Health and Wellbeing
National Health Service (Budget Pressures)
To ask the Scottish Executive whether any national health service boards have recently announced a need to reduce services, nurse training or the recruitment of nurses and doctors as a consequence of budget pressures. (S3O-10323)
Boards are rightly required to continually assess their expenditure to ensure the delivery of best value and make the most effective use of funding for the benefit of patients. Boards consider a range of efficiency measures with a view to identifying those that will not impact on patient care. Those savings are not about cuts, as all savings are retained locally for reinvestment in front-line services. That combination of increases in funding and local retention of savings will ensure that priorities are safeguarded.
As Nicola Sturgeon knows, NHS Grampian is facing £34 million of cuts. Richard Carey, the board’s chief executive, has said that the board is facing an “incredibly tough” year. Can the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing guarantee today that front-line services will not be affected by that £34 million cut? More important, can she say who is to blame for the cut? Is it the Scottish National Party Government in Edinburgh or the Labour Government in London? Does not the cut totally undermine the commitment that the First Minister gave in this chamber this morning? We now see that the truth is that the SNP is cutting, not protecting, front-line services.
In the spirit of consensus, I should say that I agree with Nicol Stephen that all health boards—as well as all parts of the public sector and the rest of society—are facing tough times. That is the consequence of the economic and financial climate that we live in. However, as a matter of fact—this is a matter of fact—the budgets of NHS Grampian and other health boards are not being cut. NHS Grampian’s budget has increased this year. The board has set itself the task of making £34 million of efficiency savings. As I said in my original answer, the definition of efficiency savings requires that they do not impact adversely on patient care. Further, it is a cardinal principle of this Government’s efficiency savings programme that efficiency savings be recycled within health boards that make them, so that they are reinvested in front-line patient care. That is an important principle.
On Nicol Stephen’s more general question, we have in this financial year taken steps within our budget to protect the national health service, in the face of £500 million of cuts that are being imposed by Westminster on the overall Scottish budget. That gives a clear indication of the priority that this Government gives to the health service and front-line health services. As the First Minister did this morning and as I have done previously, I am happy to restate this Government’s commitment to protecting the health budget and the health services that the people of Scotland rely on.
Last week, I asked the First Minister whether civil servants who are modelling the future Scottish budget have been asked to exclude any reductions in the health and wellbeing budget lines. The First Minister replied, “No”. How does that equate to what the cabinet secretary has just said about how budget lines will continue to be protected under the SNP?
Jeremy Purvis might or might not know that officials of the Scottish Government are asked to consider all sorts of eventualities on an on-going basis.
I do not think that the First Minister or I could be any clearer in the commitment that we are giving. It will be on the record again today, as it has been on the record on many previous occasions, that we give the utmost priority to front-line public services and the NHS. That does not have to be taken just as a commitment for the future; anyone who looks at the Scottish Government budget for this financial year will see that clear commitment to the budget of the NHS. That commitment to protecting the funds that the NHS has available to spend on front-line services will continue into the future.
Dispensing General Practitioner Practices (Rural Areas)
To ask the Scottish Executive what measures it will take to ensure that dispensing GP practices in rural areas are protected. (S3O-10313)
General practitioner practices may be required by a health board to dispense to all or some of the board’s patients in areas where there is no community pharmacy. In the event that an application to open a community pharmacy in such an area is successful, the board will assess the need for that GP practice to continue dispensing to some or all of its patients. If a practice subsequently loses its dispensing income, it will remain eligible for general medical services funding on the same basis as any other GP practice. However, we are reviewing the regulations and arrangements for pharmacy applications, and we published the consultation document “Applications to provide NHS Pharmaceutical Services: Review of the Control of Entry Arrangements” on 22 March 2010. That document has been made available to all members, and I would welcome any views that they wish to give.
In Newcastleton in the Scottish Borders, the local dispensing GP practice is at risk because a large pharmacy plans to open in the area. Will the minister clarify exactly when her department will undertake a review of the National Health Service (Pharmaceutical Services) (Scotland) Regulations 2009 to take account of situations such as that of a dispensing GP practice in a rural area that has no representation on the area pharmaceutical committee, or when no account is taken of the impact on a dispensing GP practice of the loss of dispensing income?
