:00:23. > :00:27.parliament here at Holyrood. A very dark shadow has been cast over
:00:27. > :00:34.political and public life by those terrible events in Woolwich, but as
:00:34. > :00:41.is proper and right, working day life continues. Today we will be
:00:41. > :00:44.discussing matters like the National trust. The main subject of this
:00:44. > :00:50.broadcaster's questions to the first minister so let's cross to the
:00:50. > :00:55.chamber. Alison Johnson is on her feet asking
:00:55. > :01:00.the government about efforts to improve rates of walking and cycling
:01:00. > :01:04.in Scotland. They have also been questions to ministers on
:01:04. > :01:09.corporation tax, waste incineration, flooding and five, diverse range of
:01:09. > :01:16.topics ahead of the main event of the week. Let's hear the final
:01:17. > :01:21.answer on walking and cycling. We will shortly produce a plan for
:01:21. > :01:26.Scotland. Not the definitive last word to achieve targets, but also to
:01:26. > :01:29.make sure we increase the number of people cycling, not just for
:01:30. > :01:33.recreation, but for commuting to work. We are committed to those
:01:33. > :01:41.things and I am pleased that my colleague was able to meet with
:01:41. > :01:48.demonstrators. We now move to first Minister 's questions. Question
:01:48. > :01:55.number one, Johann Lamont. To as the first Minister what engagements he
:01:55. > :01:58.has planned for the rest of the day. Can I say, the murder yesterday in
:01:58. > :02:03.London was one of extraordinary brutality and will be condemned by
:02:03. > :02:07.all people with any sense of humanity. We should remember that
:02:07. > :02:10.one of the purposes of terrorism is to divide communities. Our purpose
:02:10. > :02:16.should be to hold communities together and that is what we will
:02:16. > :02:20.continue to do. Can I agree fully with the first
:02:20. > :02:28.Minister. I believe he speaks for all in this chamber and across
:02:28. > :02:31.Scotland in the condemnation for these terrible actions. Last week I
:02:32. > :02:35.asked the first Minister about Maureen Fleming. Her immense dignity
:02:36. > :02:39.in challenging the unfair system of access in cancer drugs captured the
:02:39. > :02:45.attention of the people of Scotland. We know that Maureen met with the
:02:45. > :02:51.Health Secretary this morning. Can we presume that she is now getting
:02:51. > :02:55.the drugs she needs to prolong her life? That meeting certainly took
:02:55. > :03:01.place this morning. I met Mrs Fleming last week myself. I hope
:03:01. > :03:05.that out of that meeting, one of the fact this will lead us to get the
:03:05. > :03:10.best possible system of drug distribution in Scotland. It should
:03:10. > :03:14.be our aim and intention to have the best possible system of allocation
:03:14. > :03:20.of drugs and that is what we intend to do. I was delighted that Mrs
:03:20. > :03:24.Fleming was able to make the Health Secretary this morning. We share the
:03:24. > :03:27.first Minister's aim in the future of getting this right, but it is a
:03:27. > :03:32.business of addressing the problems that Mrs Fleming and others face
:03:32. > :03:37.right now. On Monday, the Health Secretary told a radio phone in
:03:37. > :03:42.programme that is, if the clinic -- clinicians thought she would benefit
:03:42. > :03:48.from it, she would get the drug. Well, Mrs Fleming's own clinician
:03:48. > :03:52.does believes she would benefit, which is why he prescribed it. So do
:03:52. > :03:56.many other clinicians consulting on Mrs Fleming 's case. Of course,
:03:56. > :04:00.those who have denied her the drug do not have the same degree of
:04:00. > :04:06.clinical expertise of their condition. The health committee was
:04:06. > :04:11.told this week that cost was a main issue. Since last week, we have been
:04:11. > :04:14.contacted by others in the same circumstances as Mrs Fleming. Whom
:04:14. > :04:24.should they believe? The doctors at the front trying to keep people
:04:24. > :04:25.
