 The next item of business is a statement by Shona Robison on minimum unit pricing of alcohol. The Deputy First Minister will take questions at the end of her statement. Therefore, there should be no interventions or interruptions. I call on Shona Robison, Deputy First Minister, around 10 minutes please. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Members will be aware that my colleague Elena Wittam resigned earlier this week due to health reasons. She has been instrumental in progressing our work on alcohol, and I am sure that members will join me in wishing her well. I recall making a statement to this chamber on 21 November 2017 on minimum unit pricing and our intention to reduce some of the harms caused in Scotland by alcohol. In May 2018, following the agreement of this Parliament, Scotland made history by becoming the first country in the world to introduce the policy. Having led the introduction of the policy, it is with great pleasure that I make this statement today on the future of minimum unit pricing of alcohol in Scotland. I am clear that alcohol continues to cause significant health harm to too many people in our country. The latest figures by the National Records of Scotland show that there were 1,276 alcohol-specific deaths in 2022. I take this opportunity to extend my deepest sympathy to all those affected by the loss of a loved one through alcohol. We, as a Government, are determined to do all we can to reduce alcohol harm. I announced back in 2017 our intention to introduce the policy as soon as we could following the delay caused by several years of litigation through the Scottish courts, the European Court of Justice and the UK Supreme Court. The minimum unit pricing legislation came into force on 1 May 2018 and contains, as members will already know, a sunset clause, which means that the legislation will cease to have effect unless the Scottish Parliament votes to continue it. In September last year, the Scottish Government published our report on the effect of minimum unit pricing in its first five years of operation. In order to inform the report, Public Health Scotland was tasked with leading an independent evaluation of minimum unit pricing and evaluation commended by internationally renowned public health experts, including Sir Michael Marmot and Sally Caswell. Public Health Scotland's final findings were that overall the evidence supports that MUP has had a positive impact on health outcomes, namely a reduction in alcohol-attributable deaths in hospital admissions, particularly in men and those living in the most deprived areas, and therefore contributes to addressing alcohol-related health inequalities. There was no clear evidence on substantial negative impacts on the alcohol drinks industry or on social harms at the population level. During the study period of the evaluation, it is estimated that MUP reduced alcohol-attributable deaths by 13.4 per cent, which is 156 a year, and was likely to have reduced hospital admissions wholly attributable to alcohol by 4.1 per cent, compared to what would have happened if MUP had not been in place. Running in tandem to the evaluation is also a review of the level of minimum unit price. In order to inform that review, the Scottish Government commissioned the University of Sheffield alcohol research group, who are experts in this field, to undertake new modelling. Their research suggests that if MUP is to maintain the current level of benefits the evaluation was able to find at 50 pence, it should increase to at least 60 pence per unit due to inflation. However, Scotland is facing a growing burden of disease in the next 20 years, and I know that all members will agree that action is needed to reduce the causes and effects of ill health in Scotland. Presiding Officer, I am pleased to be able to update the chamber today about the conclusion of our review of minimum unit pricing and to set out the next steps for the policy. It has now met and discussed all the available evidence, including the recently held public consultation, and I have come to a final decision. I can confirm that it is our intention to lay draft orders before Parliament to continue minimum unit pricing beyond 30 April and to set the price per unit at 65 pence. I know that some people do not agree with minimum unit pricing, and we have considered their concerns and views in reaching that position. I also note concerns from business and industry regarding some aspects of minimum unit pricing. Although it is my view that those decisions are unlikely to have a significant effect on the alcohol industry and retailers as a whole, and today evidence suggests that there has not been a significant impact on those business groups, I do understand the concerns raised. We have considered the important role that alcohol production and sales play in Scotland, particularly important to the economies of our rural communities and for tourism. The evidence suggests that there will not be a significant impact on those businesses and our world-leading alcoholic drinks industry. Many business stakeholders told us that implementing any price change quickly may be difficult, so I am pleased to say that in addressing those concerns, if Parliament agrees to the order to