Public Health etc (Scotland) Bill
We move, somewhat ahead of schedule, to the next item of business, which is a debate on motion S3M-2018, in the name of Nicola Sturgeon, on the Public Health etc (Scotland) Bill.
I thank all those who have contributed to this important piece of legislation. First, I thank the previous Administration, which brought forward proposals for consultation in autumn 2006. Secondly, I thank the Health and Sport Committee for its thorough scrutiny of the bill and the committee clerks who worked so hard in support of its members. I hope that the committee members recognise that we have worked hard to address their concerns and comments. We have made a number of amendments. I hope that everyone will agree that we have worked well together to strengthen the bill. Thirdly, I thank the many stakeholders who responded to the original consultation and who provided evidence at stages 1 and 2. Finally, I thank Ken Macintosh for his contribution on the regulation of sunbed use.
We are a listening Government, which I am sure has been demonstrated throughout the progress of the bill, and we have been prepared to consider carefully the full range of evidence that has been submitted to us before reaching agreement on the bill that is before Parliament today. I am grateful that all those who contributed to the debate have agreed to the principles of the bill.
To remind us of the significance of the bill, I repeat the words of the World Health Organization, which said in 2007:
"New diseases are emerging at an historically unprecedented rate."
Worldwide travel is no longer the preserve of the rich and famous. Many Scots are holidaying and working in countries where serious communicable diseases are relatively common and can be brought back to our shores in a matter of hours. We therefore need legislation that gives our public health authorities—the national health service and local authorities—flexible powers to protect the public from dangers to health, while building in safeguards on the use of those powers.
The Public Health etc (Scotland) Bill will, if enacted, be a vital tool in protecting our citizens from current and future public health threats. It has the potential to prevent, and prevent the spread of, serious infection and contamination, and thereby to save many lives in the future. In order to do that, the bill contains strong powers. However, we have recognised throughout the bill's development and parliamentary progress that a balance must be struck between our duty to protect the public and the rights of the individual. Although we were satisfied that the bill, as introduced, achieved that balance, we have strengthened the safeguards for individual rights in a number of respects at stage 2. In particular, we have strengthened the appeals procedures in part 4 of the bill. Other important amendments that have been made relate to the court procedures that are to be used and the need for consultation before making regulations under the bill. I am satisfied that the amendments do not in any way dilute the level of health protection that the legislation affords.
I am conscious that part of the responsibility in safeguarding an individual's rights is to ensure that those who are taking action have the necessary qualifications, experience and expertise to do so. In that regard, the introduction of the concept of health board and local authority "competent persons" is extremely important. I am pleased that our proposals on those qualifications are already out to stakeholder consultation. We will, of course, continue to listen carefully to stakeholders on that and on the content of other regulations that are to be made under the bill.
The updating of the statutory nuisance regime in the Environmental Protection Act 1990 as it affects Scotland is well overdue. As a result of the bill, we will have a significantly enhanced regime compared with that in other parts of the United Kingdom. It not only builds on their experiences of introducing insect infestation and artificial light as statutory nuisances but introduces a flexible fixed-penalty regime and a regulation-making power that will enable us to legislate quickly and effectively to address new nuisances that arise in future.
The provisions on sunbeds that were inserted by Ken Macintosh's amendments at stage 2 stimulated debate across all parties and might well do so again today, although I suspect that there is now pretty broad agreement. The provisions in part 8 send a clear health message that sunbed use is dangerous. It is important that we give adults the information to enable them to make an informed and educated choice, and that we protect children. The provisions put us ahead of the rest of the UK, and they strike the right balance between Government intervention and individual responsibility.
I am conscious that there are still some outstanding concerns, principally on the safety of sunbed appliances and on how the Health and Safety Executive guidance for sunbed operators can be better enforced. We also need to protect consumers from the misleading information that operators provide on the merits of sunbed use. A number of members believe that the licensing of sunbeds would go a long way to meeting those concerns, and I have agreed to consider the matter further when we have had time to gather and fully assess the evidence. However, as Ken Macintosh said at stage 2, we need to be careful not to dilute the message that sunbed use damages health even in premises that meet the highest standards.
Does the minister agree that the committee's concerns at stage 2 were about the modification of machines that were approved under the European Union regulations when they were sold? It is the modification that is the difficulty. We unearthed a considerable discrepancy between the views of those on the environmental side who are charged with protecting the public and the views of those who enforce health and safety. Will the minister comment on whether the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 will help to protect people in that regard? Will she consider that in relation to the provision of information and, in particular, the provision of misleading information that contains claims about the health benefits of sunbeds? Will she also reconsider enforcement and the inspection of equipment to ensure that it has not been modified in a way that might cause a problem? At stage 2, we were made aware that there would have to be proof that damage had occurred. That reactive rather than proactive approach does not seem appropriate.
