Engagements
To ask the First Minister what engagements she has planned for the rest of the day. (S4F-02396)
Later today, in my first official meeting as First Minister, I will meet a group of carers from around the country to discuss directly with them the issues that they face. It is fitting that that will be my first official engagement as First Minister. It will allow me to thank carers—on behalf of all of us, I am sure—for the massive contribution that they make and also to assure them that I want to provide them with as much support as I can.
Yesterday, the First Minister said:
“There is a big job to be done”—[Official Report, 19 November 2014; c 23.]
and that it was time to get on and do it. I could not agree more. Will the First Minister therefore tell members when the new system for allocating drugs to cancer patients will be available across Scotland?
As the member will be aware, the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing has been improving the system of allocating drugs, in particular cancer drugs. We want to continue that series of improvements.
I am very well aware from my experience as health secretary—I know that Jackie Baillie is aware of this from her experience as shadow health secretary—that some of the most difficult decisions that are made in the health service concern the allocation of drugs. I want to ensure that, within a budget that we all know is finite, we make those decisions in the best possible way.
Jackie Baillie will be aware of some of the reforms that Alex Neil has already introduced.
On my first day in the job—this does not just apply to this issue; it applies to every issue—I say that I am open minded on any proposals that come forward from any side of the chamber on how the Government can do things better. I hope that Jackie Baillie will take up that invitation in the spirit in which it is intended.
I certainly will take up that invitation and I very much welcome it, because the improvements that the First Minister is talking about should have happened by now.
In October last year, the health secretary announced a new and more flexible system to give cancer patients access to the treatments that they require based on clinical need, not on where they live. In January this year, he said that the new system would be introduced in May. May came and went. When the health secretary was questioned in July, he did not answer. Earlier this year, clinicians from the Beatson west of Scotland cancer centre came again to the Parliament and said that the postcode lottery system continues, despite the health secretary’s promises.
Can the First Minister tell cancer patients in Scotland why there has been the delay?
I do not accept the characterisation of delay and I want to deal with the issue as consensually as I possibly can. Although I absolutely respect Jackie Baillie’s good faith in asking me the question, I hope that she will respect my good faith in answering it. All of us across the chamber want people to get the best possible access to drugs and to all healthcare that can help them in time of need.
As Jackie Baillie will be aware, new Scottish Medicines Consortium rules have been in place for some time, but that is not a closed book. There are some very complex and challenging issues around the decision-making process for the allocation of drugs. The Government has not shied away from that, and we will not shy away from it. We will continue to make progress based on the discussions and the consideration that the health secretary has had. I will be very happy to meet clinicians and, indeed, representatives of cancer organisations and cancer patients so that we can include them in our consideration of how we go forward on the issue.
As Jackie Baillie will be aware, one of the reforms that was made previously was to allow more transparency around the whole process of SMC decision making. Although there will always be difficult decisions in this area and it will not be possible under any circumstances to have a position in which every single drug is always approved for use, I want to ensure that we have confidence in the decision-making process so that, even where decisions are taken that people are, for understandable reasons, disappointed by, people know that the decision-making process that underpins them is strong, robust and transparent.
I respect the good faith in which the First Minister approaches the matter, but the question that I asked was not about the SMC; it was about access via health boards. What she is saying is completely at odds with what cancer charities, clinicians and, more important, patients are saying is their real experience of the system now.
On that basis, let me highlight to the First Minister one case that was reported in the Evening Times last month: that of Jean MacDonald from Glasgow. Jean is a carer for her mother, who suffers from leukaemia. She was denied treatment for ovarian cancer in Glasgow, despite the fact that the same treatment was available to patients in Edinburgh. She and her family had to scrape together £35,000 of their own money to pay for cancer drugs. I am sure that the First Minister would agree with me that that just is not right.
Again, can she tell me when she will end the postcode lottery for cancer patients across Scotland, which her health secretary promised would happen by May?
I say to Jackie Baillie in all seriousness that I want us to work now to ensure that we do not have a postcode lottery not only in that aspect of healthcare, but in any aspect.
I am familiar with the case that she raises from the Evening Times. I would be happy to speak personally to the individual in question, not only to hear her experiences, which is the most important thing, but to share with her the work that the Government is doing and intends to do in the future to improve the situation.
