Meeting of the Parliament

Meeting date: Thursday, May 17, 2012

Official Report 1184KB 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-00671)

Today, Bruce Crawford, the Cabinet Secretary for Parliamentary Business and Government Strategy, is meeting Jens Stoltenberg, the Norwegian Prime Minister, to welcome him to Shetland on Norway’s national day, and to discuss plans for a deepwater quay decommissioning facility in the Shetland Islands.

I am delighted to announce to the chamber that, following discussions that I had in Oslo on Tuesday, the Scottish Government and Highlands and Islands Enterprise will together make available £10 million to support a hugely ambitious project for the northern islands.

I know that the whole chamber will wish to welcome the exciting partnership between the Norwegian company ÅF Group and Lerwick Port Authority, which looks forward to securing decommissioning work on major offshore structures in the North Sea. The project could create up to 150 jobs in the Shetland Islands and Aberdeen, and deliver a scale of industrial capacity unmatched across these islands.

The Parliament debated the national parenting strategy this week. There was unanimous agreement that there had to be more support for struggling parents. That support is important because we know that some parents do not get it right, that the child is not always the priority, and that that can have tragic consequences.

Following the Declan Hainey case, the First Minister and I had constructive talks about child protection. Will the First Minister update the chamber on what progress has been made in that area?

I agree that we had constructive talks on that tragic case. As we discussed in the meeting, the Government will move forward through the children and young people’s bill that is to be introduced. We will explore options on a range of areas to improve the situation so that we can get it right for every child.

We welcome progress. We urge the First Minister to recognise how serious the issue is and how quickly we need to move on it, given that we now know that in March 2010, just two weeks before Declan Hainey was found dead, Renfrewshire Council received a report from another case review. The case was known as family 10. It is worrying that the review highlighted systemic failures in child protection. In that case, children were mistreated to a deeply distressing degree. The family 10 review was too late to save Declan. Two serious case reviews in Renfrewshire have found systemic failure, yet no one has been held to account. Does the First Minister believe that, after one death and two findings of systemic failure, Renfrewshire Council was best placed to investigate itself?

Johann Lamont should accept that the reviews that have taken place have certainly identified failings in provision. As have other investigations in the past, those reviews inform our intent to improve and enhance child protection across Scotland. These are vital matters and I am certain that if we show good will on all sides we can take them forward together as a united Parliament. We have both a legislative framework and a forum for ensuring that we improve not just our current inspection services, but our monitoring services. I think that, on that basis, the Parliament will do itself great credit by taking things forward in that manner on behalf of Scotland’s children.

Hoping for it does not make it happen. This is a really serious issue and here is the real point: in 2009 the First Minister told members in the chamber that we had the best child protection inspection system

“anywhere in these islands and perhaps anywhere in Europe.”—[Official Report, 25 June 2009; c 18904.]

Indeed, before the case of family 10 and before the death of Declan Hainey, the First Minister said in the chamber that his inspection system had found Renfrewshire Council to be one of the top five councils in Scotland. A few months after Declan Hainey was found dead, the inspectors went back to Renfrewshire Council to follow up on their first visit. This time, they concluded that Renfrewshire Council’s efforts to keep children safe were excellent. They reported:

“As a result of the very good quality of provision to protect children and meet their needs, we will make no further visits in connection with this inspection.”

In the case of family 10 there were systemic failures. In the case of Declan Hainey there were fatal systemic failures. Yet, before and after those failures, the First Minister’s inspectors provided two positive reports, the second of which claimed that the protection of children was excellent.

In light of the contrast between the First Minister’s rhetoric about child protection and the reality, does the First Minister still believe that his inspection regime is the best in Europe?

Three times in that question, Johann Lamont referred to my inspection regime and my inspectors, but those people undertake vital work on behalf of the Parliament and the country. There is no doubt that the process of inspection and re-inspection has resulted in an improvement in child protection throughout Scotland. There is also no doubt that that systematic process, which I believed was supported across the chamber, has resulted in substantial improvements. As Johann Lamont must know,

“no place in the world can give a 100 per cent guarantee on the safety of all its children.”

Tam Baillie, the Scottish Commissioner for Children and Young People, said that in January.

There are always—and should be—lessons to learn from such tragic cases. The SNP Administration and, I hope, the Parliament are perfectly prepared to learn them and are capable of doing so. If we act together, in not just legislative but administrative terms, we can further improve the situation for and protection of Scotland’s children. We can do that on the basis that it is something that all politicians of all political persuasions want to do, and as a national Parliament we can take national action on child protection.