The member must be a mind-reader, because I was about to say something about that.
As part of our further work in the area, I intend to meet the head of the Health and Safety Executive to explore how its guidance might be strengthened and better enforced. The matter is clearly on reserved territory. Those on the ground might come under local authorities, but when they are carrying out the relevant duties, they are wearing their reserved-matters hat—their health and safety hat. I am also considering the new consumer protection legislation, which might well give us scope to tackle the serious issues on the ground.
I listened with great interest to the Health and Sport Committee's evidence taking on the matter. As I said earlier, it is clear that there are some outstanding issues that we need to address and I look forward to working with the committee further to do that. We need to take time to consider all the evidence and reflect on how the issues can best be addressed before we take further action, and I want to do that in partnership with the Health and Sport Committee.
I am confident that the bill will provide our public health professionals in health boards and local authorities with the tools that they need to ensure a high level of health protection for the people of Scotland for many years to come. It will also provide an appropriate level of Government intervention to ensure that our young people are protected from risks to their health from sunbed use and that adults can make properly informed decisions on sunbed use. I therefore commend the bill to Parliament.
I move,
That the Parliament agrees that the Public Health etc. (Scotland) Bill be passed.
I call Margaret Curran, who has at least six minutes.
I do not want to disappoint you, Presiding Officer, but I will probably not take up your enticing offer of speaking for an inordinate length of time. This has been a consensual debate and, as members know, I do not really do consensual, so I am a bit speechless. I congratulate Mary Scanlon on doing her bit to raise some arguments and debate. I have a choice: I could go down the road of trying to find an argument—I am usually quite successful at that, I have to say—or I could have a go at the consensual approach. I ask members to bear with me as I try to be consensual.
We welcome the Public Health etc (Scotland) Bill. I hope that it is considered consensual to say that we see it as a continuation of the work of the previous Scottish Executive. It is an important piece of legislation for the modernisation of the public health agenda. Points were made strongly in the stage 1 debate about how long the existing legislation has been on the statute books and about the need for modernisation. As the minister said, there are new possible threats to public health, and unforeseen issues might emerge for which we will need a framework.
As someone who has been a bit distant from the detail of the bill—I am not a member of that glorious committee—I thank the members of the committee and all the staff, who do so much work. However, Mary Scanlon made an important point about the need for assistance for members, particularly if they have a pressing point to raise. We need to discuss how members are supported. I am sure that the issue emerged during the previous parliamentary sessions, so perhaps we need to ask the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body to give some time to it.
I know that Labour and other members worked hard to strike the proper balance between the protection of the public and the rights of the individual, which is not always an easy thing to do. However, we have moved considerably towards that end with the bill.
At stage 1, my particular emphasis for the bill was Ken Macintosh's campaign to restrict the use of sunbeds. Like the minister, I pay tribute to the significant work that Ken Macintosh has done, which has led to a welcome public debate on sunbeds. As has been acknowledged, we need to go much further, particularly with public information about the issue, and I am pleased that the minister has articulated the issue of future work. Nonetheless, we have reached an important milestone, and Ken Macintosh's work has been significant in that.
There is another dimension to the issue. I do not have the statistics, although I would be interested to retrieve them, about the proportion of sunbed salons in different communities across Scotland. On Friday night, I was on a night out with the police—well, it was not a night out, although I am sure that that would have been most entertaining. I was touring my constituency with the police, looking at crime and disorder issues in the constituency—she said, as she quickly tried to retrieve the situation. As we weaved around the communities in the east end of Glasgow and greater Easterhouse, I was struck by the number of sunbed salons that I saw.
Those in the Parliament who are interested in health issues have to debate the power of licensing to promote public health—I am not necessarily talking about the powers in the bill—and the number of sunbed salons in a given area could be considered in that context. It is contradictory that the state, in all its forms, allows those salons to exist in communities while also actively discouraging people, particularly young people, from using them.
We have rehearsed the arguments about the increasing incidence in Scotland of melanoma. I am sure that many members will have read the briefing from Cancer Research UK, which highlights that, in addition to skin cancer, a range of serious health conditions, including eye damage and skin ageing, result from sunbed use. We must tell young people—especially young women—about the true consequences of what, in the short term, might seem to be an attractive behaviour.
