As an illustration, last year Sheffield University modelled that a price per unit of 50 pence would lead to 58 fewer alcohol-related deaths in the first year, with a cumulative total of 392 fewer alcohol-related deaths within the first five years. The reduction in alcohol-related hospital admissions at that price would be similarly substantial. In the first year, a price of 50 pence would lead to 1,299 fewer alcohol-related hospital admissions, with a cumulative total of 8,254 fewer alcohol-related hospital admissions within the first five years. Presiding officer, I will now turn to my plans for implementation. Minimum unit pricing of alcohol has been delayed far too long. During the court cases, lives have been lost, and that is why I will move to implement as soon as is practicable. I am delighted to confirm that I am today laying a commencement order, bringing into immediate force the order-making provisions of the Alcohol Minimum Pricing Scotland Act 2012. I intend to consult on our draft Scottish statutory instrument, which sets the minimum unit price, and I will begin that consultation on 1 December. The consultation will run for eight weeks until 26 January 2018. It will then work swiftly to ensure that the order setting the minimum unit prices laid before Parliament on 1 March 2018. That order will state our intended implementation date for minimum unit pricing of alcohol in Scotland that is 1 May 2018. Following the appropriate parliamentary scrutiny and assuming that this Parliament votes to bring the price setting order into force, no alcohol in Scotland will then be sold for less than the specified minimum unit price from 1 May 2018. I anticipate setting the minimum unit price at 50 pence per unit subject to the outcome of our consultation and a refreshed business regulatory impact assessment, the Bria. A consultation is necessary to meet the requirements of European food regulations, and given the time that has elapsed since this Parliament passed a legislation, I am keen to consult stakeholders and the public on our preferred price. The Bria plays an important role in explaining the impact of our legislation, so it is vital that it is up to date and reflects the consultation outcomes. We want to hear from retailers about the practicalities of implementation. We are already talking to representative bodies and we will convene a retailer's implementation group in December. We will also engage next month with licensing standards officers who enforce Scotland's liquor licensing laws day in and day out to hear their views. The Supreme Court judgment was comprehensive and included consideration of the sunset clause, which this Parliament approved in 2012. That means that Scottish ministers will bring to Parliament an evaluation of the impact of the policy five years on. Parliament will then vote on the policy's continuation before the sixth year of operation. It is well known that NHS Health Scotland is conducting this independent and objective evaluation following its excellent track record of evaluating alcohol policy in Scotland over the last decade. Industry will be involved in that evaluation. Earlier this morning, I discussed moving forwards with Karen Betts, the new chief executive at the Scotch, whisky association. Karen has confirmed to me that the SWA will pay the Scottish Government's costs in the court cases and I welcome that very much. We are agreed that a line must be drawn under the litigation. The whisky industry remains a very important part of Scotland's heritage and indeed its future. It brings many benefits to our country, including employment, often in remote and rural areas and, of course, tourism. There are many challenges ahead for the whisky industry, particularly from the uncertainties of Brexit, and this Government will continue to work with the sector, including the SWA, to advocate for decisions that benefit the Scottish economy. This court case was always about compliance with European law and whether public health arguments should ultimately win out over trade. The European Court of Justice concluded that the ultimate decision on minimum pricing was for the domestic courts. Fellow nations are interested in following in our footsteps. The Welsh Government introduced a minimum unit pricing bill to the National Assembly for Wales last month. Ireland looks set to do the same. I wish Wales and Ireland all the best with tackling alcohol-related harm in their own jurisdictions. I will conclude by reflecting on one of the most important parts of the UK Supreme Court judgment on minimum unit pricing of alcohol. The Supreme Court sets out the approach that the court should take in a challenge to a policy decision of this sort by the Government and Parliament. The court's judgment tells us that, in considering the question of public health benefits versus free trade, it is for the Government and Parliament to decide what weight is placed on public health harms. I quote from paragraph 63 of the judgment. That was a judgment that it was for them to make, and their right to make it mitigates strongly against intrusive review by a domestic court. This is a very important decision for public health policy generally. The power to act, to minimise public health harms, to change unhealthy cultures, to give our children the best start in life lies in all of our hands. Next May, we will take a huge step forward in tackling one of Scotland's enduring health harms. Minimum unit pricing of alcohol can help to turn the tide on alcohol harm, and the first of May will be a landmark moment. Thank you very much, and we move to questions starting with Jackson Carlaw. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I unreservedly welcome and associate the Scottish Conservatives with the statement that the cabinet secretary has just made. It is quite extraordinary, in some ways, to think that it is five and a half years since I stood as a Conservative health spokesman in support of this legislation. I would like to recall that, although it had won a significant overall majority in the Scottish election in 2011, the front bench of the day, nonetheless, in support of this policy, were prepared to reach out to other parties and supported two-conditions Scottish Conservatives attached at that time. One was that the legislation was legal, and I think that it has perhaps taken a lot longer than any of us imagined for us to get to the point where we can unreservedly say that is so. But the second was in support of my amendment introducing a sunset clause. This is terribly important because contentious pieces of public health legislation will, I think, enjoy greater ease of support within Parliament if those who are sceptical and somewyr know that there is going to be an evaluation process. I hear what the cabinet secretary said, but I wonder if she could today agree to ensure that all of the political parties in this Parliament are also involved in agreeing the evaluation process and being a part of that as the legislation proceeds through Parliament. Secondly, she makes reference to the 50p unit that was established at the time, and I welcome the consultation that she will have surrounding that. She clearly favours 50p at that point. Is she confident that that will, given the length of time that has been since the legislation was passed, be an appropriate level for minimum unit pricing? Does she intend, at any point, to put in place criteria over the five-year evaluation process that would allow for that limit to be reviewed if that was felt to be necessary? I thank Jackson Carlaw for, first of all, his supportive comments, and at the time for his support of what was groundbreaking and at times controversial proposals. That was very welcome. As he has recognised, the sunset clause was an important part and was cited in court as being very important as well. I thank him for that. On the evaluation process, the evaluation board will involve a number of stakeholders, including industry. This morning, I offered the Scottish Whiskey Association a seat on that board, and it will reflect on that. On the opposition involvement, I am happy to give that further consideration and talk to the opposition spokespeople about how that is best facilitated. On the 50p being appropriate yet, that is our preferred minimum unit price, and that is what we will consult upon. Given that five years has elapsed, it is important that we hear views on that. However, all the modelling that Sheffield University has done has been based on the 50p proposal. On moving forward, Jackson Carlaw will be aware that, should we want to amend the minimum unit price at a later stage, once the evaluation and the benefits of the policy, I am sure, will be shown, we would have to come back to Parliament in order to do that. I am keen to get on with the implementation. I have laid that out in my statement, the time frame for that. I look forward to having Jackson Carlaw's support, and, hopefully, that from across the chamber. The Supreme Court ruling was very clear, as was the decision of Parliament five years ago, and the cabinet secretary has helped to set out in detail the next stages. I look forward to supporting those next stages and engaging constructively in the process as it goes forward to full implementation. The cabinet secretary referred to the publication today of the annual NHS hospital statistics, and she will know that it revealed that alcohol-related hospital admissions for 2016-17 were eight times higher among people from the most deprived communities. In the psychiatric setting for 2015-16, the difference was even more pronounced with just over 15 times as many people being admitted from the most deprived areas. I welcome the commitment in the cabinet secretary's statement today to publish a refreshed alcohol framework, hopefully this year. Will the cabinet secretary ensure that, when it is published, the undeniable link between deprivation and higher levels of alcohol abuse is not only recognised but clear action is included to tackle what is yet another health inequality caused by wealth inequality? Will the cabinet secretary also recognise the impact on people who face with an addiction problem of the recent 24 per cent reduction in funding to alcohol and drug partnerships, which by definition have hit the poorest and the most deprived communities hardest? Will she ensure that the refreshed strategy at the very least changes and reverses that reduction in funding? I thank Colin Smyth for his questions and look forward to him engaging constructively in the process going forward. Colin Smyth cites a number