Seòmar agus comataidhean

I appreciate that that work is at an early stage, but have the minister and the Government considered how that approach would work in practice? Would it be linked to an inflationary index or some other index? Would there be an implementation period, as there is this year, between the uprating being announced and the change on the shelves, to reflect the call from industry and businesses that they need that time in order to make the changes?

Good morning, minister. This is the first time that we have uprated MUP. Due to the length of time between its being introduced and now, some people feel that it is quite a jump. Has the Government considered whether we require legislation for the automatic uprating, or something similar, of minimum unit pricing?

The committee has recently heard about the impact of MUP from people with lived and living experience. For me, that has added, to the evaluation, a real-world context such as we have welcomed in many other areas of the committee’s work. Those voices need to be amplified and to continue to be involved. I am pleased that the minister has indicated her willingness to continue to put that at the heart of policy development, as we move forward.

We need to ensure that there is an appropriate mix of support and treatment for people who require them, and that we tackle barriers for groups who currently have difficulty in accessing treatment. I accept and trust the minister’s assertion that minimum unit pricing is not a silver bullet. One of the most important actions that we need to take is to tackle the alcohol environment that we have in Scotland. For me, that should include our examining how advertising affects children and young people and at-risk adult drinkers, as well as our implementing a public health levy. I am pleased that provision for such a levy was included in the budget as a result of discussions between the Government and my party. Tackling alcohol harm must take a multipronged approach and must address all the barriers to services that people face.

I will be pleased to support both instruments.

Yes.

Yes.

Private property is included in the zones in England and Wales. I think that we have struck the right balance in this bill. The issue is not one that we have come across so far in testimony, but there could be an undermining effect if private property was not covered, as you have heard from other witnesses. As I have said, I believe that we have struck the right balance in protecting a person’s right to private conversations and their right to a private life in their own home, while not allowing them to use their property to attempt to influence someone else’s decision or to undermine the effect that we are trying to have with the bill.

I think that that, in and of itself, would potentially not be a breach of the bill’s provisions. In all of the scenarios that have been played out over this evidence session and in the session with the minister, the context of what is happening at the moment in question will be key. I believe that something additional would have to be involved for that to be a breach. As the minister has said, that will be for the police to deal with when they arrive at the scene of a complaint.

Here in committee, we cannot play out every scenario that might arise. As I have said previously, the provisions might not stop someone complaining about such a symbol being displayed, but, in the absence of any further context, I doubt that that is something that the police would take action on.

That comes back to my point to the convener. The desire was expressed to have the ability to move efficiently. As we all know, parliamentary procedures can—rightly—take some time for the level of evidence taking and so on. I absolutely accept the point that has been made by campaigners, and by you, that a Government that was less sympathetic to treating abortion as healthcare could move in a different direction.

I am more than happy to speak to members between stage 1 and stage 2 about whether we have the balance right or whether we need to do other things to give people comfort that we have the relevant oversight for the bill.

This is all about proportionality. If it was proportionate to reduce the zones, the Government would have to look at them in the same manner.

The flexibility in the bill allows us to take targeted approaches, which would depend on where we saw activity in premises that are not currently among the 30 protected premises. We need to ensure that people have the ability to make their views known in other places.

I do not take for granted the potential coverage that could be created if all GP services and pharmacies were included. As I said, we are not seeing protests in such places at the moment. There is sufficient flexibility in the bill to take reasonable and targeted approaches, even for premises that are not currently among the 30 that the bill covers at the moment.