:04:25. > :04:28.alive or a government known for misleading the public? The Scottish
:04:28. > :04:33.medicines Consortium was introduced a number of years ago under a
:04:33. > :04:38.different administration in Scotland. That was chosen system of
:04:39. > :04:43.deciding which drugs be allocated and they very demanding formulas
:04:43. > :04:48.that need to be used in terms of how that is done. Individual patient's
:04:48. > :04:51.requests, which for people whose drugs have not been able to be
:04:51. > :04:55.allocated within that system, are judged not on economic grounds, they
:04:55. > :04:59.are judged on clinical grounds and it is a decision as to whether there
:04:59. > :05:06.is something particular about this patient makes it important that that
:05:06. > :05:10.drug is prescribed. The system is under review at present. We have had
:05:10. > :05:15.the report which has very substantial recommendations while
:05:15. > :05:19.accepting that the vast majority of opinion says that the system in
:05:19. > :05:23.Scotland is robust and effective. We also looking at individual patient
:05:23. > :05:29.request system in order to see if that can be improved. There has been
:05:29. > :05:32.evidence of a number of indications where improvement is necessary. It
:05:33. > :05:39.should be remembered, it is simply not the case that individual patient
:05:39. > :05:43.requests are not successful. Two thirds of requests that come forward
:05:43. > :05:47.are successful, but there are improvements being identified in the
:05:47. > :05:51.system. In particular, the evidence given at the health committee this
:05:51. > :05:55.week was very, very important. There is a consensus that we should not go
:05:55. > :06:02.down the road of cancer drugs friend. There was substantial
:06:02. > :06:05.evidence across a range of people and charities and they are -- have
:06:05. > :06:10.very substantial reasons for that being the case. That does not mean
:06:10. > :06:15.we cannot make improvements which is what the Health Secretary is
:06:15. > :06:19.determined to do. Can I just say, there can't be anyone in this
:06:19. > :06:22.chamber or this entire country who does not want the best possible
:06:22. > :06:27.system of drug allocation in Scotland. That is a joint interest
:06:27. > :06:31.for us all. I think it is important, the way in which the
:06:31. > :06:36.health committee is conducting business because that information
:06:36. > :06:42.will be important and vital in terms of getting a better system. I think
:06:42. > :06:45.the point we want to make is that the system is not working. If you
:06:45. > :06:51.have examples like Mrs Fleming, it is simply not working and we need to
:06:51. > :06:54.address that problem. We are seeking reassurance that these decisions are
:06:54. > :07:01.made on clinical grounds and not grounds of cost. The first Minister
:07:01. > :07:06.has said that Mrs Fleming has been refused because of clinical grounds.
:07:06. > :07:09.Let's look at this. Last week the first Minister told the chamber that
:07:09. > :07:13.Mrs Fleming could not get the medication because she had
:07:13. > :07:19.chemotherapy and Alex Neil has repeated this. Alec Neill told the
:07:19. > :07:23.BBC that they were -- that there were a number of conditions
:07:23. > :07:28.suggested by the drug company. One of those conditions is that anyone
:07:28. > :07:32.who has had chemotherapy will not get this drug. So why would a doctor
:07:32. > :07:39.prescribe it for her if she was precluded? Why would he appeal that
:07:39. > :07:47.decision? We contacted the drug company and they issued this
:07:47. > :07:52.statement this morning: The medication has been proven to be
:07:52. > :07:56.effective and is licensed for use in bowel cancer patients previously
:07:56. > :08:02.treated with chemotherapy and is widely used for such patients in
:08:02. > :08:10.England. So, whom should we believe? The clinicians who seek to
:08:10. > :08:18.prescribe the drug, the company that manufactures the drug or Alex Neill?
:08:18. > :08:21.Well, I think in that last bit, Johann Lamont put her finger on what
:08:21. > :08:26.is the real issue. I think the real issue is we should not be in a
:08:26. > :08:31.position where politicians describe which drugs are allocated. That is
:08:31. > :08:33.why we set up the system in the first place. That is why the
:08:33. > :08:43.individual patient requests are clinically determined. That is the
:08:43. > :08:45.
