Meeting of the Parliament

Meeting date: Thursday, March 15, 2012

Official Report 1085KB pdf

---

First Minister’s Question Time

---

Engagements

1. To ask the First Minister what engagements he has planned for the rest of the day. (S4F-00547)

I am sure that the whole chamber will wish to join me in congratulating Perth on achieving city status. [Applause.]

Later today, I will have meetings to take forward the Government’s programme for Scotland.

Will the First Minister explain why Scottish families are facing some of the highest childcare costs in Europe while his Government offers less help than Nick Clegg?

As Johann Lamont knows, in our previous term of office, we took the free availability of childcare in Scotland from 425 hours, which we inherited, to 475 hours. I am sure that she will welcome the pledge to move that figure to 600 hours. That will go into legislation to ensure that that provision is available to everyone in all areas of Scotland, and that will give us the best package of childcare and pre-school facilities of any country in these islands.

I note that the First Minister did not answer the question why we are still in the place that we are in—but there is nothing new there.

On Saturday, the First Minister, who has, of course, never knowingly undersold his own position, promised

“The best package of free nursery education on offer anywhere in the UK”,

but just not yet. Nothing new there, then. We saw the same pledge in the Scottish National Party’s manifesto in 2007—remember that one? It is filed in the fiction section of a library near you. We know what happened with the pledge in 2007: Mike Russell dumped it in 2009. The First Minister repackaged it on Saturday, and we need to wait until after the referendum in 2014 before he delivers on it. Why has he failed to deliver on his own pledge? Why has he let Scottish families and Scottish children down?

Our ability to deliver on our programme was judged by the people of Scotland last year in an election.

I will correct Johann Lamont on the costs. She is wrong. She said that I did not answer her question directly. On the costs across these islands, the average weekly cost of nursery provision for children aged two years and over is £103.19 in England and £101.49 in Scotland. The average weekly cost of nursery provision for children under two is £94.52 in Scotland and £98.75 in England. Those are substantial childcare costs. An argument that is persuasively put forward is that supply and affordability can drive up costs in certain instances. If there is more publicly funded childcare and pre-school provision on offer, that will have two great beneficial effects: it will help the families who get that childcare and nursery provision, and it will help to drive down the costs of other provision.

In the election last May, the people of Scotland judged the ability of a minority SNP Government over four years, and they also judged the Labour Party’s attitude. I hope that, even if Johann Lamont cannot bring the Labour Party to a more positive position on many issues, at least she will now commit to supporting the legislation that will enshrine in law and make available 600 hours of childcare to families across Scotland.

If we had been in power in 2007, we would now be in a position that the rest are in. If the First Minister had worked out how important public provision was, he might have acted a little earlier than now. We worked out its importance a long time ago.

Families need action now—not a provision in a children’s bill, and not a two-year delay. Families do not need legislation in the future; they need a Government that will provide funding now to deliver reliable and affordable childcare when people need it. The First Minister has the power to do that now. Why does he not exercise it?

On Saturday, the First Minister promised a bill. It might be news to him that working families throughout Scotland already have a bill—for childcare, and it is a pretty expensive one. Families need support now. Why do we have to wait another two years for the First Minister to put a provision in a bill, never mind delivering what people need?

If the Labour Party was so keen on the policy, why on earth did it not implement it in the eight years during which it was in power? Why did we inherit 425 hours, which we increased to 475 hours? If it was only after eight years, during which Johann Lamont was a minister, that Labour decided—[Interruption.]

Order. We will hear the First Minister, please.

I am not surprised that Labour members do not want to hear this. It is inconvenient for them to be reminded of the dreadful record of the Labour Party in government.

If, after eight years, there was a conversion, so that, if only the Labour Party had been re-elected in 2007, it would have implemented the policy, why did Labour not implement the policy south of the border, where it was still in government?

The record of the Labour Party in government up to 2007 was judged harshly by the Scottish people. The record of the Labour Party in opposition up to 2011 was judged even more harshly by the Scottish people. A key reason for that dramatic failure, when Johann Lamont was deputy leader of the party, was Labour’s total, absolute negativity. Can Labour members please bring themselves at this stage to welcome our announcement to take childcare provision to 600 hours, to benefit every family in every area of Scotland?

