³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ

The study that you have quoted shows that people are buying more expensive alcohol. Other studies show that, at a population level, we are consuming less alcohol—the lowest level of alcohol consumed by people in Scotland for 26 years. Per head of population, we are consuming only 18 units of alcohol a week. That is still in excess of the recommended 14 units and it does not quite explain the whole picture because, within that, there are some people who are abstinent or drink very little, and there are others who drink heavily. However, at a population level, both points are true: we have reduced the amount of alcohol that we drink; and the alcohol they we are buying to drink is costing us more. However, that second point is in line with what the WHO said that we had to do in order to tackle alcohol harm, which was to make alcohol less affordable.

In this policy area, I probably cannot. Brexit is a very recent phenomenon, so when we think about how our systems are working since we left the EU, it is quite difficult to think of examples. However, what you suggest is perfectly possible, if we think about how the structures work. For example, Food Standards Scotland advises the Government on the safety of food products. It might be that the EU body will give the EU different advice and we will decide to stick with the advice that we have been given in Scotland. That is possible.

However, we will align with the EU where we possibly can. It is clear that Scotland did not want to leave the EU, and the Scottish Government is keen that we rejoin it as soon as we are an independent country. In the meantime, we have structures in place that will give us independent advice, and we will make decisions that are best for Scotland at the moment.

In our analysis—and this is why it causes so much concern—the operation of that act means that, irrespective of the necessity or proportionality of any public health priority in Scotland or, indeed, in any other part of the UK, any national measure could be caught and radically undermined by the automatic application of the act’s market access principles. In place of a common framework that is designed to manage policy divergence through dialogue and agreement, we would have, in effect, the automatic recognition of standards that had been set elsewhere, regardless of local circumstances, the wishes of the relevant legislature or the policies of the relevant Administration.

I do not particularly have concerns about the framework. As I have said, it establishes a healthy method of working in collaboration with the four UK nations, a way of resolving conflict, and a way of enabling divergence, should that be required.

I have more concerns about the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 on that front. That act tramples over devolution, and it was not consented to by Scotland or Wales for exactly that reason. The public health concerns around that act were well rehearsed as it passed through Parliament. That piece of legislation concerns me. It might well constrain or weaken my ability to take public health action in Scotland, because products that can be sold in England will automatically be able to be sold in Scotland, too.

I am glad to have your allyship on women. As women’s health minister, it would be remiss of me not to highlight the health inequalities that women face.

You are absolutely right: there is a stark social gradient for alcohol harms, with people in the most deprived areas being the most affected. We need to take a whole-population approach when tackling alcohol consumption and the risk of alcohol-related harms, which will, in turn, drive reductions in alcohol harm in our most deprived communities. Whole-population measures such as minimum unit pricing of alcohol will have an impact in those communities, as well; such measures will not affect just them or rich people but everyone. We will feel the benefit right across society.

I mentioned the study by SHAAP that highlighted the effectiveness of alcohol nurses in deep-end practices in Glasgow. Those nurses support people with alcohol problems who have complex needs. The Scottish Government is really keen to understand that. We find that some people really need effort put in to ensure that they are able to receive joined-up services. There are probably lessons to be learned about improving access to services for everyone across the board, but there is probably a particular population for which we need to do something slightly different. We need to reach out to them, hold on to them and make sure that we do not let go until they are on a more healthy footing. I think that that is what that work was doing, so I am keen to explore that further.

I mentioned the work of the Simon Community in its managed alcohol programme, which is particularly targeted at homeless people. A very small number of people are involved, but we are keen to get the lessons from that to see whether it could make a difference for that population.

My final point—we have had this discussion before—is that we need to think about what drives alcohol harm. We need to tackle poverty and inequalities, we need to provide good-quality, affordable housing and we need to enable children to have the best start in life. We should all be laser-focused on that when we think about tackling alcohol issues.

I have not heard any particularly new arguments. As Stephanie Callaghan said, some of the evidence has been comforting for the industry. It shows that there has not been displacement into more harmful drugs and that people are still buying alcohol, albeit less. However, one of the most sophisticated aspects of the policy is that profits do not go down, so industries are not harmed by it. That is one of the things to admire about it.