It was always the intention that dispensing income would be for dispensing services. As the member will know, applications to open a pharmacy are matters for individual health boards. We introduced an amendment to the regulations last July to ensure that health boards consult the public, which previously did not have to happen. It is for boards to determine how best to fulfil that duty. The Government consultation that I mentioned seeks views on that specific issue and others that the member has raised. I again encourage him to make known his views in that consultation.
Will the minister advise on what criteria towns and villages, where for decades there has not been a pharmacy or dispensing GP practice—such as Kinglassie in the constituency that I am privileged to represent—must meet to secure a pharmacy?
As I laid out in my answer to the initial question, health boards will consider applications to open community pharmacies. They will consider issues such as how the area is currently served.
Helen Eadie rightly raises the issue that in some areas people want a community pharmacy to open, whereas in others people want to retain their dispensing GP. Through the consultation process that we are undertaking, we want to ensure that we get the right balance so that patients are best served. That might be through a community pharmacy and all the services that come with it, which we should remember are extensive. Where a community pharmacy is not operating, we want to ensure that patients are not disadvantaged—that is why we have dispensing GPs in the first place. Again, I encourage all members to contribute to the consultation.
Energy Assistance Package
To ask the Scottish Executive whether it plans to make any changes to the energy assistance package to increase uptake of the scheme. (S3O-10292)
I keep the uptake of the scheme under constant review. I look forward to seeing the impact of an amendment to regulations that should come into effect in May and which will extend the benefits of stage 4 of the scheme to more families, as recommended by the fuel poverty forum. We have already made changes to the scheme on the basis of addressing fuel poverty, which is at the heart of the programme. It is about addressing the needs of the most disadvantaged people in Scotland.
What can the minister do to make the energy assistance package less bureaucratic? It has been found to be off-putting for a number of older people, who have given up on the process. I am happy to furnish the minister with examples, if he wants them. Furthermore, how much was spent on the energy assistance package in March 2010?
The figures on the spend will be produced shortly.
If Mary Mulligan can give me examples that show too much bureaucracy or red tape, we will address that, because that defeats the programme’s purpose. I am always keen to remove red tape from any programme, and especially from one that is directed at poorer people.
Has the minister received my letter about my constituent who is over 60 and who has never had a central heating system but who withdrew from the programme because of the bureaucratic complexity to which Mary Mulligan referred? Will he ensure that a fast-track procedure applies to people who have never had a central heating system and who are therefore self-evidently entitled to one?
I do not recall receiving that letter, but I am happy to check it out and to reply to Malcolm Chisholm. If I have not already received it, I will ask for it. I will consider the issues that he highlights, ask my officials to address them and write to him.
Question 4 has been withdrawn and question 5 was not lodged.
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. Is it in order for a question to be withdrawn that appears in today’s Business Bulletin?
The question does not appear in the Business Bulletin—
It does—I am talking about question 4.
I am sorry; the question is not on my sheet.
It is in the Business Bulletin that I just picked up at the back of the chamber.
If a question is withdrawn at short notice, we can do nothing about that. The person who is to ask a question must be here to ask it.
Palliative Care Staff
To ask the Scottish Executive how the required numbers of palliative care specialists and nurses are established and calculated and what these numbers are, broken down by national health service board. (S3O-10337)
NHS boards determine their workforce requirements on the basis of the numbers of patients who are involved, the assessment of clinical needs and other local and geographical issues. Palliative care is delivered by multiprofessional teams that involve a wide range of health care professionals and specialists, not all of whom are necessarily classified for statistical purposes as being directly involved in palliative care. When specific data are available, the latest workforce statistics show that, as of 30 September 2009, 22 consultants in palliative medicine and 68 clinical nurse specialists in palliative care were employed throughout NHS Scotland. A breakdown of those figures by NHS board is available on the ISD Scotland website.
What are the possibilities for increasing the number of palliative care specialist nurses and assistant positions, which provide practical support and quality-of-life improvements for end-of-life patients?
