General Questions
Alcohol (Minimum Pricing)
The Scottish Government regularly meets the UK Government, and our colleagues from Wales and Northern Ireland, to share information and good practice on alcohol policy. In relation to minimum pricing, the most recent discussion was with Home Office officials on 7 February.
Following a dramatic shift in England on support for the minimum pricing of alcohol, including among other parties that are represented in this chamber, does the cabinet secretary believe that the introduction of minimum pricing will become a reality in Scotland in the near future, and that it will help to tackle Scotland’s drinking culture and its negative influence on our society?
I believe that minimum pricing will become a reality in Scotland. If this Government is re-elected, as I hope and expect it will be, we will continue to make the case for a policy that had overwhelming support among those who deal with the front line of the problem of alcohol misuse.
Although we agree that the initial move by the UK Government on floor pricing is insufficient, it is at least a start, as it will have an effect on harmful drinking. According to the latest Scottish research, harmful drinkers drink a disproportionate amount of cider sold at prices below duty and VAT. Why does the Scottish Government not adopt that policy, at least as a starting measure—a uniform measure across the UK—rather than leaving Scotland behind?
Labour’s position on this subject is staggering. It is literally unbelievable. Richard Simpson and the Labour Party now believe that minimum pricing is not the answer—although Richard Simpson used to believe that it was the answer. We are now told by Richard Simpson that the UK policy is not sufficient. What we do not know, however, is what Labour thinks that we should do. We know that Labour thinks that there is a problem, and we know that Labour believes that there is a link between price and consumption, but Labour has signally failed to come up with any alternative position. It is not a question of leaving Scotland behind, as Richard Simpson suggests; it is a question of whether the Parliament has the gumption to put in place a policy that will make a difference. The Government does; the Opposition has shown itself to be completely unable to do that.
Will the cabinet secretary put her colleague Mr Paterson right on the policy of the UK Government? The UK Government’s policy has not changed to any extent. It is implementing what was in the coalition agreement: a ban on below-cost sales. That is something that the Conservatives in this Parliament have been calling for in Scotland for the past year. Why will the cabinet secretary not do that?
I repeat what I said to Gil Paterson: the proposed policy in England would result in only 0.5 per cent of alcohol sold in England and Wales increasing in price. Does Murdo Fraser really think that that policy is sufficient to tackle a problem that costs us in Scotland £3.5 billion a year, in addition to the human toll that it takes? Sooner or later—I believe sooner—this Parliament will have to wake up to the scale of the problem and find the ability to take commensurate action. This Government has the gumption to do so, and I hope that the Opposition will find it soon, too.
Child Poverty
Our vision is for a Scotland where no children are disadvantaged by poverty, and we recognise the particular importance of helping those who are in severe poverty.
One of the key ways to tackle generational poverty is to invest increasingly in the early years and in the school estate at primary level. In the east end of Glasgow, our statistics are challenging to say the least. Irrespective of that, can the minister give any indication of when his Government will commit in a substantial way to such investment? Will he give a commitment that the Government will continue to work with Save the Children and other such organisations to ensure that we tackle the terrible issue of child poverty and in particular the severe child poverty that affects certain parts of Scotland?
We will continue to work with Save the Children and all the other key stakeholders that are involved in trying to tackle the unacceptable issue of child poverty. It is an issue that cuts across the whole of Government. The contributions from the education, housing, economic development, transport and justice sectors are all important elements in our child poverty strategy.
NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde (Meetings)
I next expect to meet the chief executive of NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde when I visit the board’s pharmacy distribution unit a week tomorrow.
The cabinet secretary will be aware of recent speculation in The Herald over the future of Glasgow homoeopathic hospital, which is located in my Glasgow Anniesland constituency. Unsurprisingly, that speculation has caused great concern and anxiety among patients past and present throughout the country who have benefited from the care that the institution offers.
I thank Bill Butler for his question and his on-going constituency interest in the matter. As he will be aware, NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde reviewed in-patient provision at the homoeopathic hospital back in 2005. At that time, the board agreed that it should be maintained and there is no current proposal to change that position.
Question 4 was not lodged.
Licensing (Scotland) Act 2005
A review of the Licensing (Scotland) Act 2005 has been under way since January 2010. It was commissioned through NHS Health Scotland as part of MESAS: monitoring and evaluating Scotland’s alcohol strategy. The review will evaluate the implementation and compliance with the objectives of the 2005 act over three years and is due for completion in 2013.
Can we take it from that answer that in the event that the current Scottish Government was to be re-elected, there would be no movement in relation to licence fees for premises until the conclusion of that review at the earliest?