We are looking carefully at all the evidence, and Public Health Scotland is publishing evidence as we go along, but it we will not be able to draw conclusions until we are at the end of the process and have the full data and analysis from all five years. At that point, we will have a solid and robust body of evidence.

When the policy was introduced, I was a health professional, working in a psychiatric hospital, and I was excited at the idea of a sophisticated, clever public health policy that would target harmful drinking in a specific way. I expected it to work and, clearly, the Parliament expected it to work, or it would not have passed the legislation. The evidence is reasonably robust and solid and, certainly before the pandemic, was pointing in the right direction. However, we need all the data to enable us to make a full evaluation that will form our decision making. The alcohol industry is not going to shape public health policy, but I am more than happy to hear any concerns that it has.

You are absolutely right. ABIs are a really useful tool. They are short, evidence-based, structured conversations about alcohol consumption. They are non-confrontational, motivating and supportive. They are really attractive tools for health professionals and others to use opportunistically when there is a chance to have a chat, and they have the potential to reduce the risk of harm from alcohol.

We began a piece of work to review the evidence on the current delivery of alcohol brief interventions, but that was yet another piece of work that was impacted by the pandemic. Public Health Scotland was carrying out that work for us and wanted to look at how ABIs could better meet individuals’ needs. We are just picking that work up again. We are establishing a revised strategy group to review and discuss the evidence, the purpose being to develop new recommendations on how best to take ABIs forward in Scotland. The terms of reference for that group are being finalised and Public Health Scotland will be the secretariat.

We are reviewing the evidence as a whole and we will look at what currently happens in practice. How people access general practice and primary care has also changed significantly over the pandemic. We will look carefully at who is best placed to deliver ABIs, where people access health and support and where such conversations might happen—that might involve members of the primary care team other than the GP.

We are keen to look at all that and come up with recommendations that will support the use of ABIs, which most people agree are quite a useful strategy for opening up conversations and beginning the process of motivation towards change. We will see what we can do.

I can. I agree that it is not easy to track the spending—the Government acknowledges that, and we are keen to improve the situation. I think that Angela Constance has responded in the chamber to an audit report on that matter. We want people to understand where the money is going and what outcomes we expect to achieve and are achieving from it.

The Scottish Government gives health boards £53.8 million a year in baseline funding, which the boards pass on to alcohol and drug partnerships. That supports alcohol and drug treatment and recovery services at local level. As well as that, in 2020-21, the Scottish Government allocated an additional £17 million to alcohol and drug partnerships, which continued the commitment that was made in the 2017-18 programme for government to improve the provision and quality of services for those with problem drug and alcohol use.

We are also undertaking a range of work specifically to improve alcohol treatment services across Scotland, including the development of a public health surveillance system and the implementation of UK-wide clinical guidelines for alcohol treatment. We have also invested in the Simon Community Scotland, which I mentioned. It has established a small-scale managed alcohol programme in Glasgow, and we are providing funding of £212,000 over three years for the pilot and evaluation.

The Scottish Government also provides funding to a number of third sector stakeholders—Alcohol Focus Scotland, Scottish Health Action on Alcohol Problems and the Scottish Alcohol Counselling Consortium—to develop their vital work.

The final thing to mention is the national drugs mission. The two issues are not separate. Services on the ground are usually delivered by alcohol and drug partnerships, and people go to the same services. In this session of Parliament, £250 million is being invested through the national drugs mission, £100 million of which is going directly to residential rehab services. The data for the past year shows that 45 per cent of the people who accessed residential rehab had alcohol problems, and about 20 per cent had combined drug and alcohol problems. Therefore, that investment benefits this population, too.

We are in a position where councillors can say no. They have considerable discretion to determine appropriate licensing arrangements according to their local priorities and circumstances and their legal advice. I do not think that it is appropriate for the Scottish Government to intervene in those matters, and certainly not in individual cases.

As I have said repeatedly, tell me if there is something that you think that I need to do at Scottish Government level to strengthen councils’ hand. However, we have seen—and our experience has certainly been—that, because the alcohol industry is very well funded and global, it is quite likely to use the law to challenge anything that impacts on its business. That is the reality. Local authorities have a responsibility to balance the needs of all the people living in their local area and to come to the decisions that are best for them. They, not central Government, are best placed to do that.