:08:45. > :08:50.point and purpose of the system. In terms of the licensing of drugs for
:08:50. > :08:55.disposal in the first place for prescription, the decision was in
:08:55. > :09:01.January 2010 and it made absolutely clear that ten companies requested
:09:01. > :09:07.that the SMP review the license specifically for patients who have
:09:07. > :09:13.not previously received chemotherapy for their disease. There is no doubt
:09:13. > :09:17.that was the basis from which the drug was submitted and improved --
:09:17. > :09:21.approved by the SMC. It is also the case that it can be available, these
:09:21. > :09:25.are the same guidelines used in England, it is also the case because
:09:25. > :09:31.there is a drug council funding in blend that you can get the drug
:09:31. > :09:37.through that. It is certainly not, even in these conditions, a license
:09:37. > :09:40.for everyone. It is for specific conditions. There is no guarantee
:09:40. > :09:44.that patients with this cancer type will receive the drug through the
:09:44. > :09:50.Cancer trust -- drug fund. There are serious questions about the fund
:09:50. > :09:56.which came in evidence that Johann Lamont must be aware of. There's a
:09:56. > :10:01.huge consensus that we should not go down that in Scotland. It is
:10:01. > :10:03.possible and relevant that we can make improvements in both the SMC
:10:03. > :10:08.system and individual patient request system and that is what we
:10:08. > :10:16.should certainly do in Scotland and find the best possible system of
:10:16. > :10:20.distribution of cancer and drugs for other serious diseases in Scotland.
:10:20. > :10:28.I absolutely do not dispute that it should not be for politicians to
:10:28. > :10:33.decide whether somebody gets a drug or not. These should be clinically
:10:33. > :10:36.decided. I don't think the first Minister listen to me. Clinicians in
:10:36. > :10:40.large number believe that Mrs Fleming is suitable. The drug
:10:40. > :10:46.company says that the drug is suitable. The only person now who is
:10:46. > :10:53.saying that somewhere there is a clinic or decision is the first
:10:53. > :10:56.Minister himself. His point that Mrs Fleming does not qualify because she
:10:56. > :11:03.had chemotherapy has been disputed and denied by clinicians who
:11:03. > :11:07.understand her case. Mrs Fleming's case was first raised eight months
:11:07. > :11:12.ago. Another letter was sent to Alex Neill six weeks ago, yet she only
:11:12. > :11:17.received a reply and offered a meeting after her case was raised in
:11:17. > :11:21.this chamber. People made a call to Ian Morrison who was refused
:11:21. > :11:26.treatment until his case was highlighted in this chamber. Now he
:11:26. > :11:32.is getting the medication he needs despite having had chemotherapy
:11:32. > :11:37.beforehand. Maisie Black needed a red drug, but it wasn't until she
:11:37. > :11:41.was on the front page of the daily record before a 20 million pounds
:11:41. > :11:47.fund for orphan drugs was established. We were called John
:11:47. > :11:51.McGarrity, ignored for eight hours. Once his experience made it into
:11:51. > :11:57.papers, then �50 million was conjured out of thin air to deal
:11:57. > :12:07.with a problem we were told initially did not exist. This is no
:12:07. > :12:09.
:12:09. > :12:19.way to run a health service. We all agree that the NHS should be free at
:12:19. > :12:20.
:12:20. > :12:29.the point of need, but isn't it the case for too many patients, it only
:12:29. > :12:33.becomes free at the point it embarrasses the first Minister?
:12:33. > :12:36.Because of the importance of this and because we are discussing
:12:36. > :12:42.individual patients and because of the nature of this discussion, I am
:12:42. > :12:47.not going to even begin to rise to that date because it is not the way
:12:47. > :12:51.these things should be discussed. Let me take Johann Lamont through
:12:51. > :12:55.the situation. The SMC license the drug because the request from the
:12:55. > :12:59.drugs company made the specific request that it was licensed on
:12:59. > :13:03.those conditions. That is whether chemotherapy aspect comes in. That
:13:03. > :13:07.is not the case for individual patient request because by
:13:07. > :13:12.definition it is to apply a drug to a particular patient for particular
:13:12. > :13:19.reasons, which are outside the licensing process. That is also part
:13:19. > :13:26.of the system. Johann Lamont takes a point that conditions in which the
:13:26. > :13:30.SMC license the drug were identical to the conditions that the system
:13:30. > :13:34.licensed it in England. That was the request that came forward. The
:13:34. > :13:38.individual patient request is based on clinical grounds and on specific
:13:38. > :13:41.characteristics of an individual patient, which is also clinically
:13:41. > :13:51.judged. Individual patient request and cancer drugs, two thirds of
:13:51. > :13:54.these requests are accepted. Nowhere in this process is there any
:13:54. > :13:58.intervention from the health secretary or the first Minister of
:13:58. > :14:01.Scotland or any other politicians. These are matters which are
:14:01. > :14:07.clinically determined. In terms of the orphan drugs fund, I think that
:14:07. > :14:11.Johann Lamont does herself no credit for not welcoming that announcement.
