iawn, labour and skills in Japan, ddwynger add ymwyafwyd, oherwydd gyda'r tunnwau Jumpy yn ei gymryd yng nghymru. Diolch yn fyw,�r Fwrdd Minister. Diolch yn fyw, Johann Lamont. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer! To ask the First Minister what engagement she has planned for the rest of the day. First Minister, if your permission members will be interested in know that figures released today reveal that as of 10 March over 98,016 17 year olds have registered a vote in the independence referendum. That has some 80% of all 16 and 17 year olds and they are still 4 months to go before the registration deadline. Jo Ann Lamont. Thank you very much for that information, of course I think that we should all reflect today and all those young people who not only have a vote but are currently sitting gwasanaeth ac yn gyfweliadau'r dyfodol. Fy rydyn ni'n gwneud i amlwgau Llanwyr Pwyddon yn gallu bod cymdeilio'r hômsectiolau yn cael ei gwaith i ddechrau cysylltu a'r arbytrau arweinyddol a'r proses cymdeilio'r cyfweliadau cymdeilio'r dylunio'r cymdeilio'r ddyntiau cymdeilio'r cymdeilio'r cymdeilio'r ond mae'r First Minister yw'r adnoriadau i'r Pwysigol. Will the First Minister now withdraw his ill-judged comments and apologise to the people of Scotland and the people of Ukraine? No, but I'll explain what my comments were. The first thing I said was that I didn't approve of a range of Russian actions by which I meant not just their attitude to Ukraine, but also their attitude to human rights, particularly towards homosexuals. I said also that I believed that he'd been underestimated by the Western press. I think that that's pretty obvious now. I did express my admiration for certain aspects by which I had in mind the restoration of Russian pride because I was speaking in the aftermath of the Sochi Olympics. Indeed, I was speaking during the Para Olympics. Why I believe our attitude to this is reasonable and consistent is that, on 9 January, the external affairs secretary met the Russian consul general to express our opposition to Russian policies and homosexuality. On 13 March, we expressed again to the consul general our concern about Russian attitude to Ukraine. On 26 March, we drew the invitation to the consular core dinner, an action that was widely reported, and we said that we have taken this step following the Russian Federation's illegal and illegitimate referendum in the Crimea and the steps that are subsequently taken to annex the territory. The Scottish Government and my position on those aspects have been consistent throughout. Strangely enough, I was searching today to find what Johann Lamont had said about the situation in Ukraine. I couldn't find a single comment, not just from Johann Lamont but from any of the opposition leaders this year. On the explanation of the serious attitude that we have taken to the serious subjects, I think that that is a reasonable perspective that reflects the views of the people of Scotland. Johann Lamont? I think that no matter how hard the First Minister googles, he will not find me expressing any admiration for Vladimir Putin. On the question of Sochi, I think that the protesters beating with horse whips at Sochi might have a different view of the success of the Sochi Olympics. The First Minister says that his position is reasonable and consistent, but, to Amnesty International and others, it is something different. Michael Ostapko, who leads Scotland's Ukrainian population, has expressed that community's hurt, disgust, betrayal and astonishment at the First Minister's comments. He said in a letter to the First Minister and I quote, "...we cannot see any good in Putin's actions, and we fail to see how he can be so effusive in admiration towards this despotic and criminally-run nation whose own citizens are cowed into submission, not admiration by arrests, assassination and rabid nationalism. Will the First Minister now withdraw his support of Vladimir Putin and apologise?" Just to be absolutely clear, when I expressed the restoration of Russian pride, I was referring to the Paralympics, we expressed our opposition to the attitude to homosexuality prior to the Olympics, but on a range of indications in organisational terms, the Olympics were widely regarded as a substantial success in terms of their organisation. I have a range of quotes here that indicate that. When I said that I did not approve of a range of Russian actions, I was reflecting a serious view put forward by the Scottish Government on a consistent basis. That has been done since I gave that interview. That view has also been put forward to the Ukrainian authorities in several meetings on a consistent basis. If we have done that, and I have explained the opposition that I have to a range of Russian actions and said how we have done that consistently, is that not a reasonable position to adopt? And why is it that only now, Johann Lamont has anything whatsoever to say about human rights in Russia or the situation of Ukraine, only now does the Labour Party in Scotland decide that this is something worth raising? The position that we have put forward is consistent, it is balanced, it shows that we do not approve of Russian actions that make comments that are reasonable in the circumstances and we back that up by the action that we have taken. I do not think that any of the opposition parties in this Parliament can have any indication that they have expressed any concern in public that I can find. Well, if Johann Lamont can point to a quotation where she was interested in this topic before today, then I will be delighted to acknowledge that she expressed such a quotation. I have pointed to the Scottish Government actions over a consistent period of time, I think that it is reasonable to find out if the Labour Party in this Parliament had any similar record of action or concern. I am a proud member of Amnesty International and I support what they have said on this question, and all of the human rights abuses that they have identified across the world. What the First Minister does not seem to understand is that all of the things that his Scottish Government has said on this question are completely undermined by an assertion that the Sochi Olympics and what Putin has done there is worthy of any admiration whatsoever. Putin has annexed Crimea. Putin says that acts such as annexed Crimea have restored Russian pride. Alex Salmond has praised Putin for restoring Russian pride. Does the First Minister, even at this stage, not see his comments where at best ill-judged and must be withdrawn? What on earth does he admire so much about Putin? Well, if the First Minister bullies and threatens Scottish newspapers because he doesn't like their cartoons, maybe we can see what he admires about Putin. Even at this stage, will Alex Salmond now apologise for praising Vladimir Putin? First Minister, I will state again the first thing I said in the interview that I did not approve of a range of Russian actions and I have indicated how we have communicated that to the consul general and publicised it and indeed drawn the contrast on many occasions that I have done between the legitimate democratic process of a referendum in Scotland and the lack of constitutionality and the lack of process in the referendums arranged in the Crimea. I think that that is a reasonable thing to do backed up by action. There are reasons to doubt Johann Lamont's and the other parties' bona fideas on this. I have seen the letter. I have seen the letter. It is not just the absence of any comment but I have actually seen the letter to the Association of Ukrainians in Great Britain Scotland signed by the three Better Together leaders. Nowhere in that letter is there any reference to Better Together's leading donor that is the £500,000 donation from Ian Taylor, the boss of VTOL. Is Johann Lamont aware that VTOL is engaged in a business relationship with Ross Neft, including a loan of £10 billion, whose boss, Igor Seche, is on the banned list from the American Government? Will Johann Lamont think about apologising to the people of the Corkain for that association? And, furthermore, will there be any consideration to returning the Better Together donation of £500,000 to Mr Taylor? Johann Lamont? Only in the SNP could that be regarded as an appropriate answer to a serious question. The reputation of the people of Scotland is damaged by the performance of that First Minister. The First Minister, he would not meet the Dalai Lama but he praises Rupert Murdo. He praises Nigel Farage and praises an ex-KGB officer accused of abusing his own citizens' human rights, all in the one interview, and then slags off Barack Obama. Alex Salmond criticised Obama for not doing enough but then said of Vladimir Putin and I quote, he is more effective than most and you can see why he carries support in Russia. He said, he admires certain aspects of Putin's character. He said he's restored a substantial part of Russian pride and that must be a good thing, regardless of the price that people in Russia have paid for that restoration. If, as is evident now, the First Minister won't withdraw those remarks and apologise, will he now tell us and the people of Scotland and people across the world precisely what aspects of Vladimir Putin does he so admire? I did that in answer to the first three questions but can I just point out for the record that there's a series of misquitations that Johann Lamont engaged in. To take one example, what I said was that he was more effective than the press he gets and that has been confirmed by the magazine. What I have in mind is that the western press has consistently underestimated President Putin and I think that that would be pretty obvious from the events of the last few weeks. I've said and let me say again that I don't approve of Russian actions across a range of issues. Consistently this Government has set out what these issues are despite the silence from all of the opposition parties on these issues. The Association of Ukrainians in Great Britain President, Zenchol Azagsky, has written, saying and looking at Sir George Robertson's call last month for Russia to be admitted to NATO. We cannot comment on his reasoning but it's extremely bizarre while insulting to the Ukrainian nation. I say to Johann Lamont that in that letter, where I am sure she's going to explain why better-together's biggest donor has business links with people on the banned list by the American Government, she'll be apologising for the insult caused by her party colleague Lord George Robertson. I think that the serious issues are as follows. We have deprecated Russian actions and attitude towards Ukraine. We have spelled out and said that we don't support Russian's attitude to human rights or, indeed, to homosexuality. We have done these things consistently throughout this year. We didn't want to alight on the issue as part of a combined better-together political opportunity. We said these things before, during and after the interview with the National Party, which is why we have substantially more credibility than the opposition parties in this chamber and why we will continue to say them without fear and without favour. Question 2, Ruth Davidson. Thank you, Presiding Officer, to ask the First Minister when he will next meet the Secretary of State for Scotland. No plans near future. Ruth Davidson. Presiding Officer, the First Minister