Jackie Baillie and I had many discussions on this issue when I was health secretary and she was shadow health secretary. We have the SMC, and we are improving the process of decision making in that respect. We spoke about the situation that she raises with regard to local drugs committees and health boards and how we ensure that decision making is much more consistent across the country.
This is my first day in office. I could stand up here and, in response to any of the questions that I am asked, engage in the usual defensive ding-dong. I dare say that there will be weeks when I do exactly that, but—today of all days—I want to make something very clear. I am a new First Minister. I have been a proud member of the Government for seven years, but I want to come to this job with an open mind and a willingness to hear proposals from members on all sides of the chamber. The Government is working on the issue and will continue to do so, but I say it again: this is a complex issue. If any member in the chamber, not just on the front benches, has a proposal for how we can do these things better—
We have.
Richard Simpson says that he has. I would be happy to meet him personally to hear that proposal, because on this issue—possibly above all other issues—it is important that we do not divide along party lines. These are matters of life and death for many people.
I hope that members on all sides of the chamber, no matter the ding-dongs that we have on a range of issues in weeks to come, will take what I am saying in the clear spirit in which I say it.
I very much welcome the First Minister’s comments about how open she will be with Opposition parties in discussing such serious cases. The issue is about local decision making. I know that she understands that the debate is not theoretical but very real. However, the new system for cancer drugs was promised in May, and the delay in introducing it will be a lifetime to someone with a terminal illness.
Let me leave the First Minister with the thoughts of the partners of two cancer patients.
Jacqui Morrison, whose late husband met Alex Neil to discuss the issue, said:
“By delaying implementation of the new system the Government has broken its promise to patients like my late husband that they would have the ability to access medicines needed to manage their end of life care. How many more patients must suffer before fair and equal access to end of life treatments in Scotland comes into effect?”
Graeme Rankin said:
“Last November, Alex Neil made a promise to bowel cancer patients that the new system would be implemented by May this year. He gave me and my late wife personal assurance that this issue would be solved. I am hugely disappointed and frustrated that a year on, patients are still begging for treatment.”
I am happy to work with the First Minister, but I simply ask her this: when will this Government treat cancer patients in Scotland with the dignity and respect that we all believe they deserve?
I will not be provoked into a party-political dispute on the issue today, but Jackie Baillie’s last comment was slightly beneath her. I care—as we all do, regardless of our party politics or our divides on other issues—about ensuring that people who are affected by cancer get access to the treatment that is most likely to prolong or to save their lives. Let us all unite on that point.
I have the greatest respect for the quotes that Jackie Baillie has just read out, but I do not accept her characterisation of the Government’s performance and position on the issue. Without meaning to undermine any of those quotes, I ask all members of the chamber to reflect seriously on this, as I reflected on it a lot when I was health secretary, for five years.
As anybody who has held that post will know, I had to deal with some heart-wrenching issues, but access to drugs was probably the most heart-wrenching issue that I dealt with. We talk about losing sleep over issues and that one falls into that category. One of the reasons it is heart-wrenching is that you know not only that improvements need to be made to the processes—and I accept that improvements still need to be made to the processes that we have—but that, no matter how many improvements to the processes you make, you will always have some cases in which a patient entirely understandably thinks that they should have access to a drug that, for clinical reasons in particular, they cannot get access to. That is one of the most difficult things for a politician to comprehend.
Again I say to Jackie Baillie that I am not standing here saying that things are perfect, and I will work with members from across the chamber to improve matters. However, politicians have a duty to recognise how difficult some of the issues are and that there will always be difficult cases, no matter how good the processes are. If we can all go forward in that spirit, we can make further progress and I, as a new First Minister, am determined that we make it.
Secretary of State for Scotland (Meetings)
To ask the First Minister when she will next meet the Secretary of State for Scotland. (S4F-02394)
I had a pleasant conversation with the secretary of state last night on the telephone and, during that conversation, we agreed that we would meet in early course.
Earlier this month, a judge in Glasgow’s High Court found Ross Wright guilty of rape. In an incredibly brave move, the woman he had attacked—Erin O’Neill—decided to tell her story. She revealed how she discovered only after the court case had finished that Wright had been released early from prison following a previous violent assault. He had served only half his sentence. Erin told the Daily Record newspaper:
“Wright should have been behind bars. But he was allowed loose on the streets to rape me.”