of statistics that show that the impact of alcohol misuse falls disproportionately on those most deprived communities. He cited the figures around hospital admissions and the impact of alcohol misuse. He cited the refreshed framework that will be available in the new year. I am sure that from that it will set a clear direction of travel and a clear further action that can be taken. Building on the substantial action that has already been taken and, of course, the work on brief interventions has been very successful in helping people to address their alcohol-related problems. In terms of resourcing, Colin Smyth will be aware that there is a £20 million commitment in the programme for government, which is subject to the budget process. That will involve additional spend on alcohol and drug services. It is important to know that the spend of that money is related to the evidence of what works best and that will therefore be set out in the framework. Some of the information that Aileen Campbell will be sharing with Parliament about the alcohol and drug treatment proposals that she will be bringing forward. I hope that we will have the support of Colin Smyth and others in securing that in the budget process, because it is important in taking matters forward. Patrick Harvie is before by Willie Rennie. I very much welcome the statement and the Supreme Court judgment. The Greens are the only Opposition party that has consistently supported the policy since its inception. Now that the legal arguments have been proved right, I agree that it is time to press on and demonstrate that the policy itself can be effective. The cabinet secretary tells us that, in the evaluation process, the industry will be involved. Does she agree that the industry itself is not homogeneous and that we should be listening rather less to the giant drinks multinationals who can afford to employ lawyers and lobbyists but who make their profits from volume sales and mass manufacture? We should be listening rather more to the independent businesses and the independent producers, the smaller ones who make a living not a killing but whose profitability is based on quality rather than on mass manufacture and cheap promotions. Can I thank Patrick Harvie for his party's consistent support of minimum unit pricing? He refers to the alcohol industry having differing views. Of course, that is true, and sections of the alcohol industry have supported minimum unit pricing over the years. That is to be welcomed. He makes an important point on the distinction between some of the manufacturers of high-quality products. The target of minimum unit pricing, as we have always said, has never been those premium quality products. It has always been those low-price high-alcohol content products that can be as low as £18 per unit. Those are the products that are absolutely within the sights of minimum unit pricing. We hope that we will have the support of many sections of the alcohol industry. As I said in my statement, it is important to draw a line under the issue of litigation, and we hope that the Scottish Whiskey Association and the Scottish Government will be able to reset the relationship going forward, because we have many areas of common cause. Willie Rennie, to be followed by Alex Neil. I was increasingly sceptical that this day we would ever come and depressed over that period of time because we were fully supportive of the measure, but, since we have come so far, would it not be advisable to follow on from what Jackson Carlaw was saying, to revise the price level? It was £50 we set before, would it not be more suitable to set something in the order of £60 to reflect the inflation and other factors that have changed in that very long march towards the delivery of the policy? I was confident that this day would come, but it has been a long haul, but here we are. Willie Rennie asks about the price level. As I said in my statement, we are going to consult and, obviously, we will hear the views of that consultation, but we believe that there is a lot of evidence for maintaining the £50 price, which is what we will consult on. If you look at the modelling that has been done by Sheffield University, it states out very clearly that the public health gains from setting a price of £50. We will listen to the consultation responses, but that consultation will go out with a still advocating the Scottish Government's position of a £50 minimum unit price. We have about 10 more questions, if we can squeeze them in. Alex Neil is followed by Miles Briggs. I congratulate the Scottish Government on persevering with the issue for the last five years and for the plans for swift implementation. I welcome the commitment by the Scottish Whiskey Association that it will pay the taxpayer back all the legal costs involved in the unnecessary and irresponsible action that it has taken. I encourage the Government to make sure that it recovers every penny in those costs. However, as a result of the Scottish Whiskey Association's action over the past five years, based on the estimates provided by Sheffield University, nearly 400 people in Scotland have died unnecessarily and avoidably as a result of this action. Had the legislation been implemented five years ago, about 392 people would still have probably been alive. We cannot