has said that he wants us to put his comments into context, so let's do that. On the same day that the First Minister sat down with Alasdair Campbell, 10,000 Russian troops were massing on the Ukrainian border. Ukraine's Prime Minister said that Russia was demonstrating, and I quote, military aggression that had no reason and no grounds. Two days earlier, President Obama pledged to stand with Ukraine. Twenty-four hours after that, the German Chancellor Angela Merkel attacked Russian actions, warning that territorial integrity of Ukraine cannot be called into question. Then, on 14 March, the UK's foreign secretary, William Hague, called on the international community to take a united stand together to defend the territorial integrity of another nation. That is the day that Alex Salmond used to praise Vladimir Putin, an act that he is still defending in this chamber today. The First Minister says that he wasn't wrong, but can he see why so many other people think that he was? I'll be writing to the Association of Ukrainians in Great Britain under Scottish Brands explaining the full range of the Scottish Government's action on the matter, making it clear that I'll, through the meetings both with the Russian consul general, Ukrainian representatives and the public statements that I and others have made, which have been substantially reported, have made our attitude towards the Russian attitude to Ukraine absolutely clear, as well as expressing our concern with human rights in Russia. As indeed I did in terms of deprecating a range of Russian actions in the interview that she cites. Not only have I been unable to find any comment from Johann Lamont on this issue, I have been unable to find any comment from Ruth Davidson on this issue. So Ruth Davidson also should have some understanding that when the Scottish Government has a substantial record of consistent comment on exactly these matters over the last few months, that stands in stark comparison with opposition parties that had nothing to say on this issue until they sense a political opportunity. Let me repeat for the record, we deprecate Russian actions in Ukraine. We are concerned for human rights, not just in Russia, but all over the planet. We have said these things consistently and we shall continue to do so. Ruth Davidson? I think that a substantial number of the people of Scotland would have preferred that there was an absence of comment from the First Minister in admiration of Vladimir Putin. Presiding Officer, this is a question of judgment. The First Minister says that he backs our key British alliances across the world. He has shifted his tack to support NATO. He says that he wants to show our closest allies in Europe and the US that he will stand alongside them. Yet at the same time, we see a leader who continues to make poorly timed, badly judged interventions on foreign affairs. The First Minister was wrong about Kosovo, and he is wrong about Putin. We know what Amnesty International thinks. We know what the Ukrainian people in Scotland think. We know what other world leaders think. How can we trust the First Minister to represent Scotland on the global stage when he so consistently gets it wrong? That really was on the knob of the issue facing the people of Ukraine. Let's express again our concern for Russian actions in Ukraine, our concern for the Ukrainian people, our concern for human rights in Russia and the substance of the issue. However, I am interested in when Vladimir Putin suddenly became persona non grata with the Conservative administration. Cameron's plea to Putin helped me to stop Sammond. It was the interview from earlier this year that was repeated in this Parliament last month at the committee where a Scottish official from the Scotland office confirmed that they had discussed that report in a meeting where he was briefing the Russian Government. Now, of course, perhaps he was just asking for information. He was doing things in a totally balanced way, but Ruth Davidson will understand why, if in January you were appealing for Vladimir Putin's support, it comes ill to come to this chamber and tell us that you should condemn them throughout. To ask the First Minister what issues will be discussed at the next meeting of the cabinet. The next meeting of the cabinet will discuss issues of great importance to the people of Scotland. The First Minister is not a homophobe, nor does he support the Syrian regime. However, he must realise that, if he praises people who do, he diminishes himself. He mentioned Sochi. The Prime Minister and leaders of the western world spoke for us all when they boycotted Sochi because of Putin. However, the First Minister praises Putin because of Sochi. Considering the international storm, is he still adamant that he did the right thing? There is a range of acceptance from people internationally, including the American Ambassador, including the Canadian Olympic President, that the Sochi Olympics were well organised and helped to restore pride in terms of the people of Russia. Generally, the IOC praised the excellent Sochi 2014 Games. Over across a range of international opinion, that was accepted. Why does not the Liberal Democrat leader accept that there is concern across this Parliament for the issue of human rights, that the Scottish Government's record on human rights internationally has been described as exemplary, that we have worked with the Scottish Human Rights Commission on a wide range of civil society organisations to produce the first ever national action plan for human rights in Scotland, as well as recognising our responsibilities internationally? It would be wonderful if, just occasionally, Willie Rennie would accept that other people, apart from the Liberal Democrats, have expressed a consistent concern for human rights in our country and, indeed, across the planet. He said that his remarks were balanced. Moscow did not think so. President Putin lapped up the praise. I do not get why the First Minister spokesman thinks earlier this week that it is okay to praise President Putin back in March. Putin has not just started persecuting gay people, restricting free speech, threatening to cut off Europe's gas supplies, backing the Syrian regime and invading his neighbours. He has been doing it for years, and it is not the first time for the First Minister, either. It is cow-towing to the Chinese over the Dalai Lama on Kosovo and now on Russia. The First Minister wants us to stand tall in the world, but does he just look small? Where will I start with Willie Rennie? Willie Rennie has not arddur. Willie Rennie, like his two colleagues in Better Together, who have not mentioned any of them, the £500,000 donation from the man who has business links with people on the banned American list. Apart from that, Willie Rennie has never acknowledged and actually claimed, I think, that he had not raised human rights with the Chinese leadership. Could you please explain, then, the BBC report? That is me and that is the Chinese leadership, and the headline is, Salmond Raises China's Human Rights. I think that I have got a track record of raising human rights with countries across the world without fear or favour. In contrast, Willie Rennie, rather like his two colleagues, also had said nothing about this issue that I can find on record until today. It was, of course, his own party colleague when the Scotland office official was about to divulge to this Parliament's committee exactly what the briefing at the Russian embassy was about earlier this year. It was the Secretary of State for Scotland who interrupted him and said that that information could not be disclosed. No doubt there are limits to the liberal Democrats' wish for freedom of expression and freedom of information, but when it comes to denying this Parliament's committee's information about what exactly was going to be brief to the Russian embassy, I think that at some point Willie Rennie might accept that he and his party have associations of which they should not be proud, and he and his party calling in aid, Vladimir Putin earlier this year looked a bit ridiculous, condemning him now when they have said nothing up until this moment. Question 4, Christina McKelvie. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. To ask the First Minister what recent contact he has had with the UK Government regarding an independent Scotland's membership of the European Union. First Minister. Well, as is well known, the United Kingdom Government has repeatedly refused to jointly approach European Commission with the precise legal scenario on Scottish independence. I made a point in correspondence with the Foreign Secretary on Sunday. He wrote me a letter and I replied that day. Hopefully, that new intimate communication between ourselves and the UK Government will result in the UK Government changing its mind and jointly going to the European Commission with the precise legal scenario so that we can take these matters forward. Christina McKelvie. Can I thank the First Minister for that answer and note how well attended his speech at the College of Europe was this week, demonstrating the huge interests across, certainly what I am seeing from the Committee of Europe, in the debate over Scotland's constitutional future. Can the First Minister outline what considerations has been given to the consequences of Scotland not being in the European Union, particularly for our friends and neighbours elsewhere in the EU? First Minister. Well, in contrast to the better-together parties in this Parliament, there is a wide appreciation across Europe of Scotland's contribution to the European Union. We may be 1 per cent of the population of the European Union, but we are 60 per cent of the oil resource, 25 per cent of the renewable energy potential and 20 per cent of the fishing stocks of the European Union. So this country may have 1 per cent of the population but has a substantial role to play in Europe, something that is appreciated by our friends and colleagues across the continent, sadly not in the better-together alliance. Thank you, Presiding Officer. The First Minister's trip to Bruges, which Ms McKelvie has just referred to, has borne fruit somewhat earlier than he might have expected in that he now has advice that his Government is perfectly entitled to implement a living wage through public sector contracts. So will he now instruct his members to back Scottish Labour's amendments to the procurement bill and acknowledge that the way is now clear to allow him to finally do the right thing for Scotland's workers? It's a bit wide of the mark, but, First Minister. Well, let's just remember that it's this Government who introduced the living wage across the public sector in Scotland. The spokesperson for this, presumably, is the legal opinion that the member is citing. In the Scotsman, they were not preventing it, but it was possible that it could be challenged by companies at a later stage. That, of course, is exactly the issue that the European Commission has suggested that the posting of workers directive in correspondence with the Scottish Government makes it incompatible for us to set a living wage higher than that. I shall cite the correspondence that does that from the European Commission and put it in the record of this Parliament and will contrast it with the quote of the Scotsman, which said that it might be open to challenge