As the Cancer Research UK briefing identified, the International Agency for Research on Cancer points to evidence of a causal relationship between sunbed use and skin cancer, particularly when exposure takes place before the age of 35. As the second most common cancer among 15 to 34-year-olds, skin cancer represents a big challenge for Scotland. The bill's provisions are a big milestone in tackling its prevalence, but they are only a start. I hope that we continue that work with public information messages that spell out that sunbed use is damaging and should be actively discouraged.
In conclusion—I am sure that it will disappoint the Presiding Officer to hear me say those words—I note that Shona Robison said that her Government is a listening Government. We are a constructive Opposition, and we want to play a full part in the bill's implementation. The debate has been welcome. I am sure that there will be many more parliamentary debates on such matters, both of a constructive and a conflicting nature.
I am often disappointed when you say "In conclusion", Ms Curran, but never as much as I am today.
I now call Mary Scanlon, who has quite a long time for her speech.
I wish that I had prepared a 20-minute speech. Like Margaret Curran, I doubt whether I will need all the time that I have been allowed. It is difficult to follow such a consensual speaker, whose tales of a night out with the local constabulary I cannot compete with.
As I said during the stage 1 debate, consideration of the bill has been surprisingly interesting and, of course, consensual. I thank the Health and Sport Committee's clerks and others who supported us during that process. In my opinion, the committee, under the able convenership of Christine Grahame, did an excellent job—I would say that. [Interruption.] Jamie Stone is suitably impressed. During our scrutiny, we raised many issues that were acknowledged, addressed and discussed both at stage 2 and again today. I trust that Scotland is now as prepared as possible for any potential threat, whether it comes from severe acute respiratory syndrome, pandemic flu or sunbeds.
I hope that lessons have been learned about the drafting of bills. In comparison with recent years, the legislative commitment in the third session of Parliament has been extremely light but, on legal issues, the drafting of the bill was very poor, as the Law Society of Scotland highlighted. It was embarrassing to be told by the Law Society that the bill contained incorrect references to summary applications, problematic appeals provisions and provisions that did not accurately reflect current Scottish civil procedure. That is not good enough. I hope that lessons have been learned and that such errors are not made in future. Neither parliamentary draftsmen nor MSPs should need to depend on the Law Society to correct legislation so that it reflects current Scottish civil procedure.
I trust that the bill outlines clearly the responsibilities of local government and the health service in relation to any serious public health event, but the test for any bill is in its implementation. We hope that its more serious measures, such as those to do with quarantining, will not need to be used very often.
At this week's meeting of the cross-party group in the Scottish Parliament on mental health, at which Richard Simpson and I were present, a representative of the Mental Welfare Commission for Scotland raised a number of points, one of which is pertinent to today's proceedings. A lack of knowledge of mental health legislation among various professionals and organisations was identified. That is worrying because knowledge of mental health legislation is required and used on a daily basis across Scotland to ensure that people are treated and cared for in line with the principles of the legislation and the understanding of it that MSPs had when they passed it. Given that many of the powers, duties and responsibilities in the Public Health etc (Scotland) Bill will not be enforced on a daily or weekly basis, and perhaps not even on a weekly or yearly basis, there is even more need to ensure that all health, local government, legal and other stakeholders are fully informed of the impact and implementation of the legislation.
In my opinion, passing a bill in Parliament is not the end of the process, although it may be the end of the process for us; it should be a catalyst for further training, awareness raising and enhanced communications. How often do people come and tell us that agencies out there do not even talk to each other, work together or share information? All of that is essential to ensure that the eventual act is implemented with the same good will with which we are passing the bill today, and that public health threats are responded to in the manner that is intended and outlined—I am trying to speak as slowly as I can—in the bill.
On behalf of the Scottish Conservatives, I am very pleased to support the bill.
I, too, shall not attempt in any way to fill the time unnecessarily.
I congratulate everybody who has been responsible for bringing forward this important bill, which is largely technical because it replaces legislation that goes back to 1889 and modernises our approach to public health and how we deal with major incidents. It is interesting that so deeply entrenched were the provisions of the Public Health (Scotland) Act 1897 that it has taken three attempts to dig the roots out. That is an interesting reflection of how strong that legislation must have been.