I thank Christopher Harvie for his question and his interest in the subject. The Scottish Government is working hard with NHS boards and other stakeholders that are involved in delivering palliative care to increase the number of trained doctors who deliver front-line services, for example. As part of that, 14 trainee doctors in palliative care will complete training in the next five years. That number is expected to exceed the number of consultant retirals in the same period.
As part of boards’ continuing analysis of the skills mix in clinical teams, they are developing roles for advanced nurse practitioners and health care assistants to provide practical support for end-of-life patients.
As Chris Harvie and other members know, as part of the “Living and Dying Well” action plan, the Government is working in partnership with the voluntary sector and other key stakeholders to facilitate care arrangements for end-of-life patients in the most appropriate settings, in accordance with clinical and other needs and with personal wishes.
I am sure that we are all trying to work towards a gold standard of palliative care, so that people throughout the country receive the best possible care that they can towards the end of life. Is the cabinet secretary confident that the plans that are in place will provide enough people to ensure that standard of care?
I am confident of that, but we will continue to keep a close eye on the situation. As I think many members would agree, palliative care services have been good for people who are living with cancer but not as good for people with other terminal diagnoses. “Living and Dying Well” is aimed at and focused on improving the quality of palliative care for everybody who needs it. As Nanette Milne knows, monitoring arrangements are in place and various working groups are taking forward the actions in “Living and Dying Well”. We monitor the progress closely.
Nanette Milne and Christopher Harvie are right to emphasise the people who deliver the services in the front line; I refer to my comments to Christopher Harvie. We are working with NHS boards to ensure not only that we have in place the right number of staff but that the right mix of skills is available. People with palliative care needs have complex needs and it is important that they are all catered for.
I appreciate the continuing interest that many members have in the issue. We will continue to work hard to ensure that we improve services.
Scottish-Islamic Foundation (Reallocation of Funding)
To ask the Scottish Executive whether it reallocated any of the £128,000 that was repaid to it by the Scottish-Islamic Foundation to any other organisation or charity in the financial year 2009-10. (S3O-10265)
The recovered funds were not allocated to any other organisation or charity. As is standard and proper practice, all unused funds were collected centrally and used to meet expenditure priorities for the Scottish Government in the normal way.
That is, to be frank, a disappointing and evasive answer. However, I will raise another aspect. It is important to remember that a six-figure allocation from public funds was given to an organisation with no track record of delivery that had, until recently, a Scottish National Party Westminster candidate at its helm. The Government axed a £100,000 fund to support school-twinning projects that were imaginatively and effectively challenging sectarianism in Scotland, so will the minister now give serious consideration to using the money that was reclaimed from the SIF to reinstate that fund and to support grass-roots projects that can and will deliver for people in Scotland?
My answer was not evasive. It is just a fact of life that it is, and always has been, standard procedure to reinvest such moneys in central funds and not to earmark them for any specific additional project.
On the more general issues that Mr Butler raises, I will remind him of two points. First, the initial funding application was considered by the previous Executive and had all-party support. Secondly, Audit Scotland has already thoroughly investigated some of the issues that he raised and has found nothing unwarranted in the actions of the Government or of the Scottish-Islamic Foundation.
Housing (Barnett Consequentials)
To ask the Scottish Executive on what basis the recently announced £31 million from Barnett consequentials for housing will be distributed. (S3O-10266)
We are currently considering options on how the £31 million additional funding from Barnett consequentials for affordable housing developments should be allocated. The agreed allocation of funding will be published on our website, once it is announced.
As the minister is committed to delivering our internationally acclaimed homelessness obligations, which come into play in 2012, will he ensure that the £31 million and, indeed, housing allocations in general, are targeted at the local authorities—such as the City of Edinburgh Council—that will, because of shortages of affordable rented housing, find it difficult to meet and maintain their homelessness obligations as well as meet the needs of those on the waiting lists?
In relation to the allocation of the £31 million primarily for registered social landlords, and the third tranche of council house money—another £25 million that is currently under consideration for allocation—we are mindful of the need to give high priority to the criteria that relate to achieving the homelessness target in 2012. That will not be to the exclusion of all other criteria, but it will be an important consideration in all cases.