by companies at a later stage. This Government has introduced the living wage across the Scottish public sector, something that the Labour Party omitted or forgot to do. We are proud of that. This Government is introducing the procurement legislation to encourage the living wage across Scottish society. This Government is pressing the European Commission to make it unambiguous that the living wage can be part of the contract, so that councils such as Glasgow Council don't have to answer FOIs and admit that they share the same opinion as the Scottish Government as regards the European Commission. Can we not join together and say that the Europe, if it is to be meaningful to the workers across the continent, should have a social purpose and that the living wage is a grand example exactly of that progress? To ask the First Minister following the publication of the Martin Hall investigation how the Scottish Government plans to support parents and families affected. I know the thoughts of all of us with the families affected who have not only suffered the loss of a child but the additional trauma that the Martin Hall report highlights. That experience for families has been going on for decades. No one should ever have to experience this pain, and we are determined that no one shall ever will again. That is why the outcome of Lord Barnaby's infinite cremation commission, whose findings along with those of Dame Angelini will lead to a new burial and cremation legislation. It is order to stop these terrible events happening again in the future as a priority of this Parliament, but we must care for those who are affected in the here and now. We provided additional funding last year to assist the two counselling organisations who have done such sterling work in being closely involved with the parents affected by the issue. Today, I can announce that we are making available an additional £100,000 for counselling services for the families affected. As Scottish Government officials are ready by gun discussions with the two counselling organisations to take this forward. I assure Kezia Dugdale that the Scottish Government will implement the recommendations of Ailish Angelini's report as regards the Government. Edinburgh Council has also made a similar commitment and we will take forward Lord Barnaby's infinite cremation commission and its recommendations into legislation at the earliest possible moment so that those events never fall any family in Scotland again. I thank the First Minister for that answer and welcome the additional funds. I know that the services that Sands and Simba offer parents are very important and make a real difference. When you or I lose someone close to us, we have countless memories to call on, photographs and possessions. Parents who lose a baby have only those brief moments and that is why the ashes matter so much. Parents at Mortonhall wanted the truth. Thanks to Ailish Angelini's report, many now know with certainty that they will never know where their baby's ashes are. Will the First Minister promise parents beyond Mortonhall, those in Aberdeen, Falkirk and Glasgow and beyond, that his Government will do everything in its power to access the same truth, no matter how hard it is to accept? Yes, I can give that commitment and I think that Kezia Dugdale is absolutely right that in this issue there are a number of key priorities. One is to find out exactly why, over a period of many decades, the processes at Mortonhall and perhaps elsewhere were allowed to exist and continue in the way that they did. Secondly, and I should say to the chamber that the Lord Advocate has referred Ailish Angelini's report to the Police for Further Investigation. First, we have got to allow that investigation of any possible criminality to properly take its course. Thirdly, and perhaps most importantly of all when she refers to it, having met a number of the parents, and I know the ministers and our opposition members have as well. One of the key priorities is to try and satisfy as far as it is possible, and Ailish Angelini's report does indicate that in some cases it will never be possible, that every possible investigation has been made into every individual case. That is, I can assure the member, absolutely predominant in the Scottish Government's consideration of how we proceed from here. I am aware that a number of other members wish to ask questions on this very important issue, but there is a statement this afternoon, and you will have ample opportunity to ask whatever questions you wish to, and I will ensure that sufficient time is there that all of the issues in the report get a fair hearing. To ask the First Minister what discussions the Scottish Government is having with the Scottish Qualifications Agency regarding the future funding of the curriculum for elections. I am sure, as we have heard already in this session, that the whole chamber wishes luck to all of the young people taking the exams this year, not least those who are sitting in the higher English exams, as I speak, and the advanced higher English this very afternoon. In recent years we have seen some excellent exam results. I am sure that pupils' dedication and hard work and that of their teachers will once again pay off. The Scottish Government is in regular discussion with all partners, including the SQA, on the implementation of the curriculum for excellence. I add my good wishes to the pupils. The Herald newspaper reported earlier this week that a recent board meeting of SQA there were warnings issued that the current position of financial deficit is likely to continue for the foreseeable future because of the increasing costs of implementing the curriculum for excellence and the related support for teachers. Teachers whose representatives told the Parliament recently that, when it comes to the new higher and the new advanced higher, some of the preparations have barely begun. What is the revised estimate for the full cost of implementing curriculum for excellence, including for the new higher and the new advanced higher? I have a range of calculations following that report that show the income and expenditure balance of the Scottish Qualification Authority, which I am prepared to make available to the member. I point out that, each year, the Scottish Government works closely with the SQA to ensure that it reaches a balanced budget position. Obviously, the obligations of implementation of the curriculum for excellence are part of that budget consideration. I am sure that that is being done and will be done. I will provide the range of figures that will give the detailed answer to our question. That ends First Minister's question. We now move to members' business. Members who leave the chamber should do so quickly and quietly. Would guests leave the gallery? Please note that the Parliament is still in session and I ask you to do so quietly, please. The next item of business today is a members' business debate on motion number 9251 in the name of George Adam on MS week 2014. Treat me right. This debate will be concluded without any questions being put and I would be grateful for those members who wish to speak in the debate. I could press the request to speak buttons as soon as possible. I call on George Adam to open the debate. Seven minutes please, Mr Adam. Could we please have silence in the gallery? Thank you, Presiding Officer. Probably the noise in the gallery may be my own family. They are just getting over excited at the thought of me debating here today. My own connection with MSI, as most of you know, is through my wife Stacy. As you can see in the gallery, she is up there. Obviously, it is almost like Romeo and Juliet at the moment with her there in the balcony. Yes, we are just that romantic with one another, but Stacy was diagnosed at 16 and it was a life-changing experience for her because no one knew about MS, GPs, the consultants, everything was quite difficult. Her family instantly went into a panic, didn't understand what it was, her father actually just thought, oh, now we know what MS is. It was only when her mother explained to Tom that the life-changing aspect of it that he just broke down and understood. Stacy went on to university and obviously eventually met the love of her life, and things got a lot better. Stacy is very positive about her MS and how she goes on. As are just about everybody I know with multiple sclerosis, I do not think that I have met one individual with MS who actually sits there and complains or moans about the situation that they are in. They want to be part of everything and get on with stuff. I will apologise to some of my MSP colleagues that Stacy has been the MS badge police for the past week, where she has made sure that just about everyone has had to wear the MS Society badge. In fact, Rebecca Duff from the MS Society Scotland said, I am just glad that she is on the other side because she would not like to be on the other side, but that is how passionate she is about making sure that we get the message out there because there are people who believe that sometimes MS is not as high up the agenda as it should be. Here we are in year 3 of Stacy's annual MS Awareness week debate. We have been talking to many of the people at the event last night who families are dealing with MS, and we have also been talking to our own family who have come here. They almost treat this as a busmans holiday when they come down here to see this. My mother-in-law has always got this thing where she says, if someone stops me in Paisley High Street about incert said subject, I would say this. That normally means that I have to listen at this stage as she is trying to influence my opinion on various things that are happening in the world. She said a few of those things when we were discussing it. That is part of the problem with families when they are dealing with MS. It is the shock, the feeling alone, the ignorance of knowing what MS is. I think that things have changed quite a bit and things are moving forward, but that is still an issue for a lot of families as well. Since last year, things have moved forward quite a bit with us creating the cross-party group on multiple sclerosis. My vice-convenor Lewis MacDonald is here as well. We have created an agenda that we have focused on what we can achieve just to make sure that we have a work programme that can deliver something to ensure that we are not just sitting here talking about or moaning effectively every quarter about things not happening. That has been because of the MS Society, the partner organisations and some of the people involved in MS getting involved with the Government, with the Parliament and wanting to make a difference. That is the big difference for us. One of the things that Neil Findlay said to me yesterday, and it is quite an important part, is that many families of MSPs have MS, and I think that that is an example of a representation of what we are dealing with here in Scotland. One of the meetings that we had with the CPG, the first meeting, we actually started to talk about the big issue that became access to medicines. That is a big, big issue at the moment. The situation that we have is that we need the pharmaceutical companies, the Scottish Government and partner organisations and the NHS to work together to deliver access. Last year's report that the MS Society did was a lottery in treatment of care. I