Holyrood, made browsable

Hansard

Every contribution to the Official Report — chamber and committee — searchable in one place. Pulled from data.parliament.scot, indexed for full-text search, linked through to every MSP.

129
Current MSPs
415
MSPs ever elected
13
Parties on record
2,355,091
Hansard contributions
1999–2026
Coverage span
Official Report

Search Hansard contributions

Clear
Showing 0 of 2,355,091 contributions in session S6, 17 Apr 2026 – 17 May 2026. Latest 30 days: 148. Coverage: 12 May 1999 — 14 May 2026.

No contributions match those filters.

← Back to list
Chamber

Meeting of the Parliament 17 April 2024

17 Apr 2024 · S6 · Meeting of the Parliament
Item of business
Parliamentary Bureau Motions
McKelvie, Christina SNP Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse Watch on SPTV

I am glad to have the opportunity to address colleagues across the chamber on minimum unit pricing ahead of this crucial vote. The Parliament has the opportunity to show that Scotland continues to be world leading with our policies to improve the health of people in Scotland by voting to continue minimum unit pricing and to increase the price per unit to 65p.

I implore members across the chamber to vote in favour of the orders, in line with the views of more than 80 third sector organisations—that is, people who work on the front line every day—public health experts and senior clinicians, who wrote to voice their support for minimum unit pricing and the proposal to increase the price to 65p per unit.

Minimum unit pricing is an extensively evaluated policy. Public Health Scotland’s independent evaluation estimated that, during the period that was considered, minimum unit pricing reduced the number of alcohol-attributable deaths by 13.4 per cent, which amounts to 156 people a year—that is the “limited evidence”, according to Sandesh Gulhane. Public Health Scotland also said that minimum unit pricing was likely to have reduced the number of hospital admissions wholly attributable to alcohol by 4.1 per cent, compared with what would have happened if MUP had not been in place. The evaluation found no evidence of a significant impact on the alcoholic drinks industry as a whole.

The evaluation has also been commended by internationally renowned public health experts, including Professor Sir Michael Marmot and Professor Sally Carswell. That counters Sandesh Gulhane’s comments. This is what they said:

“Policy makers can be confident that there are several hundred people with low income in Scotland who would have died as a result of alcohol, who are alive today as a result of minimum unit pricing.”

Who to believe? I will stick with the experts.

The decision to propose 65p per unit is underpinned by modelling by the esteemed University of Sheffield, among consideration of many other factors. Those factors are set out in detail in the published business and regulatory impact assessment, which I commended to Sandesh Gulhane at committee, but he has obviously not read it.

The University of Sheffield’s modelling suggests that to maintain the value of the price per unit and therefore to continue to achieve the public health benefits at a level that is estimated by Public Health Scotland’s evaluation, it should be increased to at least 60p. However, it is clear that Scotland continues to experience significant levels of alcohol harm. The Scottish Government is therefore proposing to increase the value of the price per unit to 65p to further increase the public health benefits of the policy—maybe another 156 lives will be saved.

I expect, and modelling predicts, that, if that increase is implemented, it will save those additional lives. I have heard some members’ concerns about the potential effects of the policy on people who consume alcohol at the highest levels. Specialist support and treatment are vital for people with alcohol dependence. To that end, the Scottish Government provided record funding of £112 million in the past financial year to Scotland’s alcohol and drug partnerships. It is therefore simply not true to say that MUP is the only measure that we are taking. That funding supports the delivery of services for people who are alcohol dependent, whether residential rehab, community-based services or other types of vital support.

I implore members to vote in favour of both the orders to reduce the alcohol-related harm that continues to affect far too many people; to vote to reduce harm and save lives—that is easy.

In the same item of business