Good to see free NHS 111 number promoted

I was pleased  today to see Alex Neil  promoting that ringing NHS 24 is going to be free in a few months' time, using the NHS non emergency number 111.

This makes an awful lot more sense than the Police chief who suggested charging 50p for 999 calls as a deterrent to people who use it when there's not really an emergency.

Something the Health Secretary said, though, reminded me of something I've been banging on about for a long time - GP surgeries with 0844 numbers. Alex Neil said that a third of people with access only to a mobile phone were deterred from ringing NHS 24 because of the cost. This got me to thinking about the cost of dialling a surgery. Before these numbers were free on landlines, I once racked up £15 during a horrible month of quite serious illness in the household just calling the surgery. And my surgery can be a nightmare to get through to. You can be hanging on for 10 minutes and more after the call has been answered and then as soon as you get to the front of the queue you get cut off.

I contacted my MSP Angela Constance several years ago and she did a whole load of work on this, including raising it in Holyrood with then Health Secretary Nicola Sturgeon. My practice is still using an 0844 number and Angela said on Twitter today she'd look into it again for me. In 2010 it was only a very small number of practices, 4%, that were doing this, but if we can get rid of them all, that would make a difference. Let's face it, those on lower incomes are more likely to have to rely on mobiles to ring the doctor and they are likely to need to do so more often. It's not fair for GP practices to expect these patients to use premium rate numbers - free at the point of use and all that.

Alex Neil, don't you dare tell me I'm not a pretty sight

The Scottish Government has launched a campaign today called "Drop a glass size", aimed at women to get them to cut their alcohol consumption. The theory is sound enough. Wine glasses come in all shapes and sizes and, of course, if you use a smaller glass, and have the same number of glasses a week, you'll consume less alcohol, which is a good thing.

The method, though, oh dear. Why should we stop drinking? Because it ruins our looks, apparently. Are women not already under enough pressure to look good, to conform to often unattainable standards of beauty? If we're not thin enough with perfect hair, curves, teeth and nails, then we are objects of ridicule screams every tabloid and women's magazine. I mean, how I have the temerity to go out in public, given that I conform to none of it, I don't know. It's enough to drive you to drink....

They've launched an app, the drinking mirror,  too, for your smartphone or tablet which shows you a picture of what the drink will do to you if you don't stop...I can't see how you get it on an iPhone. It's not coming up on search in the App Store and there's no link so I can't see what a dreadful sight I'd look yet. This is the blurb that comes with the app:

Is alcohol ageing you? Deeper wrinkles, red cheeks and weight gain... some of the visible effects of regularly drinking too much are not a pretty sight.

Download the FREE Drinking Mirror iPhone or Android App below and see how dropping a glass size could help you look fabulous.

Do you know what ages women? Age. The passage of time. The appearance of wrinkles and weight gain at least happens as you get older. But women aren't allowed to do that. No, they have to conform.

If they want women to cut drinking, why not base their arguments around something women actually want, not what they feel pressurised to do. I'm thinking of more energy. I know for a fact that I feel more energetic if I haven't had any alcohol than if I have. There isn't a woman in Scotland, I bet, who wouldn't want to feel less knackered and if cutting alcohol consumption can help with that, then it's a guilt free, pressure free way of persuading them to do that.

I get that basing the campaign on appearance may be an effective way of getting into women's psyche. But surely that isn't a good thing. I am annoyed with Alex Neil for signing off on this. Cutting alcohol consumption is always a good thing to do, but I feel insulted and patronised by the ethos of this campaign.

Please can we not have a cross-border bidding war over abortion!

It was only a matter of time before journalists, in the wake of Jeremy Hunt's comments on abortion (that he favours a reduction in the time limit to 12 weeks), asked Alex Neil, the new Scottish health secretary, for his views on the subject. 

Scotland on Sunday got there first. There headline was "Health Secretary Alex Neil signals abortion law "change after independence"". 

This infuriated some nationalists on Twitter who complained bitterly that his words were being twisted and that he hadn't really said that.

Well, if you read the article, he was the one who seems to have brought up independence.

Speaking to Scotland on Sunday, Neil suggested that the dramatic cut backed by Hunt was unrealistic but he added the legislation should be reviewed in the event of abortion law being transferred from Westminster to Holyrood as a result of independence.

“I do thing (sic) there is a case to be had for a reduction from 24 weeks, but I don’t know if 12 weeks is realistic, frankly,” Neil said

“But I do think there is now a case, given the state of medical science and the fact that babies do survive from an much earlier stage in the pregnancy.“I do think there is a case for looking to bring down the number of weeks, but that is a personal opinion.

Now, there's a surprise, a Nationalist talking about what might happen after independence. At least we know that Neil favours a reduction in the time limit, but he doesn't speak for the whole SNP. We know Alex Salmond favours a reduction to 20 weeks. But there are also politicians in all parties, including the Liberal Democrats, who want to see it reduced to as little as 12 weeks. 