Ross Wright was freed because of the absurd rule of automatic early release. We have been calling for that law to be scrapped for a number of years. The Scottish Government has now published plans to address that, but they will cover only a derisory number of cases. Does the First Minister not see that those plans are utterly inadequate?
First, I pay tribute to Erin O’Neill for her bravery in giving up her right to anonymity and speaking out on an extremely important issue. She has written to me personally. I will reply to her letter in full soon and would also be happy to meet her so that she can say to me directly what changes she considers should be made.
As Ruth Davidson rightly indicated, the Prisoners (Control of Release) (Scotland) Bill has now been introduced to the Parliament. It will end the entitlement to automatic early release for the most serious and dangerous offenders. We expect the Parliament to pass the bill—subject, of course, to the approval of members—by June next year.
I point out, as has been pointed out in the chamber before, that automatic early release was introduced by the Conservative Government through 1993 legislation and left in place throughout the entirety of the Labour-Liberal Democrat Administrations here in Holyrood. I certainly agree that the change needs to be made. Legislative proposals have been published. It is now the Parliament’s job to scrutinise those proposals and, if any member considers it appropriate, propose amendments.
Ruth Davidson has expressed an opinion that the sentence length that the Government’s proposals would cover is too long and, therefore, that the proposals are inadequate. We are about to go into a parliamentary process in which any member, including Ruth Davidson, will be able to advance those views and propose amendments to the bill.
The First Minister knows that I am on record as saying that the United Kingdom Government was wrong to introduce automatic early release and that the Scottish Government is wrong not to abolish it entirely.
I have the Scottish Government’s bill here. The plans that are contained in it barely scratch the surface of what we are talking about. In fact, new figures from the Scottish Parliament information centre show that, last year, the plans contained in the bill would have applied to just 107 sexual offenders and 24 other violent criminals. That adds up to 131 offenders out of a total of more than 14,000 criminals who were sent to jail last year, which is less than 1 per cent.
The Government has argued previously that ending automatic early release is a resource problem. This is not a resource issue: it is a moral issue. Criminals need to know that, unless there is an exceptional reason not to, they will serve the sentence that the judge hands down.
In her admirable speech yesterday, the First Minister said that, where there was common ground, she would be
“a willing and listening ally.”—[Official Report, 19 November 2014; c 36.]
Today, she said that she is open minded on how to make things better. If she thinks that there is common ground between us, can we work together to end this scandal for good?
I am very happy to seek to work with Ruth Davidson on the issue. We are in the position of being relatively at the start of a parliamentary process, so there is the opportunity through the normal procedures to discuss how the bill that has been introduced to Parliament by the Government can be improved. I give the commitment that I will work with members across the chamber and be open minded about that.
In August, Victim Support Scotland described the bill as an
“important advance which will go a long way to improving the public perception of justice in Scotland”.
There is considerable support for the bill’s proposals. However, that does not change the position that I am taking today of being open-minded on how we can go further if there is a willingness and ability to do that.
Ruth Davidson said that this was an issue of resources. Inevitably, most issues have an element of resource consideration around them. We need to make sure that we have the right number of prison places for the prisoners whom we need to accommodate in our prisons. That is a simple statement of fact.
I respect Ruth Davidson’s position on the issue and note the fact that she was not a member of the former Conservative Government at Westminster that introduced the policy. However, that Conservative Government did not build a single new Scottish prison during its 18 years in power. By contrast, since 2007-08, this Government has invested more than £528 million in the prison estate. We are taking the decisions that address what Ruth Davidson describes as the resource issues in our prison estate. That makes it more possible to introduce the reforms that she called for today.
We are going about this in the right way and in a reasonable way. We have published a bill, in which our proposals are focused on the most serious offenders and sexual offenders in particular. If Ruth Davidson has proposals to bring to me and the Government about how we can improve the content of that bill, I will be very happy to listen.
Will the First Minister provide reassurance that all the appropriate steps have been taken to ensure safety and wellbeing at Donaldson’s school, Scotland’s national school for the deaf?
That is an important and serious question. Last Friday, Education Scotland inspectors raised serious child protection concerns with ministers. Alasdair Allan, the Minister for Learning, Science and Scotland’s Languages, acted on the very same day by serving on Donaldson’s school a notice under section 66(c) of the Education (Scotland) Act 1980. That required immediate action by the school.