:14:11. > :14:15.If she would care to remember, that announcement was based on a clinical
:14:15. > :14:20.recommendation arising out of the review and therefore the Health
:14:20. > :14:25.Secretary acted to set up such a fund. The overwhelming body of
:14:25. > :14:31.evidence, and I can quote experts after expert, Professor David Webb,
:14:31. > :14:35.Eric low, Cancer research network, action support Scotland, all gave
:14:35. > :14:39.evidence to the health committee this week explaining in substantial
:14:39. > :14:45.detail why they did not believe a cancer drugs fund was the way that
:14:45. > :14:49.we should proceed in Scotland. A cancer drugs fund, which they say
:14:49. > :14:54.they believe is not going to be reviewed in England because of the
:14:54. > :14:59.faults and failures on that front. What we can do in Scotland is find a
:14:59. > :15:04.better system in terms of the SMC and take forward the recommendations
:15:04. > :15:09.of the review and I also believe we can find a better system for
:15:09. > :15:12.individual patient requests. I hope that as we get to that and,
:15:12. > :15:15.remembering the joint ownership that we have over the current system in
:15:15. > :15:22.Rutland, which was not devised by this government, it is one we
:15:22. > :15:26.inherited, but as we improve that system and are duty bound to
:15:26. > :15:30.represent our constituents, as people, all of us, human beings who
:15:31. > :15:38.care about the health of Scotland, I hope we will have the support from
:15:38. > :15:44.this chamber on a nonparty political basis.
:15:44. > :15:49.Question number two, Ruth Davidson. I would also like to associate
:15:49. > :15:55.myself with the comments regarding the death of a soldier yesterday.
:15:55. > :15:58.Our thoughts are with the family and playing our part to bring
:15:58. > :16:08.communities together. I would like to as the first Minister when he
:16:08. > :16:18.
:16:18. > :16:24.will next meet the Prime Minister. No plans in the near future. If, his
:16:24. > :16:28.little booklet had not caused enough confusion, rather frustrated first
:16:28. > :16:32.minister said after worried that the SNP was prepared for an independent
:16:32. > :16:38.Scotland to use sterling without a proper agreement, but to embark on
:16:38. > :16:42.the Brave New World by defaulting on its debts. Can the first Minister
:16:42. > :16:47.explain how an independent Scotland would pay its way is right from the
:16:47. > :16:57.start it would not have a legally supported currency or be able to
:16:57. > :17:04.
:17:04. > :17:08.borrow from anyone other than a with two words. Denis Healey. In
:17:08. > :17:13.addition to providing the Scottish people with a fascinating insight
:17:13. > :17:18.into the machinations of the London Treasury in the 1970s, in a little
:17:18. > :17:24.reported aspect of that tremendous interview in Holyrood magazine, he
:17:24. > :17:29.also added on Scotland keeping the pound, Scotland would gain, so with
:17:29. > :17:33.the rest of us. He does not see why Westminster could say the Scottish
:17:33. > :17:39.could not have it. I say to Ruth Davidson, rather than listening to
:17:40. > :17:45.the advice from the coalition in London, take the authentic words of
:17:45. > :17:50.Denis Healey who does not have to disguise them any more. He does not
:17:50. > :17:57.have to underestimate oil revenue any more. She can take her marching
:17:57. > :18:05.orders from a man who knows. I am glad the first Minister raises Denis
:18:05. > :18:12.Healey as the way forward, because to pay for his plans he would have
:18:12. > :18:20.to text everyone until the pips squeak. It would turn this country
:18:20. > :18:26.into a Central American-style basket case. It is no wonder that when he
:18:26. > :18:32.made his way to Denis Healey's plays he kept his finance secretary back
:18:32. > :18:38.at home instead of the reality check that we got from honest John's
:18:39. > :18:48.document, instead we got the first Minister standing up, telling us
:18:49. > :18:51.