There is no point in reducing this to a bidding war as to what might happen on either side of the border. Wherever there's a parliament with responsibility, people will try at some point to reduce the time limit. What's important is that those of us who want the law to stay as it is, or for some of the restrictions such as the requirement for two doctors to sign, to be lifted, prepare our case. I think we could look to  the Equal Marriage campaign with its positive, simple, reasonable message for guidance.

Neil talked about policy being made after taking the evidence into account. He seemed to be talking about the evidence about when babies can survive from. I think it's vital to look at the effect on the mother of potentially being forced to continue with an unwanted pregnancy, too. On evidence, there's a really good article in today's Guardian by obstetrician Wendy Savage. She said:

In 2007 the House of Commons science and technology committee published its 12th report on Scientific Developments Relating to the Abortion Act 1967. It concluded that although improvements in survival of babies born over 24 weeks had occurred since the upper limit was reduced in 1990, that was not the case for those under 24 weeks. This was based on the first Epicure study, a study of 4,000 premature babies (born from 22 to 26 weeks) treated in all the neonatal intensive care units in the UK and Eire, in 1995.Since then the second national study of babies born in 2006 has been published and there is no significant change in the number of extremely premature babies surviving. At 22 weeks three babies (1%) survived, one of whom is developing normally at three years, while one is moderately and the other severely handicapped. At 23 weeks 15% survived from the onset of labour and just over half had no disability at three years of age: no better than in 1995.

Some people were saying on Twitter yesterday that they thought Neil should either retract his comments or resign. I see no need for him to do that. He is in no position to restrict women's access to abortion and, frankly, I'd rather know what he wants rather than find out by accident. There is no prospect of Holyrood getting the power to decide abortion law any time soon. 

This issue has nothing to do with independence. We will have to fight the battle at Westminster at some time or other or Holyrood. This issue is emotive enough, and way too important, without it becoming hijacked by an independence bidding war. I don't think that was Alex Neil's intention. He was just doing what nationalists do. If you had asked him whether the sky was blue, he'd have found some way of saying it would be bluer after independence and the sun would shine brighter on the lovely money trees.

At least all this fuss has made me do something I should have done ages ago - joined the Abortion Rights campaign. It's only £20 for the year and I suspect it may be doing more trade than usual, courtesy of Mr Hunt. Don't forget Sophie Bridger's Your Choice campaign either.

Is Equal Marriage under threat?

A consequence of the reshuffles north and south of the border is that the two ministers responsible for delivering same sex marriage has changed.

You may remember my fit of pique the other day at the precious equalities portfolio being handed to the Tories. It's like giving someone a cashmere jumper when you know they'll use it as a blanket for the dog. In moulting season. I have not calmed down in any sense since then. We don't know what Helen Grant, the new equalities minister makes of the idea of equal marriage, but we know that she was part of Iain Duncan Smith's social justice foundation which came up with the marriage tax break. In any event, she is unlikely to be as passionate about the issue as her predecessor, the Fabulous Ms Featherstone who, by the way, tells the story of her reshuffle on her blog. Seriously, she compares Cameron to Simon Cowell.

In Scotland, health minister Nicola Sturgeon, who had the equalities brief, has gone off to try and make us independent. That's probably a clever move on Alex Salmond's part. He knows that the Yes campaign has had a very male look to it, so putting a competent woman, who's an able communicator, in this role is not a bad idea. Like Lynne, she is in favour of equal marriage and has been a key driver of the SNP Government's proposals. We don't know what Alex Neil thinks of equal marriage because he didn't respond to the campaign when they asked.

While it may be that both Governments' plans will proceed unhindered despite the changes, the uncertainty is at best unsettling. If the Liberal Democrats don't put their foot down and insist on it at Westminster, my lividness of the other day will look as though it was the gentlest of rebukes. Oh, and if the Tory right kicks off, and Labour pulls the same stunt that they did with the House of Lords, that would be a huge betrayal of the LGBT community.

In Scotland, there is a bill to legislate for equal marriage planned in this year's programme for Government, which goes further than the one in England by allowing religious organisations who want to to conduct same sex marriage ceremonies. I have to say it was good to see it there.

My worry is that now the measure both north and south of the border is being piloted by people who may not  be as passionate about it as their predecessors, they will be less inclined to find a way round the inevitable barriers which will arise. It's the same for everyone - we will pursue the things that we really want to do with added vigour.

We know that certain religious organisations are going to fight tooth and nail to derail this measure. I would hope that we'd get an early signal from both governments that there will be no change and the legislation will go through.

Willie Rennie talks sense on bus services - Sunday Politics

Willie Rennie appeared on yesterday's Sunday Politics along with SNP minister Alex Neil and Labour's finance spokesman Richard Baker to talk about SNP cuts in grants to bus companies which have led to job losses, service reductions and what Willie described as "chaos".

Willie calmly outlined to the minister how he could reverse the cuts by using consequentials from the Budget. He also suggested that we need to look again at whether we can afford free bus travel for every 60 year old and whether we should roll this back to 65.