increase the minimum price to 65 pence per unit, that will not take effect until 30 September. We have listened to the views of business on this, including the refreshed regulatory review group, and agreed that the implementation window is necessary to allow them to take steps to prepare for this change. Although the statement is an update on minimum unit pricing, I recognise that MUP is not a silver bullet in itself. Although we must try to prevent people from experiencing alcohol-related harm in the first place, for those who are already drinking at higher levels, including people with alcohol dependency, specialist treatment and support is vital. The Scottish Government continues to take action to ensure that people who require treatment and support in relation to alcohol can receive it. We are providing £112 million this year to alcohol and drug partnerships. As part of that funding, we have set out the need to invest in specific initiatives such as stabilisation and crisis management for alcohol. We continue to see expansion in local assertive outreach services, which should also increase the number of people being offered treatment. We have asked Public Health Scotland to investigate the reduction in numbers for referrals to treatment services, and we need to make sure that referrals are made wherever appropriate and that there is capacity within services to make people's needs. It is vital that we know what lies behind the data. Last autumn, we published our Workforce Action Plan for Alcohol and Drug Services to help shape recruitment, retention and service design. It sets out the key actions that we will deliver over the next three years to address challenges experienced by the drugs and alcohol sectors workforce. I am pleased to confirm the Scottish Government's decisions on MUP. Those decisions are estimated by the Sheffield modelling already mentioned to avert an additional 60 alcohol-specific deaths and 774 fewer hospital admissions in the first year, not to mention the significant public health benefits that we expect where alcohol is a contributor to causes of death and ill health. I would also particularly like to thank the many stakeholders in the alcohol industry retail, tourism and public health who have provided their views on MUP. Those have supported our considerations around that decision. We will lay the orders before Parliament on 19 February, and I look forward to engaging with the committee further on that matter. Alcohol harm remains a significant issue in Scotland. It continues to contribute to worsening health outcomes, and the decision to continue MUP and to increase the price shows that Scotland continues to be world leading in improving the health of the people in Scotland. The Deputy First Minister will now take questions on the issues raised in her statement. I intend to allow around 20 minutes after which we will need to move to the next item of business. Members wishing to ask a question who haven't already done so should press the request-to-speak buttons now. The Cabinet Secretary for Health and Sport has falsely accused me of not believing the evidence. Perhaps it is just a lack of understanding on your part, given the Government had to change their release due to my complaint. Let's start with alcohol-related deaths. They are at a 14-year high in Scotland, and even a novice statistician would tell you that hospitalisation data was not statistically significant. There are 40 studies in the evaluation of MUP, and only one claimed a reduction in deaths. Saying that MUP has reduced deaths is not accurate, as it was an estimate based on statistical modelling, and if compared to Northern Ireland and not England, it would have shown that MUP caused deaths. The number of people seeking help for alcohol reduced by 40% along with referrals to alcohol treatment. The purpose of a policy such as MUP should surely have been to reduce consumption of alcohol by those who are dependent drinkers. Public Health Scotland's own data shows those with alcohol dependence are for going food. MUP is not the magic bullet that the Scottish Government are continuing to lawd. If MUP was not designed to help those with alcohol dependence, what has the Scottish Government done to mitigate the harms that were obviously going to happen to them over the past five years? What is the Scottish Government's policy for dependent drinkers that you have clearly abandoned? Let me first start by quoting from Justina Murray, who is the chief executive of Scottish families affected by alcohol and drugs. She said in response to Sandesh Gohani, that she is possibly the only person in the room who does not believe the evidence. We have lost over 11,000 people specifically to alcohol over the past decade. Families really do not understand why this is still being debated. I think that Justina Murray encapsulates my feelings very well indeed. In relation to alcohol-specific deaths, for the evaluation, the question is not whether deaths went up or down, it is whether deaths changed compared to what would have happened if MUP had not been in place. It is likely that, without MUP, tragically, we would have experienced an even greater number of alcohol-specific deaths. That has been echoed by public health