If that is the First Minister being positive about me, God help me when he decides to turn on me.

What Labour did on childcare over eight years benefited me as a mother, never mind as a minister. Indeed, we have the benefit in Glasgow now, with a Labour council—

Not any more! [Interruption.]

Order. We will hear the member.

This episode is another example of the mañana Government: excuses today and jam not even tomorrow but maybe in two years’ time. Working families are struggling now and the First Minister simply does not get it. There are fewer children in nursery, after-school clubs are closing down, and the childcare that is on offer is simply not meeting people’s needs.

On Saturday, the First Minister said:

“In devolved Scotland we can demand. In an independent Scotland we can deliver.”

Members: Yes!

That was obviously for the children on the SNP back benches. They are so predictable. What the First Minister really meant was that he will not deliver until he gets his way in a referendum—talk about an abuse of power! The reality is that, for the First Minister, the issue is not childcare; what gets him excited is the constitution. In this devolved Scotland, families cannot and will not wait. We insist that the First Minister delivers for Scottish families now. Will he take the issue and the people of this country seriously and act now to help Scottish families?

I have often said to Johann Lamont that she should move off script, but after that I think that perhaps she should stay on script in future.

I do not think that Glasgow City Council is Johann Lamont’s strongest suit at the moment. Labour is losing councillors in Glasgow even more quickly than it lost votes in the Scottish election.

If what we inherited from Labour was so wonderful, why did the previous, minority SNP Government have to increase provision from the 425 hours that we inherited to 475 hours, as part of the concordat with Scottish local government?

I took as a compliment the 18 mentions of me in Johann Lamont’s speech at the Labour Party conference two weeks ago, but it is rather better to lay out policies, as we did at our conference when we said that 2,500 young people are to be given life opportunities, that there will be an additional £10 million Commonwealth games legacy fund, that every SNP council in Scotland will introduce the living wage, as the SNP Government has done, and that we will introduce legislation to give the guarantee to families throughout Scotland of 600 hours of free childcare and nursery education.

---

Secretary of State for Scotland (Meetings)

2. To ask the First Minister when he will next meet the Secretary of State for Scotland. (S4F-00531)

I have no plans in the near future.

Earlier this week, the Scottish Medicines Consortium decided not to approve the drug abiraterone for men in Scotland who are suffering from advanced prostate cancer. Abiraterone is the drug that has been used so successfully to extend the life of Mr Megrahi since the Scottish Government sent him home to die. In a battle against a cancer that costs so many hundreds of Scottish men their lives every year, there have been few advances. This drug is one. Will the First Minister act to give cancer sufferers greater access to important new drugs?

This is a hugely serious and important issue. Everybody in the chamber acknowledges that, as new drugs come on to the market, it is totally understandable that patients groups, and people who are afflicted with serious conditions, have a tremendous desire to see those drugs become available.

The SMC has been in Scotland now for 10 years, and it is hugely and substantially admired because of its independence and thoroughness. Over those 10 years, there has not been a single case of any Government overruling an SMC judgment. There is a substantial and good reason for that. What happens now? The drug company concerned has indicated that it will go back and resubmit. The SMC has the extraordinarily difficult task of judging the efficacy of treatment against the budgetary constraints that inevitably apply in any health service. If the SMC—or the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence in England—were to accept every submission, it would be impossible to sustain the drugs budget. The SMC has to use criteria.

Ruth Davidson should pay considerable attention to what a number of the cancer charities have been saying about the obligations on drug companies to try to make new drugs, when they come forward, available to the national health service at a cost that can be afforded.

The First Minister misrepresents what I was asking: I was not asking him to overrule the SMC, which is indeed independent and thorough. There is an obvious solution—a Scottish cancer drugs fund. My predecessor, Annabel Goldie, raised the issue with the First Minister 14 months ago; Conservatives then met him and his health secretary; and we brought the issue to the chamber for debate as recently as September last year. In other parts of the United Kingdom, we have seen the huge impact of the cancer drugs fund for sufferers and their families. To date, 12,000 people have had their lives extended through the cancer drugs fund. What possible excuse does the First Minister have for refusing the same opportunity to cancer sufferers in Scotland?

