Chamber and committees

The Public Health Scotland evaluation did not find that and did not go into that detail, but the Health Behaviour in School-aged Children survey did. That gave us some additional information about young people, as did some of the evidence taken through the health and wellbeing strand of the curriculum for excellence. Some organisations are also doing work within schools. I was recently at Craigroyston community high school, which has worked very closely with Fearless, the youth wing of Crimestoppers, to look at ways in which young people can seek advice and get support, should they or their friends embark on hazardous drinking or drug use. That has allowed children to get the support that they need at that age, and they are taking that up.

There are a couple of things there. Public Health Scotland’s analysis showed that the biggest impact was on men and on people in the 40 per cent most deprived areas. We should interrogate that piece of work further, so that is where I will go with that.

The other thing is the impact on women. We have seen different impacts on women, because women generally drink things that are above 65p or 50p per unit, so we need to do a bit more work in relation to them. Anecdotally, when I visited the Craigmillar project last week, I heard that many organisations—such as the Bothy, which deals with drugs and alcohol—have set up women’s groups to look at the particular barriers that women face.

One of those barriers is stigma. The work that Professor Alan Miller is doing with the national collaborative on a rights-based approach to the issue is considering some of those intersections, which are sometimes the deepest when they overlap with other things. There are areas that we are working on where we are thinking about women in particular. I hear things anecdotally, but we need the evidence to back that up. I know that the analysis has a much deeper, more detailed understanding.

The thing is that dependent drinkers were never the focus of this policy; the focus was always on the people who drink at harmful and hazardous levels. As I said in my opening remarks, dependent drinkers need a much more nuanced detailed approach; some of the work that we are doing around treatment and how to access it has been pretty successful, but it is still worth looking at that issue.

Carol, did you ask me about drug use and whether people might be changing to—

We have analysed that cross-border comparison of what is happening here compared with other parts of not just the whole of England, but England and Wales and parts of England. You may have seen the letter that the committee received from the Association of Directors of Public Health of north-east England about its analysis on the issue. There is always work that we can continue to do in the area. We have not fully realised the impact of Covid, so we still have a bit of work to do on the impact of Covid, and that will play out as we move forward.

I have a son who will not even put processed food in his body, never mind alcohol, and I know a lot of families who are like that. We are looking at the under-25 age group but that does not mean that we are taking the focus off problematic and harmful drinking in younger age groups. That is why the health and wellbeing study of 15-year-olds is incredibly important; that gives us real-time information and data on how we can target that focus. That is why organisations such as Crimestoppers, the GIVIT and others are working in schools. The education part of the issue is incredibly important.

The minimum unit pricing policy was always about hazardous and harmful drinking. We always knew that a nuanced different approach, along with additional support, would be needed for dependent drinkers.

My approach is that MUP is to target all drinkers, but we know that dependent drinkers need a different and more nuanced supportive approach.

Public Health Scotland’s analysis over the past six years has demonstrated to us that it is much more nuanced than that, so our approach is to ensure that that support is in place.

I will bring in Katherine Myant to give the detail on the analysis and decision making, because that happened before I was in post. I do not have the benefit of hindsight and of remembering that, but Katherine was immersed in it, so she can give you a much more detailed answer.

Mr Sweeney will know that some in the sector have asked the Scottish Government to consider a public health levy, which we have considered in the past. In the most recent budget statement, the Deputy First Minister intimated a willingness to re-look at that.

I go back to the response that Katherine Myant gave to David Torrance about getting the balance right. My conversations with the business sector and the public health sector about getting that balance absolutely correct have become really important.

I do not know whether we will ever be able to negate any negative or positive outcomes on either side of the argument, but the commitment is to review whether a public health levy is something that we should consider. We are at the very early stages of that—it was announced only a few weeks ago, in the budget. In future weeks and months, I would be happy to give the committee an update on that work and on our intentions.

As you will know, we consulted on marketing last year. Some of the points came through in that consultation. We are committed to doing more of that work over the next year or so. That is one of the ways in which we will consult with both the industry and the people who are working on the front line to deliver public health measures. I will be happy to update the committee when we have more detail on that.

That has been raised with me already over the past few weeks, particularly when the budget statement included a commitment to look again at a public health levy.

You have heard from Katherine Myant about the detailed work that went into setting the uprating at the level that we think will be most effective. Some areas of the sector have asked about having an annual uprating, for instance, and I am committed to looking at that. That piece of work is at an early stage—we have not developed it much further than making that commitment, but it will be valuable to consider whether we can set an annual uprating into legislation at a future date. We are at the very early stages, but I really want to look into that. The work of the committee and the work and understanding of the sector will be really helpful in that. There may come a time when regular uprating is included in legislation.