���˿���

The common framework provides a way of working together, and it allows for divergence to occur. As I said in my opening statement, we are confident that the common framework will provide a useful way of managing discussions; that it will ensure that there is early engagement and that we work together to try to achieve consensus; and that it will ensure that, when divergence occurs, it does not take our neighbours by surprise.

In relation to the most likely area of divergence, the Scottish Government, generally, wants to align with the EU. If an area of EU food information law changes, it is likely or possible that Scotland might want to align with the EU and that the rest of the UK might not want to do so. However, Northern Ireland will, of course, have to align with the EU.

The common framework just provides a way of working.

The framework is a four-countries agreement and it was intended to drive consistent approaches across the UK, while acknowledging policy divergence. It is absolutely clear that any change to EU law will have to apply in Northern Ireland. Therefore, should the other countries in the UK choose not to align with the EU, there will be divergence. Scotland has an aim of remaining aligned with the EU, but should England and Wales choose to diverge, there will be divergence across the UK. That is an inevitable consequence of our exit from the EU and of the Northern Ireland agreement.

However, this framework enables even that situation to be managed carefully in a way that will work. So long as the policy options are underpinned by robust evidence, and the framework processes are followed, there is no reason why any divergence per se should undermine the framework. The framework enables divergence; it does not prevent it.

We are quite happy with it. The intention is to review the framework a year after implementation and at three years thereafter. At heart, it really is just a document that describes a way of working healthily and productively together. If issues arise, that might be more about whether the framework was followed. We are all getting used to this new world, so it might be that the framework was not followed rather than that the framework is faulty. Therefore, we need to let the processes bed in a little before we can fairly assess whether a review process is appropriate. However, we will certainly keep an eye on how these things work. As I said, all four UK ministers agree that the framework is a reasonable way forward. I hope that it provides us with a way of working together that avoids conflict and, where conflict and divergence are necessary, it enables that as part of the devolution settlement.

Thank you, convener.

Our chief medical officer for Scotland has said that

“A healthier population could be one of our nation’s most important assets and must be our ambition.”

To achieve that, we must focus on addressing health inequalities and their detrimental effects. The negative effects of poverty, trauma and discrimination on an individual’s mental and physical health cannot be ignored, so for all those reasons we have increased funding for tackling problematic alcohol and drug use. The negative effects are also why we need to consult on potential restrictions on alcohol advertising and review the level of the minimum unit price.

Minimum unit pricing was introduced in 2018 and we are in the final year of our five-year evaluation period. Twelve months after MUP was introduced, we saw a decrease of 2 per cent in alcohol sales in the off-licence trade. We also saw a decrease of 10 per cent in alcohol-specific deaths—the largest decrease since 2012.

Then the pandemic hit. There is evidence to show that some groups who were already drinking at dangerous levels started to drink more, despite alcohol sales falling overall. We do not yet know whether the increased deaths that were reported in 2020 will be echoed in 2021. We cannot prejudge what the evaluation of MUP will say; we are not yet in a position to say whether the current level of 50p per unit should be changed and, if so, what the change should be. The price must be supported by robust evidence.

It is important that we review the attractiveness of alcohol; attractiveness is one of the World Health Organization’s three best buys for countries to prevent and reduce alcohol-related harms. We know that children and young people in Scotland see a staggering amount of alcohol advertising and promotion in a variety of ways. A 2018 survey of more than 3,000 young people aged from 11 to 19 found that half of them had seen at least 32 instances of alcohol marketing within a month. That is at least one instance a day. I am sure that we would all agree that that is simply too high.

Seeing alcohol advertising and promotion can influence the attitudes of children and young people towards alcohol, especially when it is cast as fun, sociable or cool. We know that there is a direct link between exposure to alcohol marketing and children and young people starting to drink alcohol. That can increase the likelihood that they will drink in ways that can be risky or harmful in later life. I find that deeply troubling and I am determined to cut down on the volume of alcohol advertising and promotion that young people see, and to reduce the appeal that alcohol has to them. That is why we are planning and consulting on a range of new measures to restrict alcohol advertising and promotion in Scotland in the autumn. The consultation will be vital in helping us to consider whether new legislation is needed.

We know that alcohol-related harms are as important as drug-related harms. Both are significant public health emergencies. That is why we have set out our national mission to improve and save lives, at the core of which is our ensuring that every individual is able to access the treatment and recovery that they choose.

Increased investment from the national mission on tackling drug-related deaths has been used by alcohol and drug partnerships across Scotland to support people who are facing problems because of alcohol and drug use. However, more can still be done to get people into appropriate treatment more quickly in order to reduce harms and help recovery. There should be no shame in reaching out for support; the voices of people who have lived and living experience are critical to that process.

We are working with the UK Government and the other devolved Administrations on reviewing and updating clinical guidelines for alcohol treatment. The guidance will introduce new approaches to treatment and support the development of alcohol-specific treatment targets. We are working with Public Health Scotland to review the evidence on current delivery of alcohol brief interventions. That work is in its early stages, but it is critical to ensuring that alcohol brief interventions are as effective as possible. We are exploring the evidence on managed alcohol programmes and are delighted to be able to contribute to the running and evaluation of the model that is being piloted in Glasgow by the Simon Community Scotland.

I am under no illusions. There is still much to do, but I am determined, with the committee’s help, to improve the nation’s health and to tackle health inequalities by implementing bold approaches to reduce the significant harms that are caused by alcohol. I hope that I can count on support from across Parliament when the consultation on tackling the harmful impacts of alcohol marketing is launched.

Certainly. I will bring Amy Kirkpatrick in to give a bit more detail, because many of the meetings happen at official level. However, two areas on which we are working together spring to mind. One is the development of clinical guidelines for treatment of alcohol misuse and the other is labelling. We are keen to get a four-nations approach to labelling, including for health messages such as the CMO’s recommendation on drinking no more than 14 units per week and on calorie labelling for alcohol products.

Amy Kirkpatrick will tell you a little bit more about the interaction between the Governments.

I agree with our stakeholders that progress has been disappointing and I am not entirely sure why it has been so. The consultation on the matter has been delayed by the UK Government, and we do not know when it plans to run the consultation. We are keen to work on a four-nations basis and for the consultation to be across the UK, which we think is the most effective approach. During the pandemic, we have learned a lot about public health, including the fact that, where possible, working on a four-nations basis is absolutely the best way forward. Therefore, we, too, are disappointed that the UK Government’s consultation has stalled. Despite our attempts to get clarity on the timetable, we have not got it. I am disappointed to report that I cannot tell you when the consultation is likely to happen.

I have not had a direct indication from industry. However, one of the things that I regularly say in life is that the most solid predictor of the future is the past. What happened in the past gives us a reasonably solid idea of what could happen as we go forward. It is a multimillion-pound global industry that will want to protect its interests.

If you think about it, that is what the policy was intended to do: it was meant to make alcohol more expensive. What we found was that, before the introduction of minimum unit pricing, it was possible to exceed the 14 units per week recommendation for £2.50. The issue that you raise is not a downside of the policy; the intention was that people would have to spend more in order to buy each unit of alcohol. I might be misunderstanding or oversimplifying your point, but is that not what was meant to happen?

Absolutely. I am always happy to work with the committee.

I am not aware of anything that has been done regarding television advertising. Perhaps Amy Kirkpatrick can tell us what is happening on a four-nations basis.