Government is about choices. The First Minister chose to find £50 million to give free prescriptions to people such as himself who can afford to pay for them, but he is choosing not to find a more modest sum to extend and improve the lives of Scots with fatal conditions. Will he now make a different choice? Will he now—14 months down the line, and after countless premature deaths—reconsider, intervene and support a Scottish cancer drugs fund?

Ruth Davidson says that she did not suggest that ministers should overrule the SMC but, of course, her health spokesman did. He should not have done so, because the process depends on its independence for its effectiveness.

Even for medicines that are not approved by the SMC, it is not the case that they cannot be made available to patients in Scotland. We have the process of individual patient treatment requests. Through that process, 126 medicines not yet approved by the SMC have been requested in NHS Scotland. Of those requests, 87 have been approved, and 39 have not.

Ruth Davidson presents the chamber with the impression that the cancer drugs fund initiative in England is substantially supported. However, I remind her that cancer charities such as Myeloma UK, Breakthrough Breast Cancer and Macmillan Cancer Support issued a briefing paper for the Scottish parliamentary debate on whether Scotland should have a cancer drugs fund. It said:

“The Cancer Drugs Fund does not address the root causes of why patients may be denied access to treatments.”

Ruth Davidson’s colleague the Tory MP Pauline Latham said on 26 December:

“The Cancer Drugs Fund was set up to stop this kind of lottery ... In my area, it is not fit for purpose and is not working for the benefit of patients.”

The chamber considered the cancer drugs fund, and we paid attention to the many submissions that we received suggesting that it is not the best way forward.

I suggest to Ruth Davidson that the process that we have in Scotland works effectively, with the SMC approving 60 per cent of drugs that have been resubmitted on a more reasonable cost basis after being turned down. Now that Ruth Davidson has said that we should not interfere with the SMC process, I believe that people will understand the necessity of its independence and rigour. I am sure that she is aware that, if a drug is not approved, there is still the individual patient treatment requests process, through which a clinician can make an argument based on therapeutic value because of a patient’s precise circumstances. That process has had great efficacy when it has been applied. On this subject above all, the chamber has a responsibility to the people of Scotland, especially to those who suffer from grievous diseases, to demonstrate to them the substance of the efforts that have been made to give them the best possible treatment.

Given the highly critical report by the Accounts Commission on the Highlands and Islands Fire and Rescue Service, which highlighted 35 substandard fire stations, a lack of investment in vehicles and information technology and, most damaging of all, a lack of training, equipment, and health and safety resilience for front-line firefighters, will the First Minister ensure that a thorough review is undertaken to find out how things went so badly wrong and to help to prevent that from happening again?

It is right and proper to give the Highlands and Islands fire board time to consider its response to the Accounts Commission report. I see that, at the meeting on Monday 19 March, possible terms of reference for an inquiry will be considered. I am pleased that our other seven fire and rescue services have provided significant support, including the secondment of staff, to the Highlands and Islands Fire and Rescue Service as it addresses the challenges that it faces. Of course, a single fire service will have access to wider management resources as a matter of course, to deploy them where they are most needed.

There have been allegations in the recent Megrahi biography and in the press regarding the Crown’s actions throughout the prosecution appeal process. Is it possible, through the Inquiries Act 2005, to instruct an independent examination of those allegations, and might that fall within the remit of the Inspectorate of Prosecution in Scotland?

The appropriate body for declaring guilt or innocence is, of course, a court of law, but I think that the recent media coverage indicates that it is absolutely imperative that the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission be given the powers that it needs to release the full statement of reasons in this case. I obviously welcome disclosure: we are trying to get disclosure of the full SCCRC report, which is imperative. I do not think that partial disclosure, especially when it is done selectively, is assisting the debate. I cannot see any possible reason for there being obstacles in the way of full disclosure and publication of the complete SCCRC report. I hope that the chamber will unite to ensure, as far as is possible within our powers, that that happens.