:18:51. > :18:57.increasingly fantastic claims. Order! Miss Davidson, your questions
:18:57. > :19:01.are to the first Minister. The first Minister would not be able to borrow
:19:01. > :19:06.anything other than exorbitant rates under his plans. He would be
:19:06. > :19:10.spending money he did not have like water, and all the while he expects
:19:10. > :19:16.us to believe you would be squirrelling money away for a rainy
:19:16. > :19:26.day. He would either be printing money faster than Zimbabwe, or a
:19:26. > :19:30.taxing the people of Scotland up to their armpits. Can I ask the first
:19:30. > :19:36.Minister to show us exactly where, in his little booklet, it tells us
:19:36. > :19:43.how a country which would have instantly defaulted on its debt,
:19:43. > :19:53.have no control over its monetary policy, he would finance a 3% cut in
:19:53. > :19:53.
:19:54. > :19:57.corporation tax and an ever expanding welfare and benefit system
:19:57. > :20:01.can I just remind Ruth Davidson our position is that the responsible
:20:01. > :20:11.thing to do is take a share of the assets and liabilities of the United
:20:11. > :20:14.Kingdom. The responsible thing in this debate comes from her own
:20:14. > :20:21.party, it seems to suggest they live in a world where the UK can claim
:20:22. > :20:25.all the assets of the United Kingdom but share out the liabilities. The
:20:25. > :20:31.problems with that have been set up by a professor who says if you argue
:20:31. > :20:36.that, then of course there are some advantages. But one of the
:20:36. > :20:39.disadvantages is you end up with all of the liabilities issued in that
:20:39. > :20:45.state. Far better to stick to the responsible attitude would forward
:20:45. > :20:51.by the Scottish Government. I am going to ignore the ageist remark
:20:51. > :20:59.about Denis Healey, and turned to somebody much younger. Writing in
:20:59. > :21:04.the Scotsman newspaper today, he says, Albert Einstein defined
:21:04. > :21:07.insanity is doing the same thing over and over again. The Scottish
:21:07. > :21:14.Conservative and Unionist party have been slow to learn the truth of this
:21:14. > :21:19.observation from the great scientist. There are many more jams.
:21:19. > :21:23.He is not sure if the Conservative party is the right vehicle for
:21:23. > :21:27.centre-right politics in Scotland. With loyalties such as this in the
:21:27. > :21:33.back benches I am surprised Ruth Davidson even bothers to ask me a
:21:33. > :21:37.question. Could I ask the first Minister which issues will be
:21:37. > :21:43.discussed in the first meeting of the Cabinet? Issues of importance to
:21:44. > :21:48.the people of Scotland. Could I associate myself and my party with
:21:48. > :21:54.his remarks about the attack yesterday. It was sickening and can
:21:54. > :21:59.never be condoned. Can the first Minister tell me what discussions he
:21:59. > :22:06.has had with the Home Secretary, the chief constable in Scotland and the
:22:07. > :22:12.UK security services following last night's attack? Some steps have been
:22:12. > :22:16.taken around security with military installations. Can the first
:22:16. > :22:22.Minister tell the chamber what steps he has taken in response to last
:22:22. > :22:30.night's events? The justice secretary had a conversation with
:22:30. > :22:33.his counterpart in the UK Home Office this very morning and the
:22:34. > :22:37.Scottish police service yesterday implemented their contingency plan
:22:37. > :22:44.in these matters and are taking appropriate steps in Scotland I
:22:44. > :22:54.cannot spat -- I cannot specify, but these are very much part of the
:22:54. > :22:59.contingency planning. That is a very helpful answer, and I thank him for
:22:59. > :23:03.it. I am sure he will agree with me that it is important fear must not
:23:03. > :23:10.turn into hate in such circumstances. I will do all I can
:23:10. > :23:18.to work with him to keep peace within our communities. This is not
:23:18. > :23:23.the actions of Britain's would -- Britain's Muslim community. Can he
:23:23. > :23:27.report back to the parliament in due course, once we have considered the
:23:27. > :23:30.consequences of this attack for Scotland, and report back to the
:23:30. > :23:38.parliament so we can have an opportunity to reflect and explore
:23:38. > :23:42.what we should do? I thank Willie Rennie for his question. Just as
:23:42. > :23:45.this chamber unites in our condolences to the family of the
:23:45. > :23:51.murdered member of the Armed Forces and in our condemnation of the
:23:52. > :24:01.attack, we also unite in terms of a response across Scotland's diverse
:24:01. > :24:05.communities. We have had challenges in the -- in the past. One of the
:24:05. > :24:10.most splendid things coming out of that evil attack was the response of
:24:10. > :24:15.Scotland's communities. People bound together to make it absolutely clear
:24:15. > :24:23.that we would not allow acts of terrorism to divide our communities
:24:23. > :24:29.in Scotland. I think one of the things that enable that to be the
:24:29. > :24:33.case in Scotland is the ability of this chamber to speak with one voice
:24:33. > :24:37.in our condemnation of the attack, and in our determination to make
:24:37. > :24:44.sure such acts of terrorism do not divide the communities of Scotland.