mentioned that only 36 per cent of people living in Scotland have access to medicines that alter the course of MS, and 29 per cent said that they did not have enough information about the medicines. That brings me to the people and families that are dealing with it on a regular basis. The MS Society in Scotland decided that it would go out and gather some evidence to find out exactly what their membership in people in Scotland were doing with regard to MS, and they went to Inverness, Airdrie, Edinburgh, Hamilton, Aberdeenshire and Dunfermline. It spoke to people—the big issue again was access to drugs, being able to actually get the drugs that they need. There was one woman who said, I have been on—excuse my pronunciation—to Sabri for five years, and it has made a huge difference to me. Although the treatment clinic that I go to is quite a distance away, I see my MS specialist regularly, but that is partly because of the treatment that I am on, and there may be side effects. Another woman said that when planning my life and business, I do not need to worry about fridges for my syringes, because now I am on gelinia, which is a tablet that she just takes on her handbag now. She is getting access to dedicated staff, but she worries about other individuals as well, whether they have that same access. I will mention a wee wifey from Paisley, who I have spoken to in the high street, Rosemary Thompson—Stacey's mum, incidentally—and she said that she believes that more support to the person with MS is important at an early stage, more access to MS professionals and that GPs are being better informed, because it is one of the issues that we constantly hear from people with MS that GPs do not have the full information. Some of the support that is available through the therapy centres that MS revive in Glasgow offer the best type of support, where a lot of the time it is just listening and talking to people, giving them the opportunity to maybe give them the further information. However, we have been quite lucky as well. Stacey had a problem with her mobility, and she only got physiotherapy after she had a fall. Then she taught her after 20 years of having MS how to walk with crutches. After 20 years, Stacey now knows how to walk with a crutch. Those are all things that should be happening at an earlier stage. We heard last night from Elizabeth quickly how she really wants to see things move forward with the access to drugs in particular, but it is a two-way street. We have to have the drugs companies making the applications to the SMC to ensure that we can actually get the drugs as well, because Vampire has had a licence to 2012 and Statevex has had a licence to 2011, but they have not done anything with it at this stage, and we have to make sure that those drugs are available. Last week at the CPG, Stacey said, it is like someone saying to you, there is the keys of a new designer house, or there is a new designer house, and not giving you the keys. You can just look at it for five or ten years, it cannot make that difference in your life. She also said at one point that it is evil not giving us the access to those drugs. I think that that is important because one of the other things that we often talk about as well is the fact that MS in Scotland, we have more per head per population than anyone else. It is a very Scottish disease. We say that there are 11,000 people dealing with MS in Scotland, but the problem is that we do not know for sure. I would ask the cabinet secretary if he would possibly look at increasing the reporting for the Scottish MS register that was launched in 2010. Currently, it only registers people who are newly diagnosed with multiple sclerosis. I think that we need to expand that to ensure that we get people who have everybody in throughout Scotland who has MS, because only then can we prescribe and treat people with MS when we know exactly where they are, exactly how many people there are, and that gives everyone the opportunity to do that. By starting to do all the things that I said here today, I think that only then can we start to treat people with MS, right? Many thanks. Speeches of four minutes please. I would be grateful if members could stick to their time because the debate is heavily subscribed. Neil Findlay, to be followed by Bob Doris. Thanks, Presiding Officer, and I apologise for having to leave after my contribution. I would like to thank George Adam for putting down his motion for debate and for his work in getting the cross-party group and MS established and the MS Society for the very proactive work programme that they have put in place for that group. I do not want to go over the grim Scottish statistics on MS as this has been covered time and again when we debate this issue, as we do annually. I want to focus on the impact of illness and on the reality for sufferers. One of the things that concerns me most about the treatment of MS in Scotland is the unequal access to treatment. Only 36 per cent of sufferers with access to drugs that all are the course of MS. 25 per cent are unable to see a neurologist when they need it. Six out of 10 eligible people are not taking disease-modifying drugs. Many are struggling financially with care costs. Only a quarter in work, many like my brother having recently had to stop work as he physically could not continue with it. Unequal access to specialist nurses to emotional support, physiotherapy and continence advisers. Last night, I spoke to the only MS social worker in Scotland, Dwayne Robertson, who works in Dundee. Of course, surprise, surprise, the poorest and most disadvantaged, suffering most and denied access to the services. I had to watch recently a friend of mine who, for several months, experienced and excruciating nerve pain that attacked his face, his mouth and his tongue impacting on his ability to speak, destroying his quality of life, causing him to become housebound, lose weight and affect his social life. All the time he found himself left to his own devices with very little support and not wanting to ask for any. I also had to deal with a constituent with severe mobility problems. He required a home visit from his dentist to carry out denture repair, yet no appointment could be made for a whole month. Think about how that made him feel. I hear of other areas where people have direct access to specialist nurses, phone numbers so that they can contact someone directly for advice and support at any time, and access to other services to help them to manage their condition. Last night, this week, the AMS Society highlighted the further inequality that there is in access to medicines for licensing drugs. The Scottish Government often compares Scotland with other countries, but in that area we would not be so keen to make that comparison, 25th out of 27 in Europe, with almost half the rate of access compared to Northern Ireland. For people who are diagnosed, they are supposed to see a specialist once every 12 months as a minimum. For many, that is still a very significant issue. When they do see a specialist, the information on treatment or new developments, as Elizabeth Quigley eloquently said last night, becomes a big secret. In my own area, we have an ability centre in Livingston that has the Crabus Service, a community rehabilitation and brain injury service. It provides community-based specialist assessment and rehabilitation for people over the age of 16 who have either a physical disability or an acquired brain injury, and they include MS in their work. They provide help with daily living, mobility, communication, emotional support, social activity and all the rest of it. Despite that being available locally in my community, GPs still do not refer people to it. Why is that? Why is something as simple as a referral to the support services not being made? My brother has never been referred to that service. The person I spoke about who had the excruciating nerve pain never been referred to that service. The minister made some very positive statements last night, and they were very welcome. Let's hope that those words result in action, but I think that from all in the MS cross-party group, I'm sure that we will be saying, Minister, we will be watching. Many thanks, and I now call on Bob Doris to be followed by Jackson Carlaw. Can I start by thanking George Adam for bringing this member's debate before us this afternoon? I hope that I should make a brief contribution. My connection with MS is not a family member. I'm lucky that it's not a family member because so many people that I've met over the years have had a family member who have had to not just suffer with MS but find a way of living positively with MS as well. I think that that's really important. I want to talk about an organisation in my constituency called Revive MS, which George Adam referred to. I visited it because it was down the road from my house and lots of my constituents worked there, so as an MSP, as you do, you go along. I was absolutely blown away with what they do there. The first thing that they told me is, look, Bob, we're not here just to talk about what's wrong with people.  We're there to make sure whether they want aromatherapy or a massage or access to an MS specialist or whatever. It's a holistic approach to those living with MS and those who have relatives living with MS. What they do is quite spectacular. They do a series of outreach services across the west of Scotland. The cabinet secretary will have written to him recently about Revive MS because such is their success without growing their Mary Hill base. They're looking to co-locate beside the southern general hospital. They're hoping to invest and buy a property there, and they've started their launch fundraising dinner, where they're hoping to raise £850,000 to enable them to do that. I know my colleague George Adam has already written to John Swinney in relation to how we can sustain such excellent third sector organisations. I've written to Mr Neil in relation to that as well. They tell me that they are confident that they can get many trust and charitable organisations to donate to that campaign to £850,000 to get this excellent new centre developed. What they also tell me is that any Scottish Government money—even a small amount of money—would be hugely powerful in leveraging in additional monies from elsewhere. I'll leave it sitting at that, but I would not be doing a disservice to Revive MS and to my constituents if I didn't mention that during this debate. I've done that now, cabinet secretary, and I hope that you'll agree to meet with me in George Adam in relation to work out how we can take that forward. The other thing that I want to talk about is access to medicines and treatments. As deputy convener of the Health and Sport Committee, I am incredibly proud of the cross-party approach that we took to access to new medicines in Scotland. Our committee got our teeth into that issue, and it seems to be a case of tabloid newspapers reporting on which part of the UK could get one medicine and which part of the UK could not. We just looked at improving the system to make it work for the people of Scotland, and that's kicking in now. It will work for the people of Scotland, but I am concerned that there could be pharmaceutical companies out there who have life-enhancing drugs for those who are living with MS, and they are not making applications