So, he made two sensible suggestions about how this could be sorted. He also pointed out that in England, the process had been carried out by means of a consultation and the changes were not implemented for 18 months, giving bus companies time to adjust. In contrast the SNP have charged ahead, giving them only 3 months' notice.

Alex Neil just didn't listen and nor did he respond to the sensible suggestions Willie put to him. It was typical SNP bluster. I wonder when he last took the bus anywhere.

Richard Baker was all over the place. It was like his muck up on knife crime all over again.

You can watch the item here. 

Hume reveals heartbreaking homelessness statistics

I've long said that I want a Government to decide that it's going to sort out housing. During my years working for Willie Rennie as his caseworker, by far the biggest tragedy I could see unfolding before me was housing. Every week we'd have around 5 new families wanting, no, needing to be rehoused.

Maybe their family had grown or two families had amalgamated meaning a current property was too small. Maybe they'd had to take a private let, sacrificing their priority on the local authority list, but paying out more than they could afford in rent. Maybe a relationship had ended or they'd been put out by family. Maybe illness had meant that their current home was impossible for them. I remember returning once from holiday to the awful news that one person who'd been waiting for a long time to be rehoused had actually died.

The problem is, of course, that the supply of social housing has never recovered from Margaret Thatcher's "right to buy" policy. Forcing local authorities to sell houses at knock down prices and not letting them build any more has had horrendous consequences for people needing affordable housing today. There simply is not enough to go round.

In Scotland, the Labour/Liberal Democrat coalition between 1999 and 2007 passed legislation aimed at ending homelessness by 2012.  Figures obtained by the Liberal Democrats in the Scottish Parliament show that we are still some way from meeting that target.

It's horrifying to think that a minimum of 2000 families are living in temporary accommodation. This might, if they're lucky, be a flat, usually in the sort of area nobody would choose. However, they could be moved out of this to another part of their local authority area at any time. Imagine, for example, being made homeless in Dunfermline in the south west of Fife. You could be put in temporary accommodation in St Andrew's, a good hour away. How do you get your kids to school? How do you get to work if you do shifts at unsocial hours if you don't have a car? And you could be moved to another part of this pretty big kingdom at any time.

And that accommodation, like I said, might not be a flat. It might be bed and breakfast, in which case as a family you'd be expected to leave during the day. Where do you go? It might be a homeless hostel, where you have to share with strangers.  Can you imagine how horrendously difficult it would be to live in those circumstances? Most people reading this will wake up in a warm house, with a washing machine to hand to clean their clothes and cooking facilities they can use when they feel like eating and space to rest and relax. There will doubtless be enough room for people to escape from each other when they've had a row. Imagine your whole life, your whole family in one room with possessions that you can carry. How would that affect a child?

Have a read of Shelter's article on what it's like to be homeless and you'll get an idea. The horror of the reality is being experienced now by far too many people and particularly children.

The Liberal Democrats' housing spokesman at Holyrood, Jim Hume, has today released the findings of his Freedom of Information requests to local authorities about the number of children and families in temporary housing. Glasgow, Aberdeenshire and South Lanarkshire aren't included, so this is a minimum figure. Basically we have 2073 families in temporary accommodation and this is at 1st October. 1271 had been there for more than 3 months and 779 for more than 6 months. By anyone's standards, that's just wrong.

Housing affects so much else, your health, your ability to work, your sense of security and it's vital that someone has the political will to sort it out. This is too important an issue for the SNP just to blame the coalition government for cuts or say that independence would sort everything out.  They have £30 billion, the entire Scottish budget, to spend as they please. If they want to, they can build more houses with the powers they currently have rather than halve the budget and forget their pledge to build 6000 new houses every year. If they want to.

We need to have not just an intelligent debate, but actual action now to make sure that everyone in need has a roof over their head and a long term strategy in place to make sure it stays that way.  It's not just about building new houses, it's about making better use of those we have. Ewan Hoyle has some ideas over at Lib Dem Voice about elderly people in larger houses sharing with younger people, maybe students, who help out with jobs around the place in a mutually convenient and non exploitative way.

It's not just homelessness we have to deal with, though, it's poor quality social housing with damp, condensation, leaky doors and windows and with appallingly bad energy efficiency so that they're difficult to keep warm. Something has to be done about them, too, and fast. There's no point in investing in education if kids haven't got somewhere warm to do their homework or they lie freezing in their beds at night.

I'll give the final word to Jim Hume:

“Thousands of families with children are facing a hard Christmas in temporary accommodation. We can only imagine how hard this is, especially for the 779 families that have been without a permanent home for over 6 months.
 “January marks the beginning of the year in which Scotland’s homelessness commitment is due to be met. “The SNP Government must ensure that it’s fully committed to ending 2012 with every homeless person having access to a permanent home. “A good start will be looking again at its planned 50% cut to the affordable housing budget and Alex Neil needs to face up to his government’s U-turn on the 6000 new socially rented houses each year
 “We also need to see a more innovative approach to tackling homelessness across Scotland. “We cannot afford to leave so many families out in the cold this Christmas.”