Local licensing boards set fees, subject to the bands that the Government sets. Clear questions have been asked about how matters are dealt with, but nobody has proposed a better system than the current system, which is based on rateable values.
Question 6 was not lodged.
Community Hospitals
Community hospitals are an integral part of the health and social care service in Scotland. They play an important role in delivering better outcomes for people by providing local options for the care of patients in their community.
I agree entirely with the cabinet secretary’s answer. In 2010, general practitioners and community councils in Angus condemned NHS Tayside management’s lack of engagement on proposed changes to community hospitals. The subsequent lack of response led to a formal disengagement by GPs.
I do not think that anybody in the chamber—including Richard Simpson—can be under any illusions about how highly I value good public and clinical engagement between health boards and the communities that any proposed change would affect. Richard Simpson was right to point to deficiencies in earlier discussions in NHS Tayside and to say that they were resolved.
Given the benefits of integrated care, will the cabinet secretary ensure that, when health centres and community hospitals are built or refurbished, consideration is given to integrating in one place GP surgeries, ambulance services, social work services and other health services—including those for mental health—when possible?
Yes—that is an important consideration. In the four years in which I have been in my job, I have visited many new health centres where such integration is a reality. The hub initiative and other initiatives that lead to closer working between the health service and local authorities, for example, should ensure that such integration continues apace. Why is integration important? Because it delivers better services more conveniently for patients. That should always be our guiding principle.
The cabinet secretary will be aware of the profoundly important role that Hay Lodge hospital in Peebles plays in the Borders and Tweeddale and she might well be aware of plans to reconfigure that service. The circular on capital investment that the Government issued last August provides that the proceeds of any asset sales that a health board makes as a result of reconfiguration will be returned to the centre, so NHS boards cannot retain asset sale proceeds to help them to reconfigure services and to develop facilities—primarily community hospitals. Will she confirm that that provision will not apply to the work that NHS Borders wishes to do to develop and reconfigure our community hospitals in the Borders?
I will make three quick points. First, the case that Jeremy Purvis cites will of course be discussed between NHS Borders and the Scottish Government. Secondly, we are changing how we handle capital resources to ensure that, in times of tight capital resources, we can continue the capital development that has taken place in the health service in recent years. Thirdly, the reason for the changes is the dramatic cut in our capital budget that has been imposed on the Government by the Westminster Government in which Jeremy Purvis’s party is a partner.
Renewable Power
Scottish Government officials are involved in regular discussions with a range of stakeholders concerning support for renewable power from organic waste.
As the cabinet secretary will be aware, power from rubbish can save millions of pounds. Fife Council has already received awards for its very high level of waste recycling, which it is looking to further improve by developing a facility to produce renewable power and heat from food and garden waste at the Lochhead landfill site in my constituency. It will provide enough power for 1,500 homes and will meet most of the heat needs of Queen Margaret hospital. What further assistance will the Government give to help other local authorities follow Fife’s lead?
I commend Fife Council for the progress that it has made in that regard. It is unacceptable that, as a country, we produce 2 million tonnes of food waste a year, 0.5 million tonnes of which goes to landfill. I commend Fife Council’s projects and urge other councils to follow its lead.
University of Glasgow (Meetings)
I last met Professor Anton Muscatelli on 18 January 2011. I spoke to him on the phone last Thursday, and I plan to meet him again in the next two weeks.
I thank the minister for his reply and his interest.
There has been a considerable amount of discussion about the higher education provision that there should be in Scotland through the green paper process. I think that that has indicated that although each university has a responsibility to make its own decisions, there is also a national interest—I agree with the member there.
Fisheries (Firth of Forth)
Each year since 2007, the Scottish Government has secured mackerel quota from the south-west England hand-line group to ensure a summer mackerel fishery in the south-east of Scotland. In 2010, 149 tonnes of quota was acquired and landed. I expect that arrangement to continue in 2011.
I am sure that the cabinet secretary will be aware that a clear, dedicated quota for the hand-line mackerel fishery in the east neuk of Fife would assist in ensuring the economic sustainability of that community without impacting significantly on the overall mackerel quota that is available to Scotland.
The member will be aware that one reason why the sprat fishery is closed is that we do not want to put at risk the North Sea herring fishery. However, if the Fife fisheries development group believes that the issue is worth pursuing, it should request the appropriate scientific derogations to allow it to undertake some scientific surveys. If it comes to the Scottish Government with the evidence, we will certainly take that up with the European Union.
Before we come to First Minister’s question time, members will wish to join me in welcoming to the gallery Estonia’s ambassador to the United Kingdom, Her Excellency Aino Lepik von Wirén. [Applause.]