to the Scottish Medicines Consortium for whatever reason. I know that the SMC is a world-class at doing scoping exercises to identify drugs that could benefit the people of Scotland and encouraging companies to deliver the evidence to have it approved by the SMC, but I understand that two companies specifically haven't done that. Just very specifically, cabinet secretary, anything that you can do in relation to those companies and the SMC, to bring forward those submissions, I would be very welcome as well. I believe that we have a first-class system in Scotland, but it can only work if the pharmaceutical companies actually bring forward their medicines for consideration. I said that I would be briefing on that over my time, so I apologise, Presiding Officer, but I hope that you will take those on board during your summing up. Thank you. I, too, congratulate George Adam on securing this debate. In fact, more than that, can I congratulate him in fact on becoming a champion for this issue in the Scottish Parliament, because I think that by having a champion for issues like this, there is just that added dimension and impetus, which I hope will lead to the very progress that I think that this debate is designed to achieve. Now, he began by saying that this was a Romeo and Juliet occasion with his wife, Stacey, perched in the balcony, so we will check the wall afterwards for messages of endearment having been posted as is the custom and habit, but I think that the problem we have is that multiple sclerosis is that condition about which everyone is really aware. I think is one of the conditions that most people on the street would say, oh, MSDS multiple sclerosis, but what I and others I think have perhaps totally underestimated or made unfounded assumptions about was the quality of the treatment that was available for people who suffered from multiple sclerosis. I think that what is becoming apparent is that in a number of ways it is deficient and certainly deficient beyond that that some lesser known conditions have actually managed to achieve by a focused promotion of the particular agenda underpinning that. The reality is depressingly and unacceptably different. It may be matched and I was pleased to hear it by the positivity of sufferers who are determined to make the very most and the best potential of the life they had, but none of us can really be happy that Scotland languishes near next to the bottom in a league of international countries in terms of the treatment and the availability of treatment and the success of that treatment that we have. Now, there seem to be a number of issues at hand. First of all, there is the poor dissemination of information about the disease and also the restricted quality of the service. A number of members, George Adam went through the particular drugs in question, have cited the access to medicines, especially the symptomatic medicines, the fact that we have a number of medicines licenced, which are not actually being prescribed, and we have a number of medicines that exist for which licences are not actually being sought. That is slightly unfortunate and ironic because, of course, so much of the focus when we have been talking about access to new medicines in the last three or four years has all been about cancer drugs that we have to some extent undermined, undervalued and overlooked the fact that there are so many other conditions for which the access and the prescribing of medicines which can make a qualitative improvement now to a disease for which people have been seeking qualitative improvements for generations, and they are there, as was illustrated in the terms of the designer house, they are there but not being given access to those who need them. The second is access on a proactive basis to regular consultant services. That should be not something people don't realise they are entitled to but something to which they are routinely offered access, and I hope that is an improvement that we can see. I welcomed the Government announcement made last night about further enhancement to the services and offer, but I think that we should also be doing more to actually advertise, and I think that the national register would be a prerequisite of this, to all those who are sufferers, the various treatments that are available to what we imagine to be around 11,000 sufferers in Scotland. I was at the committee that approved the establishment of the cross-party group on multiple scrolls. I have to say, like many members, I sometimes wonder whether we don't have just that many to many cross-party groups in this Parliament, but what impressed those of us there at the time was the underlying commitment of George Adam to ensure that this cross-party group had a direct focus, and I think that that direct focus is already producing an agenda that we hopefully can see translated into results. I'm sorry that I was unable to be at the function last night. No slight was intended to that at all. I, like others, know people who have suffered or do suffer from the condition. It has my support. The focus on the treat me right campaign will enjoy the support of this party, and I wish George Adam every success and the cross-party group in working with the cabinet secretary and the Government to make the progress that we all wish to see. Many thanks. I now call Malcolm Trism to be followed by Jim Hume. Presiding Officer, I'd also like to congratulate George Adam on bringing forward this motion, and of course for being, as Jackson Carlaw said, a champion of MS issues in this Parliament. I myself certainly don't have any great experience or expertise in this, although I'm, like Bob Doris, very pleased to have a great voluntary sector organisation, the MS Therapy Centre, based in my constituency, and thanks to all the members who supported my motion on that recently, where I was praising their support services and innovative therapies that they offer to people with MS in Edinburgh and the Lothians more generally, and also, of course, I was praising the dedicated and diligent care of the centre staff and its volunteers. I think that the voluntary sector is very important to the whole issue of MS, and we've been very privileged this week to have the MS Society in the Parliament. We've been able to talk to them, but we've also read the various materials that they've presented, in particular, that they've been telling us about their campaign called the Treat Me Right campaign. I was very interested to read the research that lay behind that campaign, and then, of course, of particular recommendations, or perhaps, as you say, demands, that the campaign has been making. I thought that two pieces of information from the research were particularly interesting, one, and I think that this was a UK-wide six out of 10 people with relapsing MS or not taking medicines that can alter the course of the condition, and I suppose that probably corresponds to the 36 per cent of people in Scotland who are getting the drugs that would benefit them. However, the other very interesting piece of information from the research that I found was that people who feel both informed about the medicines and crucially, who say that they have regular access to an MS specialist, are far more likely to be in treatment, and there was an astonishing contrast between 69 per cent of those people and 7 per cent of the other people. That clearly highlighted a very important issue, and that led, of course, to the four recommendations, firstly, that all licent treatments should be approved and available. On this occasion, and this is great to know, it is not the SMC that is being criticised, but, in some cases, the pharmaceutical companies who have not put forward their drugs for approval by the SMC should be praised because they have actually approved new drugs recently. Crucially, they then go on to say that people with relapsing MS should be informed about the option and discuss, with a specialist recommendation 2, which is related to recommendation 3, that everyone should be invited to a regular review by an MS specialist. That is a key issue. I think that credit to the Government for having the neurological standards, one of which is invited to a review with a specialist every 12 months, but we know that that is not happening in every case. In 2012, neurological health service reports said that a quarter of people were not able to see a neurologist when they were required. That is clearly an area that needs some attention. Also, of course, a related recommendation is about access to a multidisciplinary team. I think that the nurse specialist for MS is particularly important in that regard. Again, about half the people affected have that access and half don't. There is clearly more to do, but credit to the Government for having the standards and the group that is now overseeing their implementation. Finally, though, I thought that the last recommendation was equally important. All people with MS should be supported, to be equal partners in decision making about their treatment. That is an important general principle for the health service, linked to patient participation and the patient groups that support them. I was interested in talking to the MS society today that emphasised not just the importance of their own organisation, but of the neurological alliance of which they are a member. They said that many of the issues affected a whole range of neurological services, so it is clearly important that the neurological alliance and the neurological voices campaign, which they have spawned, should also receive a report from the Scottish Government. Many thanks. Just before I call Jim Hulme, can I advise the Parliament that, due to the number of members who still wish to speak in the debate, I am minded to accept a motion from George Adam under rule 8.14.3, that the debate be extended by up to 30 minutes? Thank you very much. That has been moved by Mr Adam. Does Parliament agree? We do. I now call Jim Hulme to be followed by Clare Adamson. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I too start by congratulating George Adam in securing this debate in this MS week and also congratulating him for taking as long as two minutes into his speech before he mentioned Paisley, which is a record long time, I think, but he did manage to get it in twice, so well done on that too. It is true that Scotland has one of the highest incidences of MS in the world. Sadly, it remains unclear why that should be. Diet, genetics, environment, or a combination might be the case. I speak in this debate this afternoon from a heartfelt perspective. At the end of the last session, there were concerns that the looky MS respite centre in my region may close because of funding. The users and their families who needed the vital respite care that it provides from across Scotland, Northern England and even people from the continent used it. They faced losing that invaluable service. Ian Gray, Jackie Baillie and I have all supported the campaign. Jackie Baillie hosted a member's debate on that issue. I am glad that the cross-party campaigning and support of the work of Mary O'Keefe and her team ended with looky house being saved to the benefit of people with MS and other conditions now. MS sufferers do not just need respite, they need treatment. Concerns have been raised about the treatment of sufferers by different health boards. I share the view that health boards need to keep data as to treatments given by their various health professionals, time taken to treatment, and from that we can then see where we need to target improvements so that no MS sufferer in Scotland should be at a disadvantage to another just because of where they live. Once we have the data, we can then share the best practice across health board regions and look to improve the care for people with MS. If that does not work then I think that perhaps we should look at heat targets for treatments offered and waiting times to be treated. Those ideas were discussed at the recently formed CPG on MS, which I am glad to be a member of. Other concerns shared were follow-up doctor appointments after a patient is diagnosed with MS. I share that concern. During the cross-party group we heard that often a doctor would diagnose someone with MS, but because the patient was at the very early stages of the conditions, no recommendation was made for any initial treatment, the patient could then go home and because MS may slowly get worse, sometimes several years down the line, the patient could have missed out on new treatments or early intervention. It is therefore vital that doctor practices have in place a best practice system that ensures that, as set time, they invite the MS patient back in for a review to see if the condition has progressed or not. At the CPG there was a frustration that many innovative new drugs were not available to them, but we heard from the industry that they had due process and testing finished on them—a kind of chicken and egg situation, I suppose. Of course, we cannot freely licence drugs without some due process, and there are some horror stories from the past when due process had not been enough. However, what I would like to see is that people with MS wherever they are in Scotland are informed of all the options available to them, whether through drugs or therapy centres, like the excellent example mentioned by Malcolm Chisholm, just a mile from here in the form of the MS Therapy Centre Lothian, where Nancy Campbell and her team helped people not just from the Lothians but Fife and the Borders also used that great centre. We must ensure that there is not a postal code lottery. Diagnosis and treatment must be achieved timeously with regular reviews of patient progress. I look forward to working with the CPG on MS and the Society on these matters in the future. I look for assurances today from the cabinet secretary that this disease, given its prevalence in Scotland, will be treated without urgency that its sufferers deserve. Many thanks. I now call Clare Adamson to be followed by John Finnie. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I also congratulate George Adam and echo the people in the chamber this afternoon who have complimented him on the work that he does, the work of the cross-party group and indeed the excellent information that has been made available to us during MS week this week and indeed the very successful reception last night, which was excellently attended. I don't often speak in health debates. I'm not in the health committee and by no means an expert in that area. I'm lucky that throughout my working life I have been able to seek expert advice from my big sister. Whether that was as an IT professional who worked in dealing with GP systems and GP fund-holding systems or indeed in health-related issues, I have always sought my big sister's support. My older sister, Eileen, has been a GP in England for over 30 years and is a fellow of the Royal College of GPs. As well as her GBGTs, she also trains and examines GPs on behalf of the college. However, in seeking her support today and her help for this debate, it was also her experience as an MS sufferer of over 30 years. Despite being part of the medical profession and albeit an English patient, my sister's experience echoes many of the testaments that have been given brought forward by the MS Society that of a lack of coherence, no golden pathway through diagnosis and support for the disease. Because of the nature of the disease, seeing different consultants as the disease progresses makes it very difficult to build that rapport that would enable someone to discuss and to talk through the options and possibilities that are moving forward with the disease. I was delighted to learn so much at last night's event, and I think that in the debate this afternoon, many people have talked about the symptoms—and you have finally made a very powerful speech about the symptoms of MS sufferers—but we should also highlight today to people who maybe do not understand the disease as much as those who live with it and their families and friends and carers, in that those are extremely powerful drugs. We maybe do not talk about the effects that the treatment itself can have on MS sufferers when we talk about disease-modifying drugs. It was not until my sister described her treatment as chemotherapy that struck me, because chemotherapy brings that home to us, because it is normally associated with cancer treatment, how powerful a drug it can be. In my own sister's case, and for many sufferers, I think that the choice that they have to make every single day to take a treatment that they know will make them feel awful in the short term for what may be and not a guaranteed long-time gain. I was particularly interested last night to learn about the tablet forms of DMDs, because I had not realised that my sister's experience has been on injections and all the associated problems that are mentioned about needing fridges and travel and all those things. We maybe do not understand that as part of the disease. My sister spoke, she is very lucky, she is still working and she was attending a Pilates class the other day for people with various types of diseases that benefit from this type of therapy. She asked them about what they would want me to say today about what the experience they have of being sufferers. It was all about getting everything right, it is not just about the medicine, it is about all the support services that are being discussed by other people today. I am confident to know that they are making the right decisions in conjunction with the medical practitioners about the options that are going forward. The treat me right campaign is fantastic, and we will take that whole debate forward. I thank everyone who has been involved in the process for this week and look forward to the cabinet secretary's response. Many thanks and I now call John Finnie to be followed by Lewis MacDonald. Thank you Presiding Officer, I too would like to congratulate George Adam for his work throughout the year, likewise the MS Society and the various MS therapy centres and other treatment centres around the country. I want to give a particular example about a constituent, I hope that I am going to say nothing, that would remotely identify the individual, but I think that it graphically illustrates some of the issues. It was in May of last year approached by a young woman, the mother of a preschool child. She had been prescribed fanprudine by her neurologist. She suffers a lack of mobility and this was a drug that would help with walking speed. The pharmacy had refused the medication but she was told that she would be able to sell fun at the cost of £250 per month. She was aware that this particular drug did not have SMC approval and, as has been said of others, like many MS sufferers, was very well informed. At that stage, she was currently appealing and the notes that Linda, who works in my office, had was upset. She knows that the drug would not necessarily make her quality of life better but feels that she should be given a chance. At that point, they treat me right, I think, would be highly appropriate. By the end of June, the pill has still not gone through but the young woman had started and got in touch to tell me that she was in the third week of four weeks of a trial. The cabinet secretary alludes to this in a letter, a subsequent item, and quite rightly he says that that was a private arrangement. She says, I have really positive results. This is great and I am praying myself for having to not take it as I can't afford it and until pharmacy approves funding, I will not be able to stay on it. She has offered face-to-face meetings with various people, but she declines this by asking for information and writing because she does not have the necessary mobility to get there. I wrote a letter supporting the appeal, suggesting that wider aspects should be considered and I will come on to them later. On 16 August, the appeal fails. Further representations are made. I write to the individual patient treatment request coordinator about procedural issues. I write to the cabinet secretary about some general questions about drugs and treatment, and I get a very comprehensive response. I write to the company Biogen who tell me the hope to have data that will be available at some point in the future, and I will be very keen to get the paperwork in for that particular drug. Moving on and missing out a lot of trauma in between, on 19 December I get a lovely email that says, last night is the first good night sleep I have had in months, great news to have before Christmas or a new year. Those are months of anguish, and the private arrangement is called a responder identification scheme. I do not think that people are interested in what it is called, it might be considered a prescription. I think that there are a lot of phrases, buzz words, that we use a lot in this chamber here. We talk about the integration of health and social care, we talk about holistic approaches. I am not for one minute suggesting, in fact, quite the reverse, that this young woman's child is brilliantly looked after and too loving parents, but it can have an impact. The prescribing of their drugs is a positive impact not only on the child but also on the rest of the family. We also talk about preventative spend and looked in the broadest sense that that is terribly important. Prescriptions have been referred to in this chamber and I agree with the term as a tax on the sick. I think that, as I have said in the finder points of debate, people are not really bothered about procedures, they want to be treated properly. Like many others, I took a lot of reassurance from what the minister said last night. At the reception last night was Dr Michael Foxley, a former council colleague who is very involved in it. He equates what a lot of people said, and that is that MS sufferers have a lot of positive attitude. I think that with the positive attitude that we heard from the minister last night there is progress going forward. I can tell you that the woman continues to do very well. I hope that that is an example that can be followed elsewhere. I thank George Adam again for bringing the debate. I thank Lewis MacDonald to be followed by James Dornan. I congratulate George Adam for bringing this debate and for his proactive role in setting up our cross-party group. Multiple sclerosis impacts on thousands of people across Scotland, but nowhere more so than in the north-east and the northern isles. The proportion of people in Aberdeen with MS is 20 per cent above the Scottish average. The proportion in Orkney is more than double. Grampian, who shares some health services with Orkney and Shetland, has a particular responsibility