I draw the minister’s attention to a recent answer by his colleague Stewart Stevenson, which highlights that the total Scottish Government expenditure on the Edinburgh trams project has reached £353 million and rising, a total that could have built tens of thousands of homes in the capital and elsewhere. Does he agree that that funding would have been better spent on tackling Edinburgh’s housing shortage and that the money that has already been contributed to Edinburgh from kick-start council housing and any Barnett consequentials that may follow should be spent on housing rather than on an ill-begotten transport project?
I have a great deal of sympathy with the points that Shirley-Anne Somerville has made. It is clear that there are many priorities for spending in Edinburgh. This party and this Government certainly did not regard the trams as having higher priority than housing or, indeed, than other essential services such as education and health. I have every sympathy with the argument that Shirley-Anne Somerville makes.
When the Scottish Government allocated the £120 million accelerated funding and the previous £31 million Barnett consequentials, some of the money was spent on flats or houses that were already built—so-called off-the-shelf housing. Does the minister think that it is acceptable that the Scottish Government has no record of how much local authorities paid for such housing and that it has, therefore, no way of knowing whether good value was achieved for the public purse?
All our spending is evaluated in the normal way at local authority, central Government and registered social landlord levels. On obtaining value for money, we follow the same procedures as were followed when Mary Mulligan was a minister. I am absolutely sure that we will have achieved value for money, because that was an up-front condition of getting the money in the first place.
Alcohol (Minimum Pricing)
9.
To ask the Scottish Government what support it has received for its proposals to introduce minimum pricing for alcohol. (S3O-10331)
Minimum pricing is backed by a broad coalition, which includes all 17 of Scotland’s public health directors; four United Kingdom chief medical officers; the British Medical Association; the royal colleges; the Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland; the Scottish Licensed Trade Association; the Church of Scotland; the House of Commons Health Select Committee; Molson Coors; Tennents; Breakthrough Breast Cancer; and seven children’s charities, including Children 1st, YouthLink Scotland and Barnardo’s Scotland.
Written evidence submitted to the Health and Sport Committee showed that 107 submissions were in favour of minimum pricing and 27 were against it.
It is hugely encouraging that those who deal with the consequences of alcohol misuse support a policy that, as part of a wider framework for action, will reduce consumption and harm and kick-start the culture change that we need.
I thank the cabinet secretary for that large list of folk who have supported her. I would like to add to it. She might be interested to hear that I recently undertook a survey of Aberdeen residents and that, of the 1,700 responses that I received, almost two thirds were in favour of minimum pricing. Given the support that she mentioned and the clear backing of the public for minimum pricing, when does she anticipate having the full support of the Parliament for it, which will ensure that the concerns of residents in Aberdeen and throughout Scotland are not ignored?
That question might be better directed at others in the chamber, but I will do my best to answer it. I am certainly greatly encouraged by the growing support for minimum pricing. I have already given a long list of organisations that think that it is the right thing to do. The right thing to do is not always the easiest thing to do, but it remains the right thing to do. Over and above the organisations that support minimum pricing, I, too, certainly detect from the discussions that I have had around Scotland a shift in public opinion. I am not arguing that we have persuaded everybody of the merits of the policy, but I believe that there is growing public support for a measure that is targeted, proportionate and effective.
One of the reasons for that growing support is that people are also increasingly aware of the damage that alcohol misuse does to society—the damage that it does to the health of individuals and to families and communities and the crime problems that it creates. I believe that the argument is being won and is capable of being won decisively.
I genuinely hope that, at the conclusion of the constructive debate that is taking place within the Health and Sport Committee at stage 1 of the Alcohol etc (Scotland) Bill, people will put the evidence and the benefits of the policy ahead of party politics. If that happens, I believe that we can all unite behind the policy.
In the year up to March 2009, there was a reduction of 21,337 occupied bed days for patients with an alcohol-related condition. The new data from the University of Sheffield predict a fall in hospital admissions of 640 in the first year. Given that a significant reduction in hospital admissions is already taking place, how can future figures be attributed to a minimum unit price for alcohol?
