Seòmar agus comataidhean

Lucie Giles said that 70 per cent of people did not change their purchasing habits. Why do you think that was?

Tara said earlier that MUP needs to be part of a package or range of measures. What are the other measures that have come in with MUP?

I have one final question. Am I right in saying that MUP is not a panacea or magic bullet to reduce health harms with alcohol, and that your argument is that it should be introduced with a suite or package of measures?

I declare an interest as a practicing national health service general practitioner, and I suppose that it is important to say that I met three of the four panellists and we had a discussion about MUP last week.

Lucie, I was deeply disappointed not to hear you say in your statement that the 4 per cent reduction in hospitalisations is not statistically significant. That is quite an important statement that you left out. You went on to mention other studies, but what studies back up what you said, which was that deaths have reduced by about 150 annually and there has been a 4 per cent reduction in hospitalisations?

Did it cross zero?

Accuracy is.

From what you have said, it seems to me that we have sort of abandoned our dependent drinkers, but thank you for your answers.

I declare an interest as a practising NHS GP.

I have a number of points to make, the first of which is that it is vital for people who are leaving prison to have continuity in their primary care, because a lot of what happens in prison with regard to medication and treatment is quite effective. When prisoners leave, they do not always, but often, fall through the gaps, and they no longer receive the care that they should, or as anyone in Scotland should.

However, I have multiple concerns. It is all very well to say that a prisoner should have continuity of care, but that will not happen if the GP does not get a summary from the hospital. On about three occasions, I have had a prisoner in front of me with absolutely no record of what has happened. That is of no use to my patient or to me, and that is detrimental. Therefore, that needs to be addressed.

We also need to be clear about what is intended, and I would like a response to some questions.

The regulations say that a practice cannot refuse. What if that practice has a closed list? If it is already oversubscribed with patients and has closed its list, will that practice still be forced to take on a patient who comes from the Scottish Prison Service?

How can we be sure that the person will be living in the area where they say they will be living? Ultimately, the reason why practices have an area is that practitioners are expected to do home visits in that area. Although many people may want to go back to the practice that they attended when they were children because they feel that it is a good practice in which they had good experiences, it might not be located where the person is living now—it might not be the nearest practice to them. In that context, the measure might not be appropriate.

We just need a little bit of safeguarding to ensure that the practice is able to say that it might not be the best practice for a person, rather than making the blanket statement, “You have to take this patient.”

They spent less money on feeding their kids and things like that. What mitigations were put in place to help dependent drinkers, who we knew would be spending more money on alcohol?

Lilian Macer, coming off what Cara Stevenson said, when you said that you wanted to scrap the bill and start again when it comes to workers’ rights, is the reason for the renegotiation to put things in primary legislation? If not, what is your reasoning?