experts such as Michael Marmot in the letter written to the Lancet, which said—I am sure that being a doctor, Sandesh Gohani will know about the Lancet and the importance of the Lancet—that policy makers can be confident that there are several hundred people with low incomes in Scotland who would have died as a result of alcohol, who are alive today as a result of minimum unit pricing. I know who I listen to, and that is the public health experts. I think that we will leave Sandesh Gohani to talk for himself. Can I associate myself with the remarks of the Deputy First Minister on behalf of Scottish Labour? I wish Helena Wathen well, and I thank her for her work in this area. As per the evidence, Scottish Labour accepts that minimum unit pricing has a role to play in tackling alcohol harms, but we believe that that must be part of a wider package of measures over and above. That is a position shared by 30 public health-related organisations and charities. Does the Deputy First Minister agree that steps must be taken to explore how the additional revenue raised by minimum unit pricing can be recouped and invested into tackling alcohol harms in Scotland? First of all, I welcome Carol Mocken's support in principle for the policy. I agree with her. As I said in my statement, it is not a silver bullet. There are many other things that have to be done. I talked about the services that are being delivered, particularly for those who are alcohol dependent, so all those things are important. On the public health levy, which I think she was alluding to, as she will be aware, and I recognise Labour's support for that, we have set out that we will give due consideration to a public health supplement that was in place previously between 2012 and 2015. We need to consult on that. We need to take into account the many other aspects in the regulatory frameworks that are going on at the moment, not least minimum unit pricing but also other regulatory issues that are being looked at. We need to look at that in the round. I have been meeting with business organisations and colleagues have been meeting with public health organisations. We will look at all of that in order to come to the conclusions well in advance of the budget later this year around how to proceed. We look forward to working in a constructive way with Carol Mawkin and others around those matters. I refer members to my register of interests. I hold a bank nurse contract with Greater Glasgow and Clyde NHS. The Deputy First Minister has already quoted some of the evidence that the Parliament's Health, Social Care and Sport Committee took on Tuesday on Scotland's minimum unit pricing policy. We heard from numerous stakeholders who spoke of the impact that minimum unit pricing has had on reducing consumption, hospital admissions and deaths. Indeed, a Public Health Scotland and the University of Glasgow study indicated a reduction of 13.4 per cent in deaths, which has wholly attributed to alcohol consumption in the first two and a half years after minimum unit pricing was introduced. Can the Deputy First Minister outline any further evidence that highlights the benefits of that policy? As Clare Hawke will know, Public Health Scotland was commissioned to carry out a comprehensive and independent evaluation of MUP, which looked at the health impacts of minimum unit pricing as well as the wider social and economic impacts. That wide-ranging evaluation covered the first five years of the policy's implementation. I then made reference to my previous answer to the public health experts, who have commented on that evaluation. I mentioned Sir Michael Marmot, Sally Caswell and Ian Gilmar, Martin McKee and their commending of the methodology and approach taken. It is also worth noting, as I am sure that Clare Hawke will be more than aware of, that other countries have since followed suit with the policy of minimum unit pricing and implementing it within their jurisdictions. That wealth of evidence, not just from Scotland but from across the world, will help us in terms of the policy going forward. I am aware that the cabinet secretary has had to step in at the last minute to replace Michael Matheson, so I may not be aware of all the facts. The facts are that Scotland has experienced a 25% increase in alcohol-related deaths in the past three years alone. In fact, in the past 10 years, the number of people accessing alcohol treatment services has gone down by 40%. Is the cabinet secretary really trying to tell us, and with great pleasure, that a huge hike in drink pricing and a cost of living crisis is the best solution? I do not know if Jackson Carlaw is in the chamber, but all I can do is to reflect with an element of sadness how far we have travelled from the very constructive evidence-led approach taken by the likes of Jackson Carlaw, who set politics aside to support minimum unit pricing when it was introduced. In terms of being in full command of the facts, I think that Tess White should perhaps remember that it was me that took minimum unit pricing through this Parliament way before Tess White was a member in here. I am very much aware of the facts, and at no point have I stated that somehow minimum unit pricing is a magic bullet. In fact, I just said to Carol