I have the greatest respect for Mary Scanlon’s interest in all matters health—I do not always agree with her, but I know that she is genuine in her views—but she is on dodgy ground in trying to argue, as she did with the First Minister earlier, that the impact of minimum pricing on hospital admissions, on deaths and on other health harms that are caused by alcohol will not be important and worth striving for just because the impact might not be as big as someone once suggested.
It is good that the most recent figures show a reduction in the number of occupied bed days due to alcohol misuse, but I passionately believe that the number of occupied bed days lost to people who are admitted to hospital for alcohol misuse is still far too high. As long as that remains the case, I believe that we have a political and moral obligation to come together to find solutions to the problem.
I accept the responsibility, on me as Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing and on us as a Government, to persuade people of the merits of the policy, and I am determined to continue to try to do that.
The cabinet secretary is always very persuasive.
There is no difference among the parties in recognising the scale of the problem and task that we face, but the key question is whether minimum pricing is the right measure and will have the maximum impact. The First Minister failed to answer any of my questions earlier, so I hope that the cabinet secretary will answer our concerns about the legality of the policy.
Does the cabinet secretary believe that the European Union should be notified now about any aspect of the Alcohol etc (Scotland) Bill, under the technical standards directive? If not, at what point will the EU be notified about the minimum pricing proposals? If that will happen only when the price is set, in the interests of transparency and parliamentary scrutiny—and, indeed, if she wishes to gain support for the measure—will she tell us prior to the stage 1 debate what the minimum price will be?
The provisions of the Alcohol etc (Scotland) Bill do not require to be notified to the European Commission under the technical standards directive. I hope that that is a clear enough answer to Jackie Baillie’s question.
However, we are required to ensure that the proposals comply with the law. As any member from any party who has looked at the legal rules will know, European law does not prohibit minimum pricing per se. I hope that there will be no argument about that important point. As I have said repeatedly—I have laid out the matter again in a substantial letter to the Health and Sport Committee—whatever minimum price is set will need to meet all the tests to ensure that the price is within the law. As a Government, it is our responsibility to do that, which is why we are taking so much care around the decision on the price. When we have reached our conclusions on that—as the First Minister said earlier, we will endeavour to do so before the final vote on the bill—Parliament will have a full opportunity to scrutinise the regulations, which will be subject to the affirmative procedure.
On a final point, I am glad that Jackie Baillie thinks me persuasive, although I would never claim that. However, no one—not even I—can persuade people whose minds are closed. My biggest regret about the issue so far is that colleagues, particularly those on the Labour benches, took a position before hearing any of the evidence. Labour announced its position on minimum pricing before the Health and Sport Committee started to take evidence. That is a matter of deep regret. If Jackie Baillie is prepared to cut a deal, here is what I offer her: if she is prepared to open her mind, I am prepared to do my very best—my persuasive best—to bring her round to our policy, which has significant backing and will do a great deal of good for health in Scotland.
Aberdeen City Alcohol and Drugs Partnership (Priorities)
To ask the Scottish Executive what recent discussions it has had with Aberdeen city alcohol and drugs partnership on its current priorities. (S3O-10261)
Scottish Government officials recently met Aberdeen city alcohol and drugs partnership to support it in establishing an outcomes framework to undertake service redesign. That is part of the Scottish Government’s programme of work with alcohol and drugs partnerships to support local implementation of the ADP delivery framework that was published on 20 April 2009 and of the national drug and alcohol strategies “The Road to Recovery: A New Approach to Tackling Scotland’s Drug Problem” and “Changing Scotland’s Relationship with Alcohol: A Framework for Action”.
Scottish Government officials have also held meetings with NHS Grampian officials that the three local alcohol and drug partnerships attended. Those discussions were part of a series of visits to boards to monitor their performance in delivering alcohol brief interventions, drug and alcohol treatment waiting times targets and health improvement, efficiency, access and treatment targets.
