Health and Community Care Committee, 09 Feb 2000

Meeting date: Wednesday, February 9, 2000

Official Report 175KB pdf

---

Petition

Item 2 on our agenda is a petition with 3,600 signatures from the Scottish Socialist party. It calls on the Parliament to conduct a referendum in Lothians on the method of funding that should be used to build Edinburgh's new royal infirmary. I suggest that the committee takes note of the petition and that we take no further action. Many of us have already raised concerns about aspects of the private finance initiative, but we are being asked to conduct a referendum on a building that is three-quarters built. Contracts have been signed. PFI remains on the committee's list of issues.

It is a substantial petition with many signatures.

I would like my concern noted about the fact that the petition is to stop the privatisation of the infirmary. That is misleading—the fact that private money is being used to build it does not mean that it becomes a private sector hospital. I appreciate that members might have concerns about PFI if it takes money from patient care.

Mary has said what I was going to say. There is an extremely dangerous trend, particularly in relation to the party that is named on the petition, towards going to a constituency and raising issues that are not yet problems. In my constituency, the Scottish Socialist party has raised issues about Falkirk maternity hospital. It has asked for the hospital not to be closed, when that closure is not on the agenda. If one was presented with a petition that asked that the closure of that hospital be stopped, one might sign it through a lack of information and through a lack of understanding that the petition was not relevant. The use of such terminology as "privatised" and references to staff being kicked out of the NHS do not serve the democratic process.

The petition should be rejected, but not on account of the people who have signed it—their fears about PFI are understandable and Parliament must address them. It should be rejected because the use of misleading information is unacceptable. I do not even agree to the petition being noted. We should send it back to the Public Petitions Committee with those comments and ask the committee to examine it seriously.

I agree with much of what Richard says. One of our priorities is to discuss PFIs, but to say that new hospital in Edinburgh is not an issue—

I am not saying that.

You did say—

No. I am not saying that.

The hospital has caused great concern. The petition should be noted and I hope that the committee will have a full debate about PFI. There are concerns among the work force and among patients about the system of funding new hospitals.

The petition says:

"We believe the Royal Bank of Scotland should not be providing the city's healthcare—this is the responsibility of the National Health Service."

That will always be the responsibility of the health service—the Royal Bank of Scotland is not coming into health care. The petition is misleading and I am seriously concerned about it.

May I correct something? If I gave the impression that the PFI issue generally, and specifically in the case of Edinburgh, is not a matter of concern for, and a matter for debate in, this Parliament and the appropriate committee in this Parliament, I wish to correct that. I am concerned about totally misleading language and a total misrepresentation of facts in documents that are being portrayed as public petitions. That damages the petitions process. I want petitions to be an important part of this Parliament, but they must not be used by people to mislead.

We have to respond to the Public Petitions Committee. Would it be acceptable to say that we are concerned about the language used and the misrepresentation of the situation in the petition, that we have decided to take no action and that we will discuss the wider issue in due course?

I agree with Richard completely. There must be a stronger signal to say that the petition process must not be hijacked and that we will not look at the petition. The petition is an utter disgrace, and it arises from the cheapest political motivation. If it was motivated by concern for the hospital and the people, it would contain facts and not use hysterical language to frighten people. Petitions are not just about gaining signatures; they are about imparting information to those who sign them. We should send the petition back.

I will ensure that the committee's strength of feeling is expressed to the Public Petitions Committee for it to pass on. I also will refer that committee to the Official Report so that it can see what members of this committee have said on this issue. Beyond that, I will say that we will take no action on the petition. Is that acceptable?

Members indicated agreement.