The people who are carrying out the inspections are doing an important job, but they are accountable and the First Minister is responsible for the capacity of the system to deliver. The First Minister’s approach seems to be a counsel of despair. Although we cannot provide 100 per cent protection, we must do everything that we can to understand where the failures are in order to ensure that they do not happen again. Can he explain why the best child protection inspection system in Europe has failed to find the systemic failures that led to the maltreatment of children by a family and a baby’s death? Can he explain why, after those tragedies caused by systemic failures, the best child protection inspection system in Europe still says that the child protection service is excellent?

The family 10 inspection was being carried out at exactly the same time as the significant review of the Declan Hainey case was saying that there were at least 16 actions that needed to be taken. In the light of those failures, will the First Minister please order a full independent public inquiry into child protection, not just in Renfrewshire but throughout Scotland, so that the public can be confident that our systems are protecting our most vulnerable children?

Let us see whether we can identify areas of agreement. Child protection measures require constant vigilance, therefore the Parliament should support our partners on the ground across Scotland to ensure that there is continual improvement. We have updated “Getting Our Priorities Right”, the good practice guidance for professionals who work with children where substance misuse is a factor. We are also piloting the risk assessment toolkit, which will help with the protection of vulnerable children throughout Scotland. The development of a multi-agency learning and development framework is crucial because, in a number of tragic cases, it has been clear that the contact between the various responsible agencies has not been as good as it could have been. The revision of the child protection guidance for Scottish health professionals—the pink book—is also moving forward, and we will introduce a children’s services bill that will ensure that all children’s services have a stronger focus on early years prevention and early intervention. Those are the actions of the Administration.

The Parliament, which is not in the slightest complacent about the tragedies that have occurred, should know two things. First, the responsibility for wrongdoing and for the most tragic cases lies with the perpetrator. The idea that individual social workers, although accountable, are responsible for the actions of others is not the way that Scotland should look at these matters. We should support our social workers and social work departments to give the best possible protection to Scotland’s children.

The second thing, which I hope will carry the entire Parliament, is that the actions that have been identified, both administrative and legislative, show no sign of complacency on the issue, but reflect an understanding that constant vigilance and continuous improvement are absolutely necessary. As we bring forward the measures, as a Government and as a Parliament, I hope that members throughout the chamber will rise to the occasion on behalf of Scotland’s children.

---

Prime Minister (Meetings)

2. To ask the First Minister when he will next meet the Prime Minister. (S4F-00667)

I have no plans to meet the Prime Minister in the near future. Last time I met him, he told me that he was not particularly fussed about the date of the independence referendum. It is obvious that he did not impart that information to Ruth Davidson.

It is a topsy-turvy week when the First Minister is quoted as saying that he will have to wait 1,000 days to have even a long shot at winning a referendum.

A fortnight ago, I and other members asked the First Minister a simple question—a question that he said he would not answer because he would tell all only to the Leveson inquiry. Unfortunately for the First Minister, Lord Leveson has entered the fray, saying that he is not in any way seeking to challenge the ability of Parliaments to proceed as appropriate. So I ask the First Minister again: was he hacked?

I suggest that Ruth Davidson read Lord Leveson’s statement, which is totally consistent with the view that I gave to this Parliament. She should reflect that, after Lord Leveson’s statement, Harriet Harman withdrew a range of parliamentary questions, accepting that Lord Leveson had indicated that the timetable should be perfectly satisfactory for meeting the requirements of both the judicial inquiry and parliamentary accountability.

I suggest to Ruth Davidson that she should accept the bona fides and good wishes on the issue.

Perhaps the First Minister should accept this quotation from a Scottish parliamentary spokesman, who said this week:

“Ministers are accountable to the Scottish Parliament, and it is the role of MSPs to hold Ministers to account.”

I am doing my job, and I am asking the First Minister to do his. He is accountable to the Parliament and to the people of Scotland, but he is currently holding both of them in contempt. Therefore, I continue to ask: First Minister, were you hacked?

I am certainly accountable to the people of Scotland, as are all politicians in the chamber, but Ruth Davidson’s accountability to the people of Scotland has not been working out very well, according to election results.