Methadone can play a key role in stabilising the lives of drug addicts. Although ministers have said that they wish to reduce reliance on methadone in Grampian, the amount of it that is being given to drug misusers has risen sharply. How will the Scottish Government support Aberdeen city alcohol and drugs partnership—perhaps through the service redesign that the minister mentioned—to ensure that programmes are in place to help addicts turn their lives around and to help more of them to cease their dependence on methadone?
The thrust of “The Road to Recovery” is very much that—helping addicts to recover. That requires a range of services to be offered. What will work and be of assistance to one person might not be what is required by another. In that context, methadone has its place. We all wish reliance on methadone to be reduced, but Richard Baker and all other members will recognise that it is a complex issue to which simple soundbites do not do justice. Many people in many families wrestle with the issue, and the Government is of course taking the matter forward, I hope in a consensual way with other parties in the Parliament.
Isle of Man (Reciprocal Health Care Arrangements)
To ask the Scottish Executive what reciprocal health care arrangements are in place between the Isle of Man and the national health service in Scotland. (S3O-10332)
Scotland, along with the other devolved Administrations, is included in the United Kingdom Government’s reciprocal health agreement with the Isle of Man, which has been in place in its present form since 1977. Residents of the Isle of Man can receive urgent or immediately necessary treatment during a visit to Scotland if the need arises due to sudden illness or accident. That is also the case when Scots visit the Isle of Man.
The cabinet secretary will be aware of the case of my constituent, Margaret Caldwell, an 86-year-old lady in Glasgow with family in the Isle of Man. She was worried when she recently found out that the reciprocal arrangement had almost come to an end, and that only on 1 April this year was it extended for a further six months.
The lady went ahead with a trip to the Isle of Man, where she took pneumonia. She told me that it was a blessing that the reciprocal arrangement was there. The clock is ticking on that arrangement, however: it will last only for another six months. Will the cabinet secretary liaise with whoever becomes the new UK health minister to pursue a future reciprocal agreement? If that fails, will she and the Scottish NHS get together to work out our own reciprocal arrangement, so that people such as Margaret Caldwell can go to see their families in the Isle of Man with peace of mind?
I will answer Bob Doris’s question in two parts. I understand the importance of the issue to his constituent.
First, Bob Doris is correct to point out that the UK had indicated its intention to terminate the agreement between the United Kingdom and the Isle of Man, which would have involved the termination of the agreement for the devolved Administrations. We were approached by the Manx Government about the possibility of establishing a fresh agreement between the Isle of Man and Scotland. We indicated that we would be interested to learn more about that proposal and to discuss it further, on the understanding that it would not involve any exchange of public funds between Governments. Because of the decision of the UK Government to extend the existing agreement for a further six months, those discussions have not progressed. Should the agreement be terminated in future, we would be willing—without committing ourselves to any particular detail—to have that further discussion.
My second point is a very important one for anybody travelling to the Isle of Man, or indeed anywhere else outwith the European Union: whether or not a reciprocal health agreement is in place, travellers should make appropriate travel insurance arrangements, including a medical element, before they travel. The reciprocal agreements cover immediately necessary treatment in the country where the person is—in this case, the Isle of Man. They do not cover repatriation costs in the event of illness, accident or, indeed, death. Notwithstanding any reciprocal health agreement, it is vital that travellers take out the appropriate health insurance.
Pharmacy and Dispensing Services
To ask the Scottish Executive what plans it has to ensure that the views of local communities are taken into account when considering the provision of pharmacy and dispensing services. (S3O-10321)
Through the National Health Service (Pharmaceutical Services) (Scotland) Regulations 2009, the Scottish Government amended previous regulations to place a duty on health boards to take reasonable steps to consult the local community when applications are made to open a community pharmacy in a given area. It is a matter for health boards to consider who and how to consult.
In addition, we are reviewing the regulations and arrangements for pharmacy applications. We published the consultation document, “Applications to provide NHS Pharmaceutical Services: Review of the Control of Entry Arrangements” on 22 March. The document has been made available to all members and makes specific reference to the issue that Iain Smith raised. I welcome members’ contributions to the consultation.