undo what has already happened, but I press the cabinet secretary to say to the Scottish Whiskey Association that repaying the legal costs is not enough. Given the vast profits that they make every year in Scotland, they should be investing heavily in those communities, particularly adversely affected by the alcohol abuse problem. They owe those communities a lot after their irresponsible behaviour. We should make sure that they pay those people as well as our legal costs. I recognise Alex Neil's contribution to getting where we have got to today when he was health secretary. All of the previous health secretaries have contributed to the position that we have got to today. Alex Neil makes mention of the cost recovery. As I said in my statement, the Scottish Whiskey Association has confirmed that lawyers will be discussing the cost recovery process, as is normal in those circumstances. When I meet Karen Betz, we have agreed to discuss a number of things. One of which is how the Scottish Whiskey Association can contribute to the public health agenda. One of the issues that we want to move forward on is, for example, making sure that the chief medical officer's new guidelines are produced on alcohol packaging. There is still discussion to be had with the Portman group around that, because they have yet to agree to that. That is a step forward that the alcohol industry could collectively take to make sure that the most up-to-date guidelines are there very clearly for the public's information. I urge members to be very brief with their questions of what to get through them. Miles Briggs is to be followed by Ash Denham. I welcome the clarity that we now have in relation to minimum unit pricing, which is estimated to have helped to reduce the number of alcohol deaths by around 10 per cent. That would be welcome progress, but will the cabinet secretary accept that minimum unit pricing is just one tool in a broad range of measures that we need to take as a country to address alcohol misuse in Scotland? Can the cabinet secretary give more details of any additional new proposals that the Scottish Government is developing, and will she also agree to hold a cross-party summit on alcohol misuse so that we can look at the broader cultural changes that we need to take as a nation to address Scotland's relationship with alcohol? I urge members to be brief with one question and keep it brief. As I said in my statement, Liam Campbell will be making a statement shortly on substance misuse treatment developments. She will be making that statement shortly. Of course, the framework will be coming back in the new year. I am sure that we can look for a parliamentary opportunity to discuss that further. Miles Briggs is right in that we have never argued that minimum unit pricing is a silver bullet or a panacea or whatever other phrase you want to use, but it is an important part of the armory, if you like, of things that we need to deploy to tackle alcohol misuse because price and consumption are so linked. I am happy to write to Miles Briggs with an update on the other actions in the framework. Over 40, many of them are delivering a lot of change—the brief interventions—helping people to address their alcohol misuse. I am happy to write to him with more detail. I echo the cabinet secretary's sentiments on the devastating impact that alcohol misuse can have on families across Scotland. Of course, minimum pricing is a huge step in the right direction, but it is important to remember that that is not being done in isolation. Can the cabinet secretary outline other measures that the Government is taking and plans to tackle alcohol misuse? As I indicated to Miles Briggs, we have a framework that has over 40 actions. The framework for action includes regulatory measures such as the quantity discount ban, a ban on irresponsible promotions, lowering the drink driving limit, the introduction of an age verification policy such as challenge 25, other initiatives include the promotion of smaller measures of wine in the on-trade, the best bar none initiatives and brief interventions, as I mentioned earlier. It is important to see that basket of measures, many of which have a real and tangible benefit. I think that Scotland is really leading the way, particularly around things such as lowering the drink driving limit. It is about changing culture. Minimum unit pricing will help to change that culture in the same way as it is no longer acceptable to drink and drive. I think that we can create a very different culture in our relationship with alcohol here in Scotland. Mark Griffin, to be followed by Fulton MacGregor. The cabinet secretary spoke about the high price Scotland pays for alcohol-related harm, and the need to intervene in the market. My region in Central Scotland plays a high price for high caffeine content, alcohol-related harm. Would the Scottish Government consider a market intervention in that area as well? Minimum unit price in relation to the product that he is talking about would not be affected by the minimum unit pricing, because the unit pricing is already above the £50. However, that does not mean that there are no other measures that can be taken around the products that Mark Griffin refers to. I am very happy to continue to have those discussions, but there has got