I can tell Parliament that Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Education remain in the school to ensure that all appropriate steps are being taken.
Members will appreciate that, given the seriousness of the allegations and the involvement of Police Scotland, I am limited in what more it would be appropriate to say at this time. However, I make clear that we as the Government will not hesitate to take any further action that is required to ensure that pupils at Donaldson’s school are kept absolutely safe.
Cabinet (Meetings)
In reflecting on this afternoon’s Parliament proceedings, I am tempted to get in touch with the 50:50 campaign.
To ask the First Minister what issues will be discussed at the next meeting of the Cabinet. (S4F-02395)
Willie Rennie could always join the campaign.
We will discuss matters of importance to the people of Scotland.
In the spirit of the approach that the First Minister has set for this afternoon, I encourage her to look early doors at issues around justice, such as the mishandling of corroboration, the routine arming of police and the stop and search of children, which are matters that I have raised week after week in the chamber. Everyone knows that Kenny MacAskill is going, but which of his policy failures are staying?
Well, well, well. In the interest of maintaining the remarkable spirit of consensus that I have managed to maintain for almost 20 minutes now—the strain!—I extend to Willie Rennie the same offer that I have extended to Jackie Baillie and Ruth Davidson. My door is open for sensible discussion on any policy that any member wants to discuss. I cannot promise that I will agree with him on everything, but where we can find common ground I am willing to try to find it. There is a lot that we can be very proud of in our justice system. I was in the Court of Session this morning—for entirely pleasant reasons, I hasten to add—in front of a full bench.
The Government has fulfilled its commitment to have 1,000 extra police officers. I still remember the days when members throughout the chamber cast doubt on whether the Scottish Government would be able to do that, but we have done it. Recorded crime in Scotland is at a 40-year low, down 35 per cent since 2006-07; the risk of being a victim of crime has fallen; the clear-up rate for crime is at the highest level in over 35 years; and violent crime is down by almost half since 2006-07. There is always more to do, but I think that the Government’s record on justice issues is a good and strong one.
I encourage the First Minister to look at some of the failures in the justice system, as that sounds like exactly the same answer that her predecessor gave. I would like her to explore the areas of weakness. If it is going to be a fresh start, what policies is she going to look at again? The incidence of stop and search is now seven times higher in Scotland than in the rest of Britain, with thousands of children being searched every week. The old First Minister told me that he was “comfortable” with stop and search. Is the new First Minister going to be any different?
Like Willie Rennie, I do not want to live in a country where stop and search is used inappropriately or excessively. I am proud of the approach that we take to policing in this country. I represent a constituency that has the highest ethnic minority population and the highest Muslim population in the country, and the approach that our police take to what, in other cities across the United Kingdom, might be difficult issues is absolutely exemplary. I want to ensure that it continues to be so.
We will continue to take the right approach on these things. People who are watching this will also want to live in a country where they are safer from crime and from being the victim of a knife attack or the victim of somebody who is drunk and disorderly in the street. It is, therefore, right that we have an approach to policing that keeps people safe, but it must also—I stress this point and hope that Willie Rennie agrees with it—protect the civil liberties and human rights that all of us should be determined to protect.
I am pretty sure—I may be proved wrong, but I am an optimist—that Willie Rennie and I will be able to find a lot of common ground on a lot of issues. As I occupy this post over the next weeks, months and, I hope, years, let us have a good old go at doing so.
Child Sexual Exploitation
To ask the First Minister what steps the Scottish Government is taking to address child sexual exploitation. (S4F-02404)
The safety and wellbeing of all children and young people are a key priority for the Scottish Government. We published Scotland’s national action plan on child sexual exploitation on 11 November, and it represents a comprehensive strategy for addressing a complex challenge. It builds on work that has been taking place across Scotland, combining examples of local best practice with national strategy, and it will help us to ensure that we are taking the necessary steps to put our commitment into action.
Does the First Minister agree with children’s charities in Scotland that every one of us in society has a duty to protect children who are at risk of, or who are already victims of, child sexual exploitation? The public inquiry in Rotherham found that vulnerable children were failed by the very people and agencies whose job it was to protect them. What more can the Scottish Government do to protect children from being drawn into exploitation, to support the victims to recover and to use the full rigour of the law to bring the perpetrators of such abuse to justice?
