Chamber
Plenary, 28 Apr 2005
28 Apr 2005 · S2 · Plenary
Item of business
Smoking, Health and Social Care (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1
I congratulate the Health Committee, the clerks and everyone in the Parliament who has worked hard on this extensive bill and produced excellent reports. There is potential for cross-party support—except from the Tories, but I will come back to them—for a progressive, pro-health agenda, in particular on the headline intention of the bill. I do not need researchers' statistics to persuade me that second-hand smoke has a detrimental effect on health; I have only to see the immediate impact that smoke has on my daughter, who suffers from asthma, when she walks into a smoky room. I am persuaded by the health arguments of the bill, although I have some reservations. I will not dwell on those today but, as the bill progresses, I might come back to them. I am glad that the Executive is prepared to implement a policy that will, I hope, improve Scotland's health; however, I would be more impressed if that policy was presented in tandem with health policies that were even more proactive, such as the provision of free school meals.
It is unfortunate that I am unable to concentrate on the positive aspects of the bill today. The debate has been dominated by the proposed smoking ban—probably predictably and rightly—and I note that the minister spent only one minute of his speech in talking about the section of the bill that makes reference to joint ventures and LIFT—local improvement finance trust—schemes. However, contained in the bill is a section that, if not removed, is so fundamental that the Scottish Socialist Party—and perhaps others whose policies are pro-public finance—will end up having to oppose the bill. That is why I hope that all parties—although perhaps not the Tories, who I imagine think that that is the only good section of the bill—will support our amendment to take out the section of the bill that relates to joint ventures.
It is important to differentiate between what the Executive, civil servants and public bodies say about the policy intentions around LIFT schemes, intellectual property and so on, and what the bill allows. In answer to my written question on the subject, Andy Kerr stated:
"There is no policy intention for joint venture companies established to provide clinical services."—[Official Report, Written Answers, 21 March 2005; S2W-15136.]
Nevertheless, the bill facilitates that. It is obvious from the evidence that was given to the Health Committee that there is no support for the claimed benefits of LIFT schemes. The Executive and the bodies that are expected to implement the bill have been, at best, vague about how LIFT schemes would be implemented and what the impact would be on service provision, accountability, staffing levels and the terms and conditions of any future staff. The Executive has not ruled out staff transfer, and the Scottish Trades Union Congress/Executive staff protocol exists only as long as the Executive enforces it. The SSP believes that that is not enough protection for workers.
There are already more health centres in joint premises in Scotland than there are in England, and there is much greater potential in Scotland than in England for adverse outcomes for staff. None of the witnesses who were in favour of LIFT schemes was able to give us details of their impact on public services, but it is safe to assume that the high costs of private finance initiatives, in financial and clinical terms, will be replicated in LIFT schemes.
The returns for the private sector, which is 60 per cent dominant in the schemes, are at least double what they would be under public procurement. As we have seen with PFI, the public purse, services, patients, clients and staff pay handsomely for the private sector's bumper returns. I recommend that members read in detail the evidence presented by Dave Watson of Unison, of which I am a member, and contrast its erudition, precision and confidence with the woolly, vague, ill-informed and sometimes pathetic case submitted by the advocates of LIFT schemes.
It is unfortunate that I am unable to concentrate on the positive aspects of the bill today. The debate has been dominated by the proposed smoking ban—probably predictably and rightly—and I note that the minister spent only one minute of his speech in talking about the section of the bill that makes reference to joint ventures and LIFT—local improvement finance trust—schemes. However, contained in the bill is a section that, if not removed, is so fundamental that the Scottish Socialist Party—and perhaps others whose policies are pro-public finance—will end up having to oppose the bill. That is why I hope that all parties—although perhaps not the Tories, who I imagine think that that is the only good section of the bill—will support our amendment to take out the section of the bill that relates to joint ventures.
It is important to differentiate between what the Executive, civil servants and public bodies say about the policy intentions around LIFT schemes, intellectual property and so on, and what the bill allows. In answer to my written question on the subject, Andy Kerr stated:
"There is no policy intention for joint venture companies established to provide clinical services."—[Official Report, Written Answers, 21 March 2005; S2W-15136.]
Nevertheless, the bill facilitates that. It is obvious from the evidence that was given to the Health Committee that there is no support for the claimed benefits of LIFT schemes. The Executive and the bodies that are expected to implement the bill have been, at best, vague about how LIFT schemes would be implemented and what the impact would be on service provision, accountability, staffing levels and the terms and conditions of any future staff. The Executive has not ruled out staff transfer, and the Scottish Trades Union Congress/Executive staff protocol exists only as long as the Executive enforces it. The SSP believes that that is not enough protection for workers.
There are already more health centres in joint premises in Scotland than there are in England, and there is much greater potential in Scotland than in England for adverse outcomes for staff. None of the witnesses who were in favour of LIFT schemes was able to give us details of their impact on public services, but it is safe to assume that the high costs of private finance initiatives, in financial and clinical terms, will be replicated in LIFT schemes.