The First Minister might be aware from an article in today’s Evening Times of the completely unacceptable treatment of Mrs Maureen Leckie, a 73-year-old stroke victim from Paisley who was, because no clean towels were available, forced to dry herself with pillowcases after having a shower in the Royal Alexandra hospital. I note that the health board has today apologised to Maureen and her family. Maureen has spoken out because she does not want others to suffer the same experience. What action will the First Minister take to ensure that this does not happen again at the RAH or at any other hospital?

I will discuss the matter with the Cabinet Secretary for Health, Wellbeing and Cities Strategy, take appropriate action and write to Neil Bibby. Individual cases, and people speaking out about them, are an important part of the process of constant improvement in our health service. Such cases must be dealt with: the boards understand that and processes are in place to ensure that it happens. However, that should not detract from recognition among members that our health service and its workers are held in the highest regard—indeed, they are held in higher regard than ever before—in terms of public levels of satisfaction.

---

Cabinet (Meetings)

3. To ask the First Minister what issues will be discussed at the next meeting of the Cabinet. (S4F-00541)

Issues of importance to the people of Scotland will be discussed.

Last week, I warned the First Minister about his unhealthy relationship with Rupert Murdoch. This week, the First Minister’s old friend, Donald Trump, turned into a foe. I will press him on another of his rich and powerful friends, and that friend’s influence on Government policy.

The First Minister will know that I agree with him on equal marriage for gay people. I want to remove the barriers that prevent churches and other organisations from conducting same-sex marriages if they choose to do so. However, Brian Souter, a donor to the Scottish National Party, has well-known views against equality for gay people. Can the First Minister confirm that he will not give in to Brian Souter and that he will stand up for what is right on equal marriage?

I understand that the Liberal Democrats’ ethos in politics used to be to seek consensus and agreement, and to find areas in which parties could unite. Two things have happened. First, even when the Liberal Democrat leader says that he is seeking consensus, he manages to do so in such a way as to make that consensus impossible. Secondly, people in Scotland did not realise when the Liberals said before the previous United Kingdom general election that they were seeking consensus that that would involve the continuation of Westminster Tory rule in Scotland.

Observers will note that the First Minister did not answer my question. It is simple: can he guarantee that he will not give in to Brian Souter? Equal marriage will be a mark of a modern Scotland. Last Sunday there was a big push by some churches to block the change. A cardinal said that it is “grotesque” and an archbishop said that there is a duty to stop it. The group Scotland for marriage went to the absurd extreme of saying that it would open the door for polygamy.

Those are serious forces against us, and I do not want the argument to slip away from us. I ask the First Minister again: will he stand up to Brian Souter and take a lead for equality in Scotland?

That does not raise the debate to the level that we hope for and expect in Scotland. Incidentally, I agree with Willie Rennie that it is something that we should aspire to, but that requires all sides of the debate—not just one—to live up to a particular standard.

I made my views on the matter clear during the election, and they have not changed. The important point is that we are in a consultation process. The consultation has closed, and there has been a massive number of responses. As First Minister of Scotland, I believe that it is right and proper that the consultation process and the consideration of the evidence that has been presented be allowed to take their course.

We—members and parties in the chamber—are considering equal status in marriage, which has a strong moral dimension and is a matter of individual conscience. On such issues above all—if we are to have a debate on an issue of principle that is worthy of Parliament and, indeed, of the country—it behoves politicians, who lecture the rest of society about the care that they must take in using language, to rise to the challenge that they set other people.

---

Childcare (Pre-school Children)

4. To ask the First Minister whether the Scottish Government will provide further information on its plans to improve childcare for pre-school children. (S4F-00539)

We are making a transformational change in childcare support for families and are certainly committed to that shift. As Jamie Hepburn knows, and as we have discussed already during this very question time, the last part of the children’s bill that will be introduced next year will legislate for an expansion from 475 hours to a minimum of 600 hours per year of funded early learning and childcare for all three and four-year-olds, and for two-year-olds who are looked after, in Scotland. That will be the best package of free nursery education on offer anywhere in the United Kingdom and it represents a clear statement of faith in, and commitment to, the future.

We will, of course, use the wisdom and advice of the cross-party early years task force to help ensure that delivery of the provision is flexible enough to meet the needs of all Scotland’s families. [Interruption.]

One moment, Mr Hepburn. There is far too much chatter off. I ask members to concentrate and to let us hear what the member and the First Minister have to say.