We all need to recognise that we all have a role to play in protecting children from sexual exploitation. That is why we have brought together action by Police Scotland, children’s charities, councils and the Scottish Government in the national action plan. However, we are going further than that. The action plan will also see an awareness campaign that extends not only to the agencies and professionals who are directly responsible but to the public, particularly those who work at night.
I stress that we all have a part to play. On behalf of the Government, I say that we want to ensure that everyone plays their part in tackling what is an abhorrent crime.
Road Safety
To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Government is doing to make roads safer for drivers, cyclists and pedestrians. (S4F-02402)
It was this Government that, in 2009, introduced Scotland’s first road safety framework. Through that framework, we are committed to working with our road safety partners to ensure a steady reduction in the number of those killed or seriously injured on Scotland’s roads between 2009 and 2020. The latest published figures show that that approach is working, with the lowest road casualties in Scotland since records began. However, as on many other issues, there is still much work to be done.
After a number of tragic accidents in the past few days, Brake, the road safety charity, has launched its look out for each other campaign. Its research highlighted that, in a survey of more than 5,000 primary school pupils, more than 60 per cent think that roads can be dangerous for walking and cycling and more than 40 per cent have been hit or nearly hit by a vehicle while on foot or bike. Will the First Minister support that campaign and consider the calls from Brake, Sustrans and the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health that the Scottish Government work with local authorities towards the establishment of a 20mph speed limit in all residential and built-up areas in order to reduce the number of fatalities?
I thank Mark Griffin for raising this important issue. I am happy to give my support to Brake and to the campaign that he talks about. I am also happy to ensure that ministers and I discuss with partners the proposal that he set out. This is an area in which there is much consensus. As I said earlier, it is important that all partners come together to reduce the number of tragedies that he, rightly, refers to.
What is the Scottish Government’s current view on the issue of stricter or presumed liability in relation to injuries to cyclists?
The Government ensures that we do everything that we can to protect the safety of all road users, particularly the most vulnerable road users, such as cyclists. As part of the refresh of the cycling action plan, Transport Scotland carried out a review to assess the impact of presumed liability in a number of European countries. It found no robust evidence to suggest that the introduction of presumed liability would improve the safety of cyclists, but we will continue to consider all options so that we can do as much as possible to reduce the number of these tragedies.
Nursery Provision
To ask the First Minister what action the Scottish Government will take to ensure that all children receive their full two years’ entitlement of nursery provision. (S4F-02397)
We have committed more than £300 million over this year and next to increase entitlement to 600 hours a year, which is around 16 hours a week for all three and four-year-olds, and we have now expanded that to our most disadvantaged two-year-olds. However, I want to go further. If this Government is re-elected in 2016, we intend, by the end of that session, to almost double childcare from 16 hours to 30 hours a week. We have a strong record in government and a strong vision for the future.
In light of the promise that social justice will, at all times, underpin the Scottish Government’s policy, will the First Minister tell the chamber whether she thinks that it is fair to deny the 50 per cent of children whose birthdays fall between 1 September and 29 February the full two-year nursery provision that is provided to those children whose birthdays fall between 1 March and 31 August?
First, I find it very heartening to be challenged on the social justice agenda by a Tory. Who says that Scotland has not changed—and changed for the better?
It is a challenge that I am very happy to accept. As Liz Smith will be aware, there is no statutory entitlement to two full years of funded early learning and childcare. The current statutory starting age for early learning and childcare is the first term after a child’s third birthday. Those with birthdays between March and August receive six terms of funded early learning and childcare; those with birthdays between September and December receive five; and those with birthdays in January and February receive four. That is the statutory position.
However, now that we are getting close to the end of this session of First Minister’s questions, I want to end it in the same way I started it. My commitment to extending childcare is real, genuine and strong. I think that this Government has an excellent record in extending childcare, but I want to go much further. We cannot go as far as we set out in the white paper because—unfortunately—we did not win a yes vote. However, I want us to go as far as we can. Just as I have asked people to come to me with proposals, I will end with an appeal to the chamber: support the Government on this. It is right for our young people and right for their parents, because it makes it easier for them to get out to work.
That ends First Minister’s questions.
Previous
General Question TimeNext
Child Poverty