to be an evidence base for them. I think that this process over the last five years has taught us that when you bring forward public health policies, you have got to have a strong evidence base, because if you do end up in the courts, it will be that evidence base that will either lead to success or otherwise. When we take forward any public health measures, it has to have a strong evidence base. I am very happy to continue that discussion with Mark Griffin and others if there is more that we can do in that respect. Given the intricate relationship that can exist for some people between alcohol use and poor mental health, does the cabinet secretary expect that minimum unit pricing will have a positive impact on mental health in the longer term, as much, if not more, as it will on physical health? I should remain to chamber in the parliamentary areas. I apologise. That is part of changing the culture. We know that, for many people with addictions, there is quite often a dual diagnosis of addictions and mental health issues. We also know that part of the Sheffield study covered the mental health impact and the reduction in hospital admissions that would be a benefit of minimum unit pricing would also be in the area of mental health also. A lot to be gained by that, and that is just one area. In Scotland, harmful and hazardous binge drinking is increasing among those aged six to five to 74, while decreasing in other age groups. How will the Scottish Government incorporate age into its alcohol strategies, recognising that older adults' needs may be different from those of younger people? Annie Wells makes a reasonable point that alcohol misuse affects the whole population, and that is why our alcohol strategy takes a whole population approach. As we take forward the refresh, we should look at the area of older people and alcohol. We know, for example, that many of the brief interventions that have been delivered have been for older people who turn up at their doctors or A&E with injuries, where alcohol misuse may be an underlying factor. It is very important, as we go forward, with the refresh of the framework that we take into account very much the needs of the older people who may well have an alcohol misuse problem. Cabinet Secretary, I listen carefully to your responses to Jackson Carlaw and Willie Rennie. When legislation for the price suggested was 50 pence, and five years later, that has been eroded significantly by inflation, it remains the unit price suggested. Will the Scottish Government reconsider the raising of the minimum unit price in real terms to maintain its effectiveness and link the unit price to inflation to ensure that policy's positive impact in saving lives in the years ahead continues without having to be reconsidered intermittently, as was suggested in your statement? I recognise Kenny Gibson's interest in the matter. I recognise absolutely what he is saying, but I am keen to get on now with the implementation and would be very cautious about taking any action that could lead to further delay. That is why we are consulting on the 50p minimum unit price, but we will listen, as I have said earlier, to responses to that consultation. However, I would be keen, given that the evidence-based modelling has been done on the 50p minimum unit price, that we should get on and evaluate the impact of that policy. However, going forward, we will continue to keep that under review and, if necessary, come back to Parliament. I congratulate the Scottish Government on this policy and commend those parts of the drinks industry who have consistently supported it, including tenants in my constituency. That policy will reduce the number of people who will develop an alcohol problem, however, for those who already have an alcohol addiction, what additional support will the Government be putting in place to support their recovery? Aileen Campbell will lay out next week the developments in treatment for alcohol and drug addiction, and Aileen will be able to lay out more of the detail. It is absolutely right and proper that, as well as changing the culture and addressing the link between price and consumption and reducing alcohol misuse, we have to make sure that people who need help get it as quickly as possible. Of course, we have our treatment waiting times, which are being met for alcohol and drug treatments, so people are getting access to the help that they need quickly. The brief interventions, which are helping to address people's alcohol misuse at an earlier stage, are backed up. Of course, there are £20 million in the programme for government, which will help to deliver further improvements in alcohol and treatment options for people who require them. I thank the cabinet secretary and members for their co-operation. Forgive me, Presiding Officer. I believe that, during that last item, I should have made an oral declaration of my membership of the cross-party group on beer and brewing. Apologies for the oversight. I thank Mr Harvey for that update. I thank all members. We will move on to the next item of business. I will ask members to allow both the statement and the topical questions to run over quite a bit, so I am looking for as much consideration in time-saving as possible. Try and keep your speeches to the allotted time where possible.