23/05/2013 Politics Scotland

parliament here at Holyrood. A very dark shadow has been cast over

political and public life by those terrible events in Woolwich, but as

is proper and right, working day life continues. Today we will be

discussing matters like the National trust. The main subject of this

broadcaster's questions to the first minister so let's cross to the

chamber. Alison Johnson is on her feet asking

the government about efforts to improve rates of walking and cycling

in Scotland. They have also been questions to ministers on

corporation tax, waste incineration, flooding and five, diverse range of

topics ahead of the main event of the week. Let's hear the final

answer on walking and cycling. We will shortly produce a plan for

Scotland. Not the definitive last word to achieve targets, but also to

make sure we increase the number of people cycling, not just for

recreation, but for commuting to work. We are committed to those

things and I am pleased that my colleague was able to meet with

demonstrators. We now move to first Minister 's questions. Question

number one, Johann Lamont. To as the first Minister what engagements he

has planned for the rest of the day. Can I say, the murder yesterday in

London was one of extraordinary brutality and will be condemned by

all people with any sense of humanity. We should remember that

one of the purposes of terrorism is to divide communities. Our purpose

should be to hold communities together and that is what we will

continue to do. Can I agree fully with the first

Minister. I believe he speaks for all in this chamber and across

Scotland in the condemnation for these terrible actions. Last week I

asked the first Minister about Maureen Fleming. Her immense dignity

in challenging the unfair system of access in cancer drugs captured the

attention of the people of Scotland. We know that Maureen met with the

Health Secretary this morning. Can we presume that she is now getting

the drugs she needs to prolong her life? That meeting certainly took

place this morning. I met Mrs Fleming last week myself. I hope

that out of that meeting, one of the fact this will lead us to get the

best possible system of drug distribution in Scotland. It should

be our aim and intention to have the best possible system of allocation

of drugs and that is what we intend to do. I was delighted that Mrs

Fleming was able to make the Health Secretary this morning. We share the

first Minister's aim in the future of getting this right, but it is a

business of addressing the problems that Mrs Fleming and others face

right now. On Monday, the Health Secretary told a radio phone in

programme that is, if the clinic -- clinicians thought she would benefit

from it, she would get the drug. Well, Mrs Fleming's own clinician

does believes she would benefit, which is why he prescribed it. So do

many other clinicians consulting on Mrs Fleming 's case. Of course,

those who have denied her the drug do not have the same degree of

clinical expertise of their condition. The health committee was

told this week that cost was a main issue. Since last week, we have been

contacted by others in the same circumstances as Mrs Fleming. Whom

should they believe? The doctors at the front trying to keep people

alive or a government known for misleading the public? The Scottish

medicines Consortium was introduced a number of years ago under a

different administration in Scotland. That was chosen system of

deciding which drugs be allocated and they very demanding formulas

that need to be used in terms of how that is done. Individual patient's

requests, which for people whose drugs have not been able to be

allocated within that system, are judged not on economic grounds, they

are judged on clinical grounds and it is a decision as to whether there

is something particular about this patient makes it important that that

drug is prescribed. The system is under review at present. We have had

the report which has very substantial recommendations while

accepting that the vast majority of opinion says that the system in

Scotland is robust and effective. We also looking at individual patient

request system in order to see if that can be improved. There has been

evidence of a number of indications where improvement is necessary. It

should be remembered, it is simply not the case that individual patient

requests are not successful. Two thirds of requests that come forward

are successful, but there are improvements being identified in the

system. In particular, the evidence given at the health committee this

week was very, very important. There is a consensus that we should not go

down the road of cancer drugs friend. There was substantial

evidence across a range of people and charities and they are -- have

very substantial reasons for that being the case. That does not mean

we cannot make improvements which is what the Health Secretary is

determined to do. Can I just say, there can't be anyone in this

chamber or this entire country who does not want the best possible

system of drug allocation in Scotland. That is a joint interest

for us all. I think it is important, the way in which the

health committee is conducting business because that information

will be important and vital in terms of getting a better system. I think

the point we want to make is that the system is not working. If you

have examples like Mrs Fleming, it is simply not working and we need to

address that problem. We are seeking reassurance that these decisions are

made on clinical grounds and not grounds of cost. The first Minister

has said that Mrs Fleming has been refused because of clinical grounds.