Mocken in recognition that it is one part of the jigsaw of how we tackle alcohol-related harm. I also answered to her colleague the complex issue of alcohol-related deaths and why the evaluation takes account of the impact of other issues as well, not least in terms of the Covid years and the evaluation that took account of the Covid years. I also answered the issue around referral to treatment services that we need to understand why there is a reduction in people being referred to treatment services, which is why Public Health Scotland has been asked to investigate all of that. I said that in my statement, if Tess White had been listening. I am going to have to speed things along, but there is a lot of interesting questions that I want to get through as many as I can. I remind chamber that I am currently a registered nurse with the Nursing and Midwifery Council. The cabinet secretary mentioned other countries. The Northern Territory Government in Australia introduced a minimum unit price for alcohol in the same year as Scotland. How does Scotland's experience from then to now reflect with other countries who have taken such an approach? Has the Government considered any international learnings that might be applied here? Thanks to Emma Harper for pointing out, of course that many countries have followed Scotland's lead on minimum unit pricing. Other countries have introduced other pricing policies, such as Ireland and Wales. Scotland, of course, has led the way, including the substantive evaluation of the operation of MUP, which I am sure others will look to. I think that many other countries are considering their approaches and will look at our rating of the price as part of that. For instance, in an article published by the Public Health Association Australia, it noted a view that it considers Scotland's approach to evaluation to be credible and that it should give confidence to parliamentarians in Scotland. In a separate publication in South Africa, academics have considered the experience of MUP in Scotland. Whether it is Australia or South Africa, we are very keen to work on the international arena to share some of that best practice. Thank you. I also want to extend my best wishes to the member for a character that can do in the valley. I did appreciate her collegiate approach and, indeed, her personal passion to tackle Scotland's drug death crisis. Labour does agree with the cabinet secretary that minimum unit pricing is not a silver bullet to tackle alcohol-related harm. However, if the Government is really believing that it can undertake specialist treatment and support as important parts of our efforts to reduce harm caused by alcohol, why have they cut the alcohol and drug treatment funding by £46 million in real terms over the past five years? I welcome the comments, but Elena Whitham is very welcome indeed. As I said earlier, I accept what Paul Sweeney is saying. It is not a silver bullet, but it is part of the armory, if you like, to tackle alcohol-related harm. On specialist treatment, we are providing £112 million this year to alcohol and drug partnerships. As part of that funding, we have set out the need to invest in specific initiatives such as stabilisation and crisis management for alcohol. I am sure that Paul Sweeney will be aware that there are some innovative projects that are looking at those who are alcohol-dependent, and some of the evaluation from that is very interesting indeed. I am keen, as Elena Whitham did, to try to build a broad coalition around the measures that we need to take, because I think that it is in all of our interests to tackle what has been a scourge in our society for too long. One of the concerns about minimum unit pricing was that it would just boost the profits of the supermarkets. Can the Deputy First Minister say anything about how that could be tackled, for example by a levia or a supplement on non-domestic rates? In Public Health Scotland's evaluation of MEP, it found that, while the sales data showed an overall increase in revenue from alcohol, it was not possible to determine the impact on profit. As I said earlier, in our Scottish budget, we signalled our intention to explore the reintroduction of a non-domestic rates public health supplement for large retailers in advance of the next Scottish budget, similar to the alcohol levy that alcohol focus has called for. However, what I also said earlier was that it will continue to engage with all stakeholders and, in particular, retailers as part of the exploratory work. They need to look at that wider picture of other pressures and demands that will be put on the retail sector. Willie Rennie, to be followed by Evelyn Tweet. One of the first decisions that I took when I became leader of the Scottish Liberal Democrats was to reverse our party's previous opposition to the policy. I am really pleased that the Government has increased it to 65 pence. I think that the supporting evidence is pretty compelling, but can the cabinet secretary try to understand those opponents of the policy that seem to imply from their arguments that making alcohol cheaper will somehow deal with alcohol harm in this country? First of all, can I welcome Willie Rennie's comments? The fact that he was honest enough