The minister will be aware of the situation in my constituency. An application was made to open a pharmacy in Leuchars, which will affect general practitioner dispensing services in Leuchars and Balmullo. Is she aware that when my constituents wanted to make representations on the issue to the national appeal panel for entry to the pharmaceutical lists, they were advised by the panel secretary that she would accept letters from patients up to the date of the hearing, if they were forwarded through the primary care department? Representations were duly made, but the national appeal panel ruled them to be inadmissible. Does the minister think that that was acceptable? Given what happened, does she think that the appeal had a fair hearing?
I am aware of the issue that the member raises. He will shortly receive an answer to his letter on the matter.
As things stand, members of the public cannot make direct representations to the national appeal panel. However, as part of the appeal process the panel will consider again the evidence that was presented to the pharmacy practices committee on the initial application, which can include representations from interested parties and/or the public and their representatives, such as a community council. Interested parties can be, for example, the area medical committee, which represents all GPs in a given area. The national appeal panel can also consider new representations from the public if they are provided to the panel by one of the interested parties.
As I said, I will reply in detail to Iain Smith’s letter. I encourage him to raise the issue in the consultation process, so that we can give it due consideration.
Question 13 was not lodged.
Alcohol (Minimum Pricing)
14.
To ask the Scottish Executive whether it will announce its proposed minimum price per unit of alcohol before the stage 1 debate on the Alcohol etc (Scotland) Bill. (S3O-10324)
The Health and Sport Committee is considering the principle of minimum pricing and has before it modelling that shows the possible effect of a range of minimum prices. A constructive debate is taking place on the principle of minimum pricing and if the principle is agreed another constructive debate will no doubt take place on the price that should be set.
The Scottish Government is carefully working through the different issues that require to be taken into account before it proposes a specific price to the Parliament. Regulations proposing a specific price will be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure, to ensure that there is an opportunity for the Parliament to scrutinise the rationale and considerations that led to a specific price being brought forward.
I posed the same question to the First Minister earlier today, for the same reason. Some knowledge of what the minimum price per unit might be is surely pertinent to the proper consideration of the bill. That is what the Health and Sport Committee and the Subordinate Legislation Committee have said. Does the cabinet secretary agree that the issue is pertinent to the proper consideration of the bill? Will she therefore give serious consideration to letting us know what the minimum price might be? Not to do so would be to undermine the proper workings of the Parliament in its examination of a bill.
We are not undermining the proper workings of the Parliament by acting in the way that we are acting. Stage 1 of any bill involves consideration of the bill’s general principles, and at stage 1 of the Alcohol etc (Scotland) Bill the Health and Sport Committee is considering—and subsequently the whole Parliament will consider—the principle of minimum pricing.
The First Minister said this morning that we intend to bring forward the specific price before a final vote is taken by the Parliament. That is appropriate. Over and above that, the Parliament will have a full opportunity to scrutinise the price, under the affirmative resolution procedure. That is the proper and appropriate way of doing such things.
It strikes me as inconsistent of members who continually express concern about the legality of minimum pricing—as they are entitled to do—then to encourage us to do something that would undermine our legal position.
We must take the decision on the pricing in a careful and considered way, and we must take into account all the evidence. For example, we have only recently received the updated University of Sheffield report, and we must take that into account before coming to a conclusion. Decisions will be taken in the right and proper way and, obviously, in a way that allows Parliament the fullest opportunity to scrutinise not just the principle but the detail.
Affordable Housing (Barnett Consequentials)
To ask the Scottish Government how it plans to allocate the £31 million from Barnett consequentials for affordable housing developments. (S3O-10326)
We are currently considering options on how the £31 million additional funding from Barnett consequentials for affordable housing developments should be allocated. The agreed allocation will be published on our website, once it is announced.
Will the minister give an assurance that preference will be given to areas of high-pressure housing demand such as the north-east? How does the programme fit in with the encouragement that the Government has given to new-build local authority housing?
As I have said, for both the £31 million allocation and the third tranche of council house money, which is £25 million, housing need will be the overriding consideration, including issues such as homelessness, areas under housing pressure and other pressures on housing need in each area of Scotland. That will be our top priority. We have presided over record spend, record build, record starts and record completions in housing, and we will continue to do so.
Previous
First Minister’s Question Time