After Lord Leveson made his comments this week, the Opposition in the Westminster Parliament accepted that the timetable for information was perfectly satisfactory, both in terms of the provision of information to the judicial inquiry, which was established on an all-party basis, and in terms of fulfilling the absolute requirement of parliamentary accountability and responsibility.

I could go on about the revelations this week about the incredible contact between Conservative Prime Ministers and major figures such as Rebekah Brooks, but let us just take it on the basis that I am happy to go to Lord Leveson and give a full account of my actions. I think that I will be in substantially less trouble when I give that account than certain members of Ruth Davidson’s party. That is the way in which we should do things, and I will be delighted to answer Ruth Davidson’s and anybody else’s parliamentary questions.

Although welcome reductions in Clostridium difficile and MRSA levels were reported yesterday, for which we should rightly praise national health service staff, does the First Minister share my concern that, in this week alone, we have seen six deaths at the Royal Alexandra hospital in Paisley, more than 30 wards closed and more than 100 people affected by norovirus across Scotland?

Aside from sending our condolences to the families concerned, will he agree with me that, in light of the substantial rise in norovirus, we need to consider establishing a specialist laboratory to combat that rising level of infection?

I am sure that Jackie Baillie will have seen the comments from Harry Burns in relation to the arguments for such a laboratory, and the stress on clinical efficiency in combating norovirus and other hospital-acquired infections.

We send our sympathy, as a Parliament, to those who have been caught up in the latest outbreak and those whose relatives have died. They have the assurance, as I think Jackie Baillie indicated in her question, that we treat hospital-acquired infections with the utmost seriousness.

The dramatic reductions in a range of hospital-acquired infections are due in substantial part to the efforts that are being made. I know that, in the past, Jackie Baillie has suggested that Scotland is the epicentre of hospital-acquired infections. I also know that her comments were based on a 2006 survey. Given the improvements that have been made, I hope that she will accept that the clinical determination to tackle norovirus and the other hospital-acquired infections is amply demonstrated in the decline in those infections. We realise that we must do everything possible and strive to our utmost to tackle those infections because of the tragic consequences that they have for patients and, indeed, for hospital staff.

There are concerns in Aberdeen, the north-east and throughout the country about the recent ditching of a Super Puma helicopter. In light of the impact on employment in the oil and gas industry, what discussions has the Scottish Government had with the United Kingdom Government and its agencies regarding the grounding of the Bond Super Puma fleet?

First, I pay tribute to the pilots of the Bond helicopter that ditched last week for their excellent airmanship and quick thinking in the circumstances. [Applause.]

The decision to suspend operations of Bond’s Super Puma fleet was a matter for the operator, pending investigation into the cause of the incident. Both the air accident investigation branch and the helicopter manufacturer—Eurocopter—were quickly on the scene to investigate. In recognition of the importance of helicopter operations to the offshore industry, the AAIB disseminated the results of its initial investigation very quickly, which enabled Bond, in discussion with Eurocopter, to lift the flight suspension. The Scottish Government liaised at all times with Bond and the Department for Transport during that period, and I am satisfied that the correct action was taken in those difficult circumstances. I repeat my appreciation of the skill and human endeavour of the pilots concerned.

The First Minister will be aware of the BBC trust’s rubber-stamping of the BBC’s job-cutting exercise, delivering quality first, and of the grave concerns that have been expressed about the potential impact of those cuts in Scotland. Does he agree with the BBC audience council Scotland’s submission to the process, which expresses serious concerns about those proposals and believes that the implications for services in Scotland have not been fully explored? Does he believe that there is a basis for asking the BBC trust to review its decision?

Yes, I do. I share Sandra White’s concern, and obviously I have discussed the matter with the BBC at some length to recognise its position as the national broadcaster in Scotland. It is difficult to reconcile the budget provision for the BBC in Scotland with its obligation in terms of not just the generality of programmes, but current affairs coverage at a particularly important time in Scotland’s history. I hope that the BBC will reconsider, and I hope that there is a case to go to the BBC trust—I believe that there is—and that something of the damaging cuts can now be reversed.

---

Fostering Disabled Children

3. To ask the First Minister what action the Scottish Government is taking to provide support to families fostering disabled children. (S4F-00675)

It is important to recognise the role that foster carers play in caring for some of Scotland’s most vulnerable children. Their dedication and commitment to developing the lives of those young people is a massive undertaking.