to say that there was a change of position shows that sometimes on issues as important as this, you have to try to take the politics and the instinct of politics out of it. I absolutely pay tribute to Willie Rennie for doing that. I have to agree with him. I cannot understand how there is any proposition, not least from those who have got a medical background, to say that making alcohol cheaper would reduce alcohol-related harm. That, to me, does not stand up to scrutiny. It does not stand up to the evidence. I think that the public health experts have made very clear the links between price and alcohol consumption. I am not going to be able to get in everybody that wants to ask a question. That is already obvious, but I am going to have to ask for a brief question and brief responses. Evelyn Tweed, to be followed by Sue Webber. Some professionals reflected that reduced avoidability was driving individuals to seek treatment. What steps is the Government taking to ensure that treatment is widely available to those who need it? I agree that we need to ensure that there is access to treatment for those who need it. That is why, as I mentioned earlier, more than £112 million will be made available to alcohol and drug partnerships to support initiatives that ensure that local services can respond. We have asked, as I said, at Public Health Scotland to investigate current trends in relation to the number of referrals to alcohol treatment services. We need to make sure that referrals are made wherever appropriate and that there is capacity within services to meet people's needs. That is why that review is so important. I will make sure that members are kept informed of that review going forward. Back to an evidence-led approach, Deputy First Minister. The evidence from your very own Scottish Government feedback report is stark that MEP has had a negative impact on those who are dependent on alcohol. Deputy First Minister, the Scottish Government has until 30 September to consider some mitigations for this group, and the clock is already ticking. Your report only says that it continues to consider how it can provide support, so what mitigations are being planned and or considered to help this group who will be further harmed? MEP is, of course, a whole-population policy with a particular focus on hazardous and harmful drinkers. Those who are classed as dependent drinkers fall within the extreme end of the harmful drinking category. Given the clinical needs of this particular group of dependent drinkers, MEP alone was not intended as a key intervention to address the needs of this group. As I said earlier on, treatment and care services are critical for this group, and that is why that range of services needs to be available, and that is what we will continue to do. I welcome the announcement from the cabinet secretary that the minimum unit price will be raised, and, while the minimum unit price is having an effect, retailers are pocketing any profit generated. I welcome the inclusion of a public health levy in the budget, and at committee we have heard that this is a potential win-win for public health. Can the Deputy First Minister outline the timeline for this work, and whether she agrees with me that there is huge potential benefit for services in recouping this money? As I said earlier on to others, it is important that we consult with all stakeholders, those in favour of public health organisations, but also that we take account of the views of retailers. That is what we will also do to make sure that we have good engagement across the board. The commitment was to consider, well in advance of the budget process for 2526, where at the foothills of that, there will be lots of opportunity for parliamentary engagement on this matter. We all know that alcohol is a major problem for this country, and I have to say that I find some of the line of questioning from the Tories today just quite dangerous. As we have heard, evidence from Public Health Scotland's evaluation of the impact of the policy has had a positive impact on health outcomes, reducing death directly caused by alcohol consumption, as well as hospital admissions. Can the cabinet secretary give any update at all on what assessment the Scottish Government has made of those findings, and of any research into the financial impacts of the policy? Of course, the Scottish ministers considered those evaluation findings very carefully in reaching our decision on MUP. They are, as a result of a robust evaluation of the period that is considered by the PHS in its report. Given the evidence, MUP will continue to deliver a reduction in health harms caused by alcohol at the increased unit price of £65. We know that the devastating impact alcohol can have on families and communities. It can be difficult to attribute a monetary value to that, but the PHS evaluated and estimated that the social value of death that is wholly attributable to alcohol is averted by MUP to be between approximately £134 million to £469 million for the period considered. Thank you. Again, with apologies, I was not able to call. That concludes the business on the statement. There will be a brief pause before we move to the next item of business to allow front benches to change.