:24:44. > :24:50.I thank him very much for the way in which he has asked his question.
:24:50. > :24:53.What assessment has the Scottish Government made by the claims of the
:24:53. > :24:58.Treasury analysis paper about Scotland's inability to provide
:24:59. > :25:05.protection for savers and pensions? The former managing director of
:25:05. > :25:10.direct line has said there is a huge credibility gap between claims made
:25:10. > :25:14.in this report and how financial services operate in the real world.
:25:14. > :25:21.An independent Scotland would be an attractive place for savers,
:25:21. > :25:28.pensioners and financial services. Our financial services come for 8.3%
:25:28. > :25:36.of our GDP. The simple fact is that like every other independent nation
:25:36. > :25:41.in Europe we fulfil all our requirements and obligations.
:25:41. > :25:47.Despite the no campaign's desperate efforts to suggest otherwise,
:25:48. > :25:52.Scotland will be no difference from the rest of Europe. The first
:25:52. > :25:56.Minister will know the Treasury is acting as an integral part of the no
:25:56. > :26:00.campaign. How concerned is he the Treasury will deceive the Scottish
:26:00. > :26:08.people regarding Scotland's oil wealth the way they did in the
:26:08. > :26:13.1970s? Does he agree that whether it is scaremongering over an
:26:13. > :26:21.independent Scotland's place in the world, pensions or currency, it is
:26:21. > :26:25.clear you cannot trust a single word at the no campaign says. I think
:26:25. > :26:30.Denis Healey's interview deserves a second mention at first Minister's
:26:30. > :26:36.questions. I do hope that every single member of this chamber and
:26:36. > :26:41.people outside Read this incredibly revealing interview. I thought so
:26:41. > :26:45.much of it was substantial and very important. The admission the
:26:45. > :26:49.Treasury deliberately underplayed the significance of oil in the 1970s
:26:49. > :26:55.to stop the advance of the SNP. Surely they are prepared to do that
:26:55. > :26:59.again in 2013 where life is much more sophisticated and the black
:26:59. > :27:04.arts of Treasury politics much more pronounced. Of all these great
:27:04. > :27:09.quotations, I thought the best one was that we would suffer enormously
:27:09. > :27:14.if the income from Scottish oil topped. If the Scots want
:27:14. > :27:19.independence, they should have it. I think Scotland could survive
:27:19. > :27:27.perfectly well economically if it was independent. So says Denis
:27:27. > :27:31.Healey, so says all of us. To ask the first Minister what action the
:27:31. > :27:37.Scottish Government is taking to ensure its grounds are awarded only
:27:37. > :27:42.to companies that pay correct levels of tax? Our job as a Scottish
:27:42. > :27:45.Government is to attract jobs and investment to Scotland. We are doing
:27:46. > :27:50.it successfully given that in the last five years we have been first
:27:50. > :27:53.or second in the league table of inward investment. The job of the
:27:53. > :27:57.United Kingdom Government is to collect corporation tax which they
:27:58. > :28:05.seem to be incapable of doing, whether it is the present Government
:28:05. > :28:09.or the past Labour Government. unclear from that answer whether the
:28:09. > :28:13.first Minister is actually defending awarding more than �10 million of
:28:13. > :28:18.our taxpayers money to a successful, multinational, like
:28:18. > :28:23.armour is on, given its unwillingness to pay corporation tax
:28:23. > :28:29.in this country. -- Muslim. Of the first Minister think it is credible
:28:29. > :28:36.to talk about a socially just Scotland, when handing out millions
:28:36. > :28:46.of pounds of Government grants to companies who avoid tax and do not
:28:46. > :28:48.
:28:48. > :28:58.recognise workers rights. Mackintosh stood reflect that, von
:28:58. > :29:08.
:29:08. > :29:11.work awarded by the former Labour minister in Scotland. -- Amazon.