The Government is committed to a reform of children’s services to ensure that every child gets the support that they need through embedding the principle of getting it right for every child in statute. We are committed to speeding up the change across public services and bringing forward legislation to put that into effect. Children with disabilities in foster care and other care settings will, of course, benefit in particular from the programme.

As the First Minister will be aware, this week’s Quarriers report provides depressing confirmation that children in Scotland with multiple disabilities and complex needs face the greatest obstacles in achieving a foster placement. Exhaustion and a lack of support were given as the main reasons for reluctance among three quarters of foster carers to take on a child with such complex needs.

Given those findings, what commitment can the First Minister give that targeted support will be available across the country to give foster carers the confidence that they can take on those more challenging roles? In particular, will he ensure that specific training and respite care are in place for foster parents across Scotland? If we accept that we are failing too many of our looked-after children, does he agree that the Quarriers report confirms that the failure with some of the most vulnerable children in our society is even more shameful?

We will examine with substantial care the Quarriers report and the YouGov survey for Quarriers. We are committed to promoting and reforming foster care to meet the increasing needs of children in care, especially those with additional support needs.

As Liam McArthur will know, the current financial support depends on the age profile of the child, but it also considers intensive needs and can range from £160 to £525 per week per child. Through the children and young people’s bill that is to be introduced, we will explore options to introduce a set minimum allowance for fostering. I am sure that Liam McArthur will contribute substantially to discussions on that. He can be assured that we are very aware of and concerned about some of the aspects highlighted by the YouGov survey for Quarriers.

---

Alcohol Minimum Pricing (Effects)

4. To ask the First Minister what the findings are of the latest research on the effects of minimum pricing of alcohol. (S4F-00673)

The Scottish Government announced on Monday that the minimum price would be 50p per unit, taking account of inflation levels since these matters were last discussed. Academic modelling from the University of Sheffield shows that that price will result in 60 fewer deaths, 1,600 fewer hospital admissions, 3,500 fewer crimes and 32,300 fewer days of absence from work per year.

Given the benefits to public health and the potential savings to the national health service, Labour’s continued opposition to minimum pricing is both opportunistic and flawed. Despite Labour, however, minimum pricing shall be delivered. Does the First Minister therefore agree that the planned independent review of the benefits of minimum pricing is crucial both to allow on-going parliamentary scrutiny in this place and to demonstrate to the wider public the significant health and social benefits that minimum pricing can deliver?

I agree. NHS Health Scotland will lead on a comprehensive evaluation of the impact of minimum pricing. Consumption and harm will be closely monitored over time, and any differential impacts between different groups of the population—or, indeed, any unintended consequences—will be identified and explored.

There is now a substantial majority in this chamber in favour of minimum pricing, and I welcome that cross-party support. Members on the Labour benches should perhaps be aware that that support extends not just across the chamber but beyond this country. For example, I noted that the Labour Party’s United Kingdom shadow health minister, Diane Abbott, in response to the news from Scotland, tweeted that she believes that Westminster should match the Scottish proposal. Scottish Labour is now in the truly remarkable position of being isolated on the policy, not just in this Parliament but in its own political party.

Can I say how delighted I am that the First Minister pays such attention to tweets from Diane Abbott? I look forward to that continuing.

The First Minister will be aware that we made it clear at stage 1 of the bill that Labour will support minimum unit pricing if the windfall to alcohol retailers is fully clawed back. The First Minister has the mechanism of the public health levy to do that, so why, at a time when his Government is cutting the alcohol treatment budget, will he not claw back the £125 million profit, rather than have it simply line the pockets of supermarket shareholders each and every year?

If on this issue Labour is motivated by concern for supermarket profits, why did it vote against the health levy affecting supermarkets? Jackie Baillie goes into one debate vitally concerned about the economic position of supermarkets and then turns up at First Minister’s question time to complain that they will get a windfall.

It perhaps depends on which debate Jackie Baillie is talking in or which Parliament the debate is in but, basically, is it not the case that the Labour Party’s opposition to minimum pricing boils down to the fact that it is a Scottish National Party proposal? Never mind the benefits to Scotland, the impact on health, the lives that will be saved or the beneficial effect on the national health service: it is an SNP proposal and therefore it must be wrong. I say to Jackie Baillie that, in all conscience, that sort of attitude should be condemned to the past. It is out of step with the people of Scotland.