Let's look at this. Last week the first Minister told the chamber that

Mrs Fleming could not get the medication because she had

chemotherapy and Alex Neil has repeated this. Alec Neill told the

BBC that they were -- that there were a number of conditions

suggested by the drug company. One of those conditions is that anyone

who has had chemotherapy will not get this drug. So why would a doctor

prescribe it for her if she was precluded? Why would he appeal that

decision? We contacted the drug company and they issued this

statement this morning: The medication has been proven to be

effective and is licensed for use in bowel cancer patients previously

treated with chemotherapy and is widely used for such patients in

England. So, whom should we believe? The clinicians who seek to

prescribe the drug, the company that manufactures the drug or Alex Neill?

Well, I think in that last bit, Johann Lamont put her finger on what

is the real issue. I think the real issue is we should not be in a

position where politicians describe which drugs are allocated. That is

why we set up the system in the first place. That is why the

individual patient requests are clinically determined. That is the

point and purpose of the system. In terms of the licensing of drugs for

disposal in the first place for prescription, the decision was in

January 2010 and it made absolutely clear that ten companies requested

that the SMP review the license specifically for patients who have

not previously received chemotherapy for their disease. There is no doubt

that was the basis from which the drug was submitted and improved --

approved by the SMC. It is also the case that it can be available, these

are the same guidelines used in England, it is also the case because

there is a drug council funding in blend that you can get the drug

through that. It is certainly not, even in these conditions, a license

for everyone. It is for specific conditions. There is no guarantee

that patients with this cancer type will receive the drug through the

Cancer trust -- drug fund. There are serious questions about the fund

which came in evidence that Johann Lamont must be aware of. There's a

huge consensus that we should not go down that in Scotland. It is

possible and relevant that we can make improvements in both the SMC

system and individual patient request system and that is what we

should certainly do in Scotland and find the best possible system of

distribution of cancer and drugs for other serious diseases in Scotland.

I absolutely do not dispute that it should not be for politicians to

decide whether somebody gets a drug or not. These should be clinically

decided. I don't think the first Minister listen to me. Clinicians in

large number believe that Mrs Fleming is suitable. The drug

company says that the drug is suitable. The only person now who is

saying that somewhere there is a clinic or decision is the first

Minister himself. His point that Mrs Fleming does not qualify because she

had chemotherapy has been disputed and denied by clinicians who

understand her case. Mrs Fleming's case was first raised eight months

ago. Another letter was sent to Alex Neill six weeks ago, yet she only

received a reply and offered a meeting after her case was raised in

this chamber. People made a call to Ian Morrison who was refused

treatment until his case was highlighted in this chamber. Now he

is getting the medication he needs despite having had chemotherapy

beforehand. Maisie Black needed a red drug, but it wasn't until she

was on the front page of the daily record before a 20 million pounds

fund for orphan drugs was established. We were called John

McGarrity, ignored for eight hours. Once his experience made it into

papers, then �50 million was conjured out of thin air to deal

with a problem we were told initially did not exist. This is no

way to run a health service. We all agree that the NHS should be free at

the point of need, but isn't it the case for too many patients, it only

becomes free at the point it embarrasses the first Minister?

Because of the importance of this and because we are discussing

individual patients and because of the nature of this discussion, I am

not going to even begin to rise to that date because it is not the way

these things should be discussed. Let me take Johann Lamont through

the situation. The SMC license the drug because the request from the

drugs company made the specific request that it was licensed on

those conditions. That is whether chemotherapy aspect comes in. That

is not the case for individual patient request because by

definition it is to apply a drug to a particular patient for particular

reasons, which are outside the licensing process. That is also part

of the system. Johann Lamont takes a point that conditions in which the

SMC license the drug were identical to the conditions that the system

licensed it in England. That was the request that came forward. The

individual patient request is based on clinical grounds and on specific

characteristics of an individual patient, which is also clinically

judged. Individual patient request and cancer drugs, two thirds of

these requests are accepted. Nowhere in this process is there any

intervention from the health secretary or the first Minister of

Scotland or any other politicians. These are matters which are

clinically determined. In terms of the orphan drugs fund, I think that

Johann Lamont does herself no credit for not welcoming that announcement.