to give a lead in the support of people with MS. In many ways, NHS Grampian does that job well. Marcelly Craig, who is a trustee of the MS Society and who was at the reception here yesterday evening, often says that, if you are going to have MS, Aberdeen is not a bad place to have it. That says quite a lot about the positive attitude of Marcelly and, indeed, of many other people with MS, as we have heard. However, it also reflects the good access to services and the excellent support from staff, which is the experience of many in Grampian. Critical to that is the continuing provision of good quality neurological services at Aberdeen royal and family, something that must not be compromised by any temptation to centralise services towards the central belt. Critical is also the outstanding service provided by MS nurses in Grampian. Any temptation to cut costs here would immediately be self-defeating, because the support of MS nurses is not only clinical good practice, it is also cost effective in the work that it does in reducing the need for hospital admissions. The Horizons Rehabilitation Centre in Aberdeen provides a very valuable service for people with a range of neurological conditions, though only for those who are recovering from relapses. Increasing access to those services would be again cost effective, as good physiotherapy support can help people to maintain mobility and to manage their symptoms. Of course, the Stuart Resource Centre, funded by the MS Society itself in Aberdeen, is also invaluable in the support that it provides and deserves its continuing support. Aberdeen is not a bad place to have MS in some respects, but not in all. It is true that NHS Grampian was ahead of the game in prescribing beta interferon for MS patients from an early stage, but more recently access to treatments has been less readily available. Anne Ferguson from Tuch and Aberdeenshire invites for that. Her consultant at ARI recommended five years ago that she should have access to the drug Satyvex to deal with the involuntary spasms, which for her are the most significant symptoms of her MS. In the absence of approval by the Scottish Medicines Consortium, an individual patient treatment request was made to NHS Grampian on her behalf. It was refused and an appeal was lodged. That, too, was unsuccessful. Three years ago, Anne's GP wrote her a private prescription for Satyvex, but NHS Grampian instructed her that it was not suitable for prescribing in her area. A constituent told me yesterday of similar difficulty in obtaining a prescription for Ffantredin, either in Aberdeen or in Glasgow, even though he is himself a health service professional and was willing to pay for it himself. Those issues of access to treatment are not local, they are national. As we have heard, people with MS have better access in all but two of the other member states of the European Union. Ultimately, those issues of access are for ministers to resolve. That is why it was good to hear Michael Matheson yesterday evening make a pledge on the record to say that people with MS should receive the right treatment at the right time. That will require early and positive actions by the manufacturers and early and positive decisions by the SMC, which is ultimately the responsibility of ministers. My constituents and thousands of others will look to all concern for rapid progress on those issues, as will members across the chamber. I look forward to hearing from the cabinet secretary just how he intends that his Government will carry out the promise that he gave us last night. Many thanks and our final open debate speaker is James Johnan. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. Like everybody else in the chamber, I would like to thank George and Stacey for bringing this debate to the chamber today. It has been a very informative week. The stall and the event last night taught me a lot of things that I did not know about MS before, and I thank everybody for that. My colleague Bob Doris has already described in great detail a lot about the work that Revive MS does, so I will not dwell too much on that. However, just to say that I have been fortunate to see some of the work that the local branch does in my constituency with the Meet and Cuthcart Trinity Church every Friday. I know that the local revive group is a lifeline for many people with MS across the south of the city, and I was reminded of that a few months ago when I met an old friend of mine. I had not seen him for ages. He looked great, still fit and healthy, and that is what I would have expected. This guy was a great footballer and I mean great, classy, energetic and played well into his 30s and I believe into his 40s. He can imagine my surprise when he told me that he had heard of my visit to his organisation as he had suffered from MS and was a member. That just brought home to me how little I really knew about MS, who it affects, why it affects them and what we can do to make life easier for those who suffer from it. The access to drugs and other matters that I have been dealt with by others, so I do not want to deal with that and I know that it is getting on. Colleagues across the chamber might remember that last September I held a member's debate on a report by independent living in Scotland on widening access to politics. During that debate, I spoke of my desire for the Parliament to implement some kind of programme for people with disabilities. I wrote to the Presiding Officer and out of the support and guidance that I received from her, we have managed to bring about a parliamentary internship programme for people with disabilities funded by the Scottish Government through SCVO Inclusion Scotland, enabling supported in Parliament by our fantastic equalities team. That is important because when I suggested the idea of an internship, it was because I firmly believed that we make better decisions as a Parliament if we have many voices and experiences articulated both in the chamber and through the people that we meet in our role as MSPs. Inclusion Scotland has secured funding from the Scottish Government for another six interns over the course of the next 10 to 12 months, and we are having an event in Parliament at the end of this month to discuss the internship and how members can get involved. I will discuss that in greater detail then, but I am sure that there will be plenty of interest from my colleagues across the chamber in participating in this internship programme. I bring this up because the first intern for the programme, Ketina Johnson, has recently been appointed and will begin in my office in the next couple of weeks. Ketina had to go through her rigorous selection process against some very formidable candidates, and she went through because she deserved to, Ketina's MS. Many of you will have met her. She has been one of the people in the MS stall in the garden lobby this week and was at the event last night. I have now had the good fortune to meet up with her on a few occasions, and it is clear that Ketina, like so many others suffering from MS, will not be defined or curtailed in her ambitions by her condition. I have no doubt that she will bring a great deal to my office and be a great role model for those interns who will follow in her footsteps. We are both looking forward to this internship starting for Ketina to get a sense about what Parliament is like. For me to try to grasp some of the everyday problems somebody with MS may well have to deal with. One of the important roles in this programme is for interns to undertake a project, and I am going to discuss with Ketina the idea of looking into in greater detail the reason why manufacturers are reluctant to put the drugs out to review by the SMC, and what impact decisions like this have on those suffering from the affected condition and we will pass the information on to the cabinet secretary when we are done. I fully support the aims of the treatment right campaign, and it is clear that there is broad support across the chamber to move forward with this to try and get the answers to ensure that folk with MS across the country are afforded the quality of and access to care that they fully deserve. Many thanks, and I now invite Alex Neil to respond to the debate, cabinet secretary, in around seven minutes, please. Thank you very much indeed, Deputy Deputy. Presiding Officer, James Dorman thanked George and Stacey. I would like to thank Stacey and George, because Stacey's influence on this is well known, and I think that this debate is very appropriate. Although, unfortunately, I could make the reception last night because I was travelling back from Brussels, I do believe that it was a very successful event. I would also like to congratulate the MS Society. I think that that deserves enormous credit for the contribution that makes to improving the lives of people with MS, and they continue to play a vital role in promoting new research and in raising awareness of the condition. I will try throughout my speech to answer some of the very specific points made, and I will begin by, first of all, saying to Jim Hume, that we have provided now three-year funding for Lucky House, which I am sure he will welcome. Although he is no longer here, Bob Doris, to confirm that either Michael Matheson or myself would be happy to meet with the revive MS group, I met with them last year, and we supported them with just over £21,000 worth of funding, so more than happy to meet with them again. Either Michael or I will do that. When it comes to medicines and the register, I will try to answer those points as I go through my notes. Clearly, the access to treatment is a major issue that has been highlighted today, and the MS Society's Treat Me Right campaign for appropriate treatments is particularly important. It emphasises the need for disease-modifying drugs for people with relapsing and remitting MS, which can help to manage relapses and the impact of relapses. Symptom management treatments for people with relapsing and progressive MS can help to manage some of the symptoms of MS, including specificity, walking speed and incontinence. We want to see engagement by the pharmaceutical industry with the Scottish Medicines Consortium. I will make two points here. First, I am happy to take the initiative in contacting the companies that have yet to apply to SMC for acceptability of licensed products. I accept the general principles that our objective should be to have all licensed products available to MS sufferers through the SMC process, so I would like to emphasise that. Secondly, I would make the point particularly to Lewis and his contribution that, hopefully, as a result of the recent reforms introduced into the SMC process, including the replacement of the IPTR process by the PAC process, we will see significant improvements in reducing and eliminating any postcode lottery in terms of the availability of those drugs. As Jackson Carlaw said, although much of those changes were motivated by cancer-related drugs, we are very conscious that the changes relate to MS and, indeed, a whole host of other ailments, including cystic fibrosis. So, let me underline our commitment to deal with that situation. Cabinet Secretary, I thought you were just for a moment sorry to interrupt. It's just that you have referred to a number of members just by their first names, and whilst we would be aware of who