I thank the Parliament for its welcome, although members might now not be too pleased at what they welcomed. I do not imagine that the First Minister had time when he was in Norway to ask the Norwegians how they manage their drink problem—they, too, like a drink. They come from the same sort of origin as we do and they have the same sort of history. Did he take the opportunity to discuss the possibility of Scotland becoming a member of the European Free Trade Association? Given our close relationship with Norway on energy, that seems a much better berth than the bill that would seek to absorb us in a common energy policy for the European Union.

I am afraid that that was very wide of the mark.

The range of discussions in Norway touched on many issues, including minimum pricing of alcohol.

---

Care Home Patients (Prescription Drugs)

5. Back to some reality. [Interruption.]

Order.

To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Government’s response is to the finding in the report by the Royal Pharmaceutical Society in Scotland that care home patients are being prescribed powerful drugs for long periods of time without proper checks. (S4F-00682)

I wonder whether Richard Simpson’s aside was a sign that he is not totally comfortable with the Labour Party’s stance on some health issues.

The Royal Pharmaceutical Society’s report, “Improving Pharmaceutical Care in Care Homes”, does not make the claim that Richard Simpson suggests that it makes. The report is a positive and welcome contribution to the future provision of care to the group of patients involved. The report’s main finding highlights that pharmacists, working as part of an integrated multidisciplinary team, can improve the quality and safety of care for people in care homes.

The review of pharmaceutical care for patients in the community in Scotland, which was announced in October last year, is as part of its work considering evidence about the pharmaceutical care service needs of residents in care homes and how best they should be met, with an emphasis on pharmacists’ clinical role in achieving service delivery.

I welcome the First Minister’s response and the group that is working on the issue. Is he aware of the research that was published in The British Journal of General Practice last month, which showed that, despite a welcome reduction in the prescribing of psychoactive drugs, residents in care homes are still 22 times more likely to be on antipsychotic medication? Is he also aware of the study that the General Medical Council commissioned on errors in general practice prescribing? Both those studies reinforce the Mental Welfare Commission for Scotland’s report of 2009 called “Remember, I’m still me”.

Why is the Government denying my constituents in care homes the right, when they have capacity, to register for long-term condition monitoring by community pharmacists? Will the First Minister ensure that residents who do not have capacity have contracts with pharmacists, as in Tayside, to ensure safer and more effective prescribing for that vulnerable group and to tackle the problem of excessive psychoactive treatments?

The issue is substantial and important. I was puzzled because Richard Simpson’s original question referred to a claim that the report made. As I am sure that he now realises, the report did not make that claim—it referred to the report “Remember, I’m still me” by the Mental Welfare Commission and the Scottish Commission for the Regulation of Care, to which he just referred.

My first answer was about looking at what is in the Royal Pharmaceutical Society’s report, because it makes a number of extremely positive suggestions to take forward the matter. Given Richard Simpson’s expertise in such issues, I will certainly look carefully at whether his contribution can be taken into account, in addition to the Royal Pharmaceutical Society’s report.

---

Scottish Government (Public Relations Services)

6. To ask the First Minister, in light of the Scottish Government’s recent decision to hire a public relations firm, what its position is on whether a mechanism should be established to ensure that such services are not used for party-political purposes. (S4F-00688)

I am afraid to disappoint John Lamont, but the Scottish Government is not hiring a PR company. I am desperately surprised that he has not managed to open his Scotsman to page 2 today, where he can read the apology, which says:

“we accept that the headline”

to the article

“did not accurately reflect the facts and fell short of our usual high standards. We apologise for the error and are happy to set the record straight.”

I am sure that John Lamont was about to say exactly the same thing.

I thank the First Minister for that very helpful response.

Given that the referendum on Scotland’s future is fast approaching, does the First Minister accept that mechanisms should be put in place across Government to ensure that what is being done is the job of government and not simply the promotion of the Scottish National Party’s separatist agenda?

That was a neat shimmy from the original question, was it not? I take it that John Lamont accepts that the premise of his original question was deeply mistaken and indeed total nonsense.

It gets worse, though, because when I had a look back to check when the services were first tendered, I found that that was not even under the Liberal-Labour Administration in Scotland but goes right back to the Scottish Office during the Conservative Administration. The idea that Michael Forsyth, that epitome of the middle way in politics, could possibly have led the Conservative Party in the direction of propaganda rather than information is something that I think that John Lamont and I agree is not possible.

Now that John Lamont knows that the report on which he based his question was totally mistaken, perhaps he will agree that the information that comes from this Government is information for the people of Scotland.