If she would care to remember, that announcement was based on a clinical

recommendation arising out of the review and therefore the Health

Secretary acted to set up such a fund. The overwhelming body of

evidence, and I can quote experts after expert, Professor David Webb,

Eric low, Cancer research network, action support Scotland, all gave

evidence to the health committee this week explaining in substantial

detail why they did not believe a cancer drugs fund was the way that

we should proceed in Scotland. A cancer drugs fund, which they say

they believe is not going to be reviewed in England because of the

faults and failures on that front. What we can do in Scotland is find a

better system in terms of the SMC and take forward the recommendations

of the review and I also believe we can find a better system for

individual patient requests. I hope that as we get to that and,

remembering the joint ownership that we have over the current system in

Rutland, which was not devised by this government, it is one we

inherited, but as we improve that system and are duty bound to

represent our constituents, as people, all of us, human beings who

care about the health of Scotland, I hope we will have the support from

this chamber on a nonparty political basis.

Question number two, Ruth Davidson. I would also like to associate

myself with the comments regarding the death of a soldier yesterday.

Our thoughts are with the family and playing our part to bring

communities together. I would like to as the first Minister when he

will next meet the Prime Minister. No plans in the near future. If, his

little booklet had not caused enough confusion, rather frustrated first

minister said after worried that the SNP was prepared for an independent

Scotland to use sterling without a proper agreement, but to embark on

the Brave New World by defaulting on its debts. Can the first Minister

explain how an independent Scotland would pay its way is right from the

start it would not have a legally supported currency or be able to

borrow from anyone other than a with two words. Denis Healey. In

addition to providing the Scottish people with a fascinating insight

into the machinations of the London Treasury in the 1970s, in a little

reported aspect of that tremendous interview in Holyrood magazine, he

also added on Scotland keeping the pound, Scotland would gain, so with

the rest of us. He does not see why Westminster could say the Scottish

could not have it. I say to Ruth Davidson, rather than listening to

the advice from the coalition in London, take the authentic words of

Denis Healey who does not have to disguise them any more. He does not

have to underestimate oil revenue any more. She can take her marching

orders from a man who knows. I am glad the first Minister raises Denis

Healey as the way forward, because to pay for his plans he would have

to text everyone until the pips squeak. It would turn this country

into a Central American-style basket case. It is no wonder that when he

made his way to Denis Healey's plays he kept his finance secretary back

at home instead of the reality check that we got from honest John's

document, instead we got the first Minister standing up, telling us

increasingly fantastic claims. Order! Miss Davidson, your questions

are to the first Minister. The first Minister would not be able to borrow

anything other than exorbitant rates under his plans. He would be

spending money he did not have like water, and all the while he expects

us to believe you would be squirrelling money away for a rainy

day. He would either be printing money faster than Zimbabwe, or a

taxing the people of Scotland up to their armpits. Can I ask the first

Minister to show us exactly where, in his little booklet, it tells us

how a country which would have instantly defaulted on its debt,

have no control over its monetary policy, he would finance a 3% cut in

corporation tax and an ever expanding welfare and benefit system

can I just remind Ruth Davidson our position is that the responsible

thing to do is take a share of the assets and liabilities of the United

Kingdom. The responsible thing in this debate comes from her own

party, it seems to suggest they live in a world where the UK can claim

all the assets of the United Kingdom but share out the liabilities. The

problems with that have been set up by a professor who says if you argue

that, then of course there are some advantages. But one of the

disadvantages is you end up with all of the liabilities issued in that

state. Far better to stick to the responsible attitude would forward

by the Scottish Government. I am going to ignore the ageist remark

about Denis Healey, and turned to somebody much younger. Writing in

the Scotsman newspaper today, he says, Albert Einstein defined

insanity is doing the same thing over and over again. The Scottish

Conservative and Unionist party have been slow to learn the truth of this

observation from the great scientist. There are many more jams.