I thank the First Minister for his response and—not least as the father of a pre-school-age child—I welcome the Government’s commitment to extending free nursery provision.

Does the First Minister share not only Save the Children’s concern that the introduction of universal credit will make childcare costs more difficult for many families, but the concern of many organisations that the UK Government has reduced the cap for the childcare element of working tax credit from 80 per cent to 70 per cent, which is adding an average £546 to childcare costs for thousands of Scottish households? Is not it time that this Parliament had control over tax and benefits so that Scottish families are not left to the vagaries of the Tories and their Liberal friends?

The Parliament should be aware that research from the Institute of Fiscal Studies suggests that the proposed changes to the whole welfare system will increase the number of children in absolute poverty across the UK by 500,000 by 2015. Is not that an argument for why we need powers over tax and benefits? We need to protect the children of Scotland from poverty and the worst excesses of the Westminster Government. It seems to me that the disgruntled members of the Labour Party have a very clear choice before them: to keep backing Tory control over the benefits that will worsen child poverty, or to join us and bring powers to Scotland that will allow us to look after all Scotland’s children.

---

Same-sex Marriage

5. To ask the First Minister when the Scottish Government will announce its position on same-sex marriage. (S4F-00548)

This is a hugely important issue. We have received more than 50,000 responses to the consultation—the most responses to any consultation under devolution. The responses are being collated and analysed and we expect to complete that process over the coming months.

Any Scottish Government proposals for equal marriage will have the support of the many members on this side of the chamber and across it who signed the equal marriage pledge. Will the First Minister confirm that the Government will not publish its response to last year’s consultation until after the local government elections? Furthermore, will he indicate whether there is any good reason why equal marriage cannot be achieved before the referendum in 2014?

As Drew Smith might know, what the Government can publish over the campaigning period for local government elections is heavily restricted, as it should be. We are going through the consultation responses and will make progress on that basis. I hope and believe that, regardless of their views on the issue, all members recognise the critical importance in this issue—perhaps above all others—of people on all sides of the debate being able to see that a genuine and proper process of, first, consultation and then analysis and publication is taking place. That is exactly the type of process that we intend to follow.

---

2014 Commonwealth Games

6. To ask the First Minister what progress is being made in ensuring that the 2014 Commonwealth games are on time and on budget. (S4F-00545)

I am told that we are 860 days away from the opening ceremony of the Glasgow games in 2014 and I am delighted to report that preparations remain on time and on budget.

I am, indeed, pleased that the Commonwealth games are on time and on budget. The First Minister will be aware that, for the games to be truly successful, they must leave a lasting legacy. What steps is the Scottish Government taking to ensure that the legacy is not only for Glasgow, but for the whole of Scotland?

As Sandra White will be aware, last weekend I announced a further £10 million for a games legacy for Scotland get active fund to provide new and enhanced sports facilities in communities across Scotland.

Construction of the athletes’ village is nearing completion. During the games, it will accommodate approximately 6,500 competitors and officials and after the games it will be used to provide a range of affordable housing. The Commonwealth sports arena and velodrome are almost complete and will be accessible to the public in October, nearly two years ahead of the games. Those few but very important examples show that the Government, acting in conjunction with its partners, is determined to ensure that Scots feel the benefit of the Commonwealth games long after they are finished.

I share the enthusiasm of the First Minister and Sandra White for the Commonwealth games and for what they can bring to Glasgow and Scotland. Is the First Minister satisfied that the games will deliver a tangible legacy for all areas of Glasgow?

Glasgow has a particular prominence as the host city of the games, and rightly so. The games will be extremely important, and I think that the people of Glasgow can see the advantages that are being built at present, in addition to the commitments that have been made in terms of local community involvement. That is a right and proper thing to expect. I know that Patricia Ferguson is well aware of the range of initiatives that have been taken by the Government and our partners in making that a reality.

I point out that the games will also leave a legacy across Scotland. It is important that Glasgow, as the host city, has the great prominence that it deserves, but the games are backed by the whole of Scotland and, indeed, by our many friends across the Commonwealth.

12:31 Meeting suspended.

14:15 On resuming—