The returns for the private sector, which is 60 per cent dominant in the schemes, are at least double what they would be under public procurement. As we have seen with PFI, the public purse, services, patients, clients and staff pay handsomely for the private sector's bumper returns. I recommend that members read in detail the evidence presented by Dave Watson of Unison, of which I am a member, and contrast its erudition, precision and confidence with the woolly, vague, ill-informed and sometimes pathetic case submitted by the advocates of LIFT schemes.
References in this contribution
Motions, questions or amendments mentioned by their reference code.
In the same item of business
The Presiding Officer (Mr George Reid):
NPA
Good morning. The first item of business is a debate on motion S2M-2667, in the name of Andy Kerr, that the general principles of the Smoking, Health and Soc...
The Minister for Health and Community Care (Mr Andy Kerr):
Lab
Lives have been destroyed, families have been devastated and careers have been shattered—those are the tragic consequences of illness and disease caused by t...
Elaine Smith (Coatbridge and Chryston) (Lab):
Lab
As someone who has recently, finally, stopped smoking, I wish that I had never started.
Members:
Well done.
Elaine Smith:
Lab
Thank you. Is there any evidence that a smoking ban will help to prevent young people from starting to smoke, which is crucial?
Mr Kerr:
Lab
There is strong evidence of that worldwide and in the work that we are doing in the Executive. We seek through the bill to denormalise smoking—to make it abn...
Mr Brian Monteith (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con):
Con
The minister talked about smokers. Does he differentiate between cigarette smokers and those who choose to smoke pipes or cigars, given that 90 per cent of t...
Mr Kerr:
Lab
I do not make a distinction, because we are talking about the protection of public health—the health of everyone in Scotland, including the 70 per cent of pe...
Stewart Stevenson (Banff and Buchan) (SNP):
SNP
Will the minister join me in welcoming the coverage of all tobacco that is smoked? Will he highlight the oral health problems, such as cancers, that are asso...
Mr Kerr:
Lab
We are seeking to address those matters in the strategy that Rhona Brankin announced recently in relation to oral health checks, particularly for the over-60...
Mrs Nanette Milne (North East Scotland) (Con):
Con
Will the minister give way?
Mr Kerr:
Lab
I will give way in a minute. I need to make progress.As Professor Sir Richard Doll has observed, an hour a day in a room with a smoker is nearly 100 times mo...
Mr Stewart Maxwell (West of Scotland) (SNP):
SNP
The minister is aware of my unswerving support for the banning of smoking in public places, but is he also aware of my concern about the definition of smokin...
Mr Kerr:
Lab
First, I place on record again an acknowledgement of the work that Mr Maxwell has done in relation to the bill and our efforts to create a smoke-free Scotlan...
Mr Ted Brocklebank (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con):
Con
As a non-smoker, I have sympathy with many of the aspirations behind the bill. Nevertheless, the fact of the matter is that smoking per se is not illegal. I ...
Mr Kerr:
Lab
The bill rests on the Executive's aim of improving public health. The public health of those in a private club, a social club, a pub and a workplace is equal...
Mr Monteith:
Con
The minister talks about the success of the ban in New York. Why, then, will he not consider some of the exemptions that are allowed in New York, such as cig...
Mr Kerr:
Lab
I refer the member to my previous answer. I am pleased, however, that he has brought up the subject of the ban in New York. Back in 2002, few people were mor...
Mr John Swinney (North Tayside) (SNP):
SNP
Will the minister give way?
The Presiding Officer:
NPA
The minister is getting tight for time.
Mr Kerr:
Lab
I am sorry. Perhaps Mr Swinney can address the matter later, in his speech.On the other aspects of the bill, I am sure that the Executive will reflect on the...
Carolyn Leckie (Central Scotland) (SSP):
SSP
I congratulate the Health Committee, the clerks and everyone in the Parliament who has worked hard on this extensive bill and produced excellent reports. The...
Mr Kerr:
Lab
Will the member accept on record the fact that 50 per cent of general practitioner premises are privately owned and that capital support in the public sector...
Carolyn Leckie:
SSP
That case has indeed been made for PFI; however, it has been blown out of the water by Allyson Pollock and others. I do not need to repeat their points again...
Stewart Stevenson:
SNP
Will the member give way?
Carolyn Leckie:
SSP
I am sorry—I am in my last minute.As a result, it is not necessary to tie up this highly controversial measure in a generally positive piece of legislation. ...
Shona Robison (Dundee East) (SNP):
SNP
I welcome this stage 1 debate. I thank all those who gave evidence to the committee; I also thank the clerks for all their hard work in helping us with what ...
Phil Gallie (South of Scotland) (Con):
Con
I am well aware that the Health Committee has recently expressed concerns about obesity. Has the member seen any research that links cessation of smoking wit...
Shona Robison:
SNP
To be perfectly honest, that is a silly analogy. The member and his colleagues must assess whether, on the balance of probabilities, the measure will improve...
Mr Monteith:
Con
Will the member give way?