Michael, for example, would be Michael Matheson MSP, perhaps for the record, and also for those watching the proceedings, we could just clarify by referring to members by their full names. Lewis MacDonald and Jackson Carlaw. With regard to access to specialists as a Government, we recognise the vital importance of seeing the right person at the right time in the right place. I had the pleasure recently, or Michael had, of speaking at the national neurological advisory group learning and sharing event, and that group was formed to take forward work to ensure continued improvements in neurological care, including for those living with MS. Access to specialists in an area that has been recognised by them as a continuing priority, and they are taking forward work in this area. Can I say, as part of the announcement that Michael Matheson made last night, I am very keen that we tackle the issue of variation between different health board areas in terms of access to treatment and access to the necessary resources. We last week published an audit of chronic pain services right across Scotland looking at the variation between different board areas. I am keen that we do the same with MS with a view to eliminating those variations so that everybody gets first-class treatment irrespective of where they live in Scotland. I think that that is extremely important. It is also important that we have the right skill mix and the right number of people in the right place at the right time. Obviously, we are keen to ensure particularly in terms of neurological resources that that is the case. There will be six trainee neurologist posts advertised in the 2014 recruitment round, which will be filled via national recruitment. That will be a further enhancement in terms of the neurological resource available for patients. In terms of access to information, the treatment right campaign also quite rightly highlights the essential need for people with MS to receive the advice and information that they need in order to make informed decisions about their care and treatment. Again, the national advisory group is well-placed to identify and address any gaps in the provision of information that supports people to make those decisions. Also, ensuring that clinicians across Scotland consistently provide high-quality information that can support not only decisions about treatment, but also support people to self-manage their condition. That will be taken forward through the work in care pathways and patient experience. I am pleased to hear that the MS Society is an integral member of the advisory group and, through the group, well-positioned to help to shape the delivery of neurological services. Let me come now to the MS register. As a Government, we recognise that data is an essential element to delivering improvement. We have provided funding of £70,000 to support the establishment of the Scottish MS register, which commenced work at the beginning of 2010. The register was set up to gather reliable data that would establish the incidents of MS in Scotland. The MS Society has also provided funding to support the register and has been involved in it since its inception to ensure that it has people with MS as its focus. The register is hosted by NHS national services information services division, ISD, and, in 2013, it published its first national report. It has provided assurance that the MS clinical community is fully engaged in the register. SMRO1 data is being used to measure data completeness and potentially identify patients who have not been reported to the register. The data collected is used to produce quality feedback reports that are provided to MS teams and include all-known patients, given a confirmed diagnosis of MS in the last 12 months. However, I agree with the point that George Adam made in his speech that we should look to expanding the register eventually to include every MS serverer in Scotland. I undertake to take forward that specific action point, as well as the others that are mentioned from the debate today, because I am very conscious of the benefits of comprehensive registers in taking forward treatment and, indeed, the research for finding cures for conditions such as MS. The register also monitors the referral process from time of diagnosis to contact with an MS nurse, and boards can use the report to assess which stage in the referral process needs to be improved. In terms of all those areas, I believe that we are making substantial progress, but there is further substantial progress to be made. However, let me underline, and I think that that is right across all the parties in this chamber. I think that we are all at one in this in recognising that Scotland, unfortunately, is the world capital for MS in terms of its incidence. There is a particular onus on all of us to do whatever we can to make life as comfortable as possible and as easy as possible and as high-quality as possible for sufferers, but the ultimate goal must be to find a cure. I apologise to myself and the chamber for having to leave early. That concludes George Adam's debate MS week 2014. Treat me right. I now suspend this meeting of Parliament until 2.30pm.


I am Dr. Srutish Rubabharali, Assistant Professor in the Department of Computer Science. In this video, I am going to talk about Computer Memory. This topic is part of the course Computer Fundamentals. In this video, I am going to talk about the different types of computer memory and the memory hierarchy. I am also going to talk about the different CPU resistors. The binary digit or bit is the smallest unit of memory. A bit is the basic unit of representation of data in a computer. A bit can have only two possible states, one or zero. We may find it useful to think this in terms of yes and no, or on and off, or true and false, where one will be yes, true or on, and zero would be no, false or off. Most computers do not work with bit individually, but instead a group of eight bits together from a byte. One byte can store two data power eight, that is 256 different combinations of bits, and thus can be used to represent 256 different symbols. In a byte, the different combinations of bits fall in the range eight zeros to eight ones. A group of bytes can be further combined to form a word. A word can be a group of two, four or eight bytes. The relationship between bit and byte is given in this slide. One bit can have either the value of zero or one. One byte is equivalent to eight bits. One kilobyte or one kb is equivalent to two to the power ten or one zero to four bytes. Similarly, one megabyte or mb is equivalent to two to the power twenty or one zero to four kb. One gigabyte or GB is equivalent to two to the power three zero or one zero to four mb or one zero to four into one zero to four kb. Similarly, we have the bytes equivalent for one terabyte and one petabyte. In this figure, we can see that there is an organization for 16 mb block of memory for a processor. Now this processor uses a 32 bit word length. Now this can be seen as the bits are arranged horizontally. So the first square is for bit one, the second bit two, and in this way 32 bits are aligned. And this 32 bit forms one word. Similarly, if you see vertically, then we have from zero to 16 mb of block of memory. Now let us look at the different aspects of computer memory. The computer memory is characterized on the basis of two key factors. First one is storage capacity and the second one is access time. Storage capacity is the amount of information that a memory can store. While access time is the time that is required to locate and retrieve stored data from the memory unit. This is done in response to a program instruction. Now the lesser the access time, the faster will be the speed of memory. Ideally, the memory with fast access time and large capacity is preferred. However, the cost of fast memory is very high. The computer uses a hierarchy of memory that is organized in a manner to enable the fastest speed and largest capacity of memory. The hierarchy of the different memory types are shown in this slide. Three parameters that is cost, access speed and storage capacity are taken into consideration for the different types of computer memory. If we consider the registers, then the cost of the registers is very high and the access speed is also very high, whereas the storage capacity is low. If we consider the second type of memory that is cache memory, then the cost and access speed is kind of lower than the registers. If we consider the primary memory, then the cost and access speed will be lower than the registers and cache memory, but the storage capacity will be more. Now these three types of memories were semiconductor memories. If we are looking to send secondary memories, then we have the magnetic disc and optical disc and also magnetic tapes. The secondary memories costs are very low and also the access speed is low. But if we look into the storage capacity of secondary memories, then it is very high when compared to the semiconductor memories. Now let us look at the different types of computer memory. We have CPU registers which are at the top of the computer memory hierarchy and are the fastest way for the system to manipulate data. In a very simple MAC processor, it consists of a single memory location which is usually an accommodator. Registers are built from fast multi-portal memory cell. The result of arithmetic and logic unit operations is stored in registers and could be reused in a subsequent operation or saved into memory. Registers are usually measured by the number of bits that they can hold. So for example, we will have an 8-bit resistor, a 16-bit resistor or a 32-bit resistor. Now let us look at the different CPU registers. The number of registers may vary from computer to computer, but there are some registers which are common to all computers. Some of these are the accumulator, general purpose registers and spatial purpose registers. The accumulator is one of the most frequently used registers. It holds the data to be operated upon the intermediate results and also the results of processing. It is used during execution of most instructions. The results of arithmetic operations are returned to the accumulator resistor for transfer to main memory through the memory buffer resistor. Next we have the general purpose registers. These registers are used to store data and intermediate results during program execution. The contents can be accessed using assembly language programming. Next we have special purpose registers. Users do not access these registers. These are used by the computer system at the time of program execution. Some of the examples of special purpose registers are memory address register and instruction register. Now let us look at the different special purpose registers. The first one is the memory address register or MAR. It holds the address of the active memory location. Another special purpose register is memory buffer register or MBR. It holds the contents of the accessed memory world. A third special purpose register is the instruction register which holds the current instruction being executed. Then we have the program counter or PC which holds the address of the next instruction that is to be executed. Lastly we also have input output resistor or ION resistor. It is used to communicate with the input output devices. Thank you for listening to the video.