He is not sure if the Conservative party is the right vehicle for

centre-right politics in Scotland. With loyalties such as this in the

back benches I am surprised Ruth Davidson even bothers to ask me a

question. Could I ask the first Minister which issues will be

discussed in the first meeting of the Cabinet? Issues of importance to

the people of Scotland. Could I associate myself and my party with

his remarks about the attack yesterday. It was sickening and can

never be condoned. Can the first Minister tell me what discussions he

has had with the Home Secretary, the chief constable in Scotland and the

UK security services following last night's attack? Some steps have been

taken around security with military installations. Can the first

Minister tell the chamber what steps he has taken in response to last

night's events? The justice secretary had a conversation with

his counterpart in the UK Home Office this very morning and the

Scottish police service yesterday implemented their contingency plan

in these matters and are taking appropriate steps in Scotland I

cannot spat -- I cannot specify, but these are very much part of the

contingency planning. That is a very helpful answer, and I thank him for

it. I am sure he will agree with me that it is important fear must not

turn into hate in such circumstances. I will do all I can

to work with him to keep peace within our communities. This is not

the actions of Britain's would -- Britain's Muslim community. Can he

report back to the parliament in due course, once we have considered the

consequences of this attack for Scotland, and report back to the

parliament so we can have an opportunity to reflect and explore

what we should do? I thank Willie Rennie for his question. Just as

this chamber unites in our condolences to the family of the

murdered member of the Armed Forces and in our condemnation of the

attack, we also unite in terms of a response across Scotland's diverse

communities. We have had challenges in the -- in the past. One of the

most splendid things coming out of that evil attack was the response of

Scotland's communities. People bound together to make it absolutely clear

that we would not allow acts of terrorism to divide our communities

in Scotland. I think one of the things that enable that to be the

case in Scotland is the ability of this chamber to speak with one voice

in our condemnation of the attack, and in our determination to make

sure such acts of terrorism do not divide the communities of Scotland.

I thank him very much for the way in which he has asked his question.

What assessment has the Scottish Government made by the claims of the

Treasury analysis paper about Scotland's inability to provide

protection for savers and pensions? The former managing director of

direct line has said there is a huge credibility gap between claims made

in this report and how financial services operate in the real world.

An independent Scotland would be an attractive place for savers,

pensioners and financial services. Our financial services come for 8.3%

of our GDP. The simple fact is that like every other independent nation

in Europe we fulfil all our requirements and obligations.

Despite the no campaign's desperate efforts to suggest otherwise,

Scotland will be no difference from the rest of Europe. The first

Minister will know the Treasury is acting as an integral part of the no

campaign. How concerned is he the Treasury will deceive the Scottish

people regarding Scotland's oil wealth the way they did in the

1970s? Does he agree that whether it is scaremongering over an

independent Scotland's place in the world, pensions or currency, it is

clear you cannot trust a single word at the no campaign says. I think

Denis Healey's interview deserves a second mention at first Minister's

questions. I do hope that every single member of this chamber and

people outside Read this incredibly revealing interview. I thought so

much of it was substantial and very important. The admission the

Treasury deliberately underplayed the significance of oil in the 1970s

to stop the advance of the SNP. Surely they are prepared to do that

again in 2013 where life is much more sophisticated and the black

arts of Treasury politics much more pronounced. Of all these great

quotations, I thought the best one was that we would suffer enormously

if the income from Scottish oil topped. If the Scots want

independence, they should have it. I think Scotland could survive

perfectly well economically if it was independent. So says Denis

Healey, so says all of us. To ask the first Minister what action the

Scottish Government is taking to ensure its grounds are awarded only

to companies that pay correct levels of tax? Our job as a Scottish

Government is to attract jobs and investment to Scotland. We are doing

it successfully given that in the last five years we have been first

or second in the league table of inward investment. The job of the

United Kingdom Government is to collect corporation tax which they

seem to be incapable of doing, whether it is the present Government

or the past Labour Government. unclear from that answer whether the

first Minister is actually defending awarding more than �10 million of

our taxpayers money to a successful, multinational, like

armour is on, given its unwillingness to pay corporation tax

in this country. -- Muslim. Of the first Minister think it is credible

to talk about a socially just Scotland, when handing out millions

of pounds of Government grants to companies who avoid tax and do not

recognise workers rights. Mackintosh stood reflect that, von

work awarded by the former Labour minister in Scotland. -- Amazon.