Like other members of the Health and Sport Committee, it is difficult for me to say that the committee did well. However, anyone reading objectively the proceedings of the committee stages in the Official Report would have to concede that the bill was, indeed, strengthened and improved in the committee. I do not want to overdo the issue of appeals provisions and applications in civil procedure, but I think that we all, not just the Government, must remember that the Parliament operates on a unicameral basis and that there is no revising chamber. The serious and heavy burden that each and every one of us has as legislators to get things right as we pass a bill is a heavy responsibility indeed. That applies equally to Government and to MSPs before we agree finally to vote any bill through to become an act of Parliament. Therefore, like others, I hope that one or two lessons have been learned because it is clearly a diversion for members to have to correct matters that ought to have been right in the first place, instead of being allowed the time to scrutinise the more controversial aspects, which might require some thought and reflection to ensure that the provisions do not have unintended consequences.
On the many amendments, I pay tribute to the minister for her constructive approach to the bill as a whole and, indeed, for the responses that she brought back to the committee on the issues that it raised. I hope that that is, indeed, the style that we can expect in the future.
The bill itself does many things that are pretty self-evident; it brings enormous clarity to the roles of Scottish ministers, health boards and local authorities, and it spells out the public health functions of health boards and local authorities in a way that none of the predecessor legislation managed. The bill makes clear the persons who are responsible; the definition of a "competent person" is a welcome development in the proceedings.
The bill also updates the list of notifiable diseases and organisms. To support the view that the committee did a thorough job, I want members to know that both part 1 of schedule 1, which lists notifiable diseases and fills a page, and part 2 of schedule 1, which lists notifiable organisms and fills two and a bit pages, were thoroughly considered not by the committee as a whole but by Dr Ian McKee and Dr Richard Simpson, who displayed what I can only describe as an unhealthy interest in notifiable diseases and notifiable organisms. However, the committee and the Parliament should be satisfied that each disease and organism that is listed has been given due and careful consideration. Explanations have been asked for and suggestions were even made that some things that had not been included might be included. We can rest assured that nothing has gone untouched.
Ken Macintosh, who lodged amendments on the regulation of sunbeds, deserves credit for raising another important issue. I congratulate him on lodging those amendments and apologise for not making it clear earlier that although a particular amendment was lodged by him, he did not move it. His proposals were welcome. They are slightly different from the main thrust of the bill, but they represent an important contribution to promoting health through addressing the problems of skin cancer, with which we are all familiar.
I was particularly pleased to hear the minister's comments on unresolved matters. As Dr Simpson made clear in his intervention, the committee was extremely exercised about the confusion between approved codes of practice that the Health and Safety Executive operates and discretionary guidelines that do not involve statutory undertakings. I welcome the minister's undertaking to look further into such matters, which relate to the performance of the equipment that is used. I hope that there is an early resolution and an explanation from the HSE as to how things might be best resolved, as a little bit of a loophole has been left with respect to the Parliament's intent in passing the bill.
In conclusion, the bill is worth while and will give public health law a modern aspect. I hope that it will assure the public that we are fit and prepared to deal with incidents and that a system will be in place that will serve the public well. Now that the bill has gone through all its stages, it is a good bill. The Liberal Democrats will certainly support the motion to pass it at decision time.
As my colleague on the Health and Sport Committee Ross Finnie said, the Public Health etc (Scotland) Bill is a substantial piece of legislation that will replace legislation that is well past its use-by date. Schedule 3 will repeal acts that go back to the 19th century and 1907.
The previous Administration commendably set the bill in train—I say to Mrs Curran that I, too, can be consensual. The bill reflects how much the world has changed since the 19th century, from a world of tuberculosis, measles and whooping cough epidemics to a world of SARS, bird flu, MRSA and indeed, anthrax, which has made a recent revisit. The world has metaphorically shrunk in size with the relatively free and fast movement of people and animals.
I am speaking as a back bencher, but I want to put on record as convener of the Health and Sport Committee my thanks to members of that committee for—as someone else has said—their interesting and perceptive engagement with what turned out to be interesting legislation. We appointed an expert, but—this is no reflection on the calibre of that expert—consideration of the bill was well within our capacity. That can be seen from the quantity and quality of the amendments that we stimulated at stage 2 through robust engagement with the ministerial team. I congratulate the minister on responding so positively to that engagement. Indeed, I think that we arrived at a much more consensual position at stage 3 because the committee did its work.
The recent anthrax outbreak in the Scottish Borders tested the existing legislative levers and administration processes, and they did not always pass their tests. I have said before that under the existing legislation, only one possible infected premises could be legally isolated and entered. In the Pascal Norris case in the Borders, that meant that his home could be isolated and entered. However, the real place of contamination was the village hall in Smailholm, and the only way in which that could have been isolated and entered was if the owner gave their consent—which, of course, they gave. That shows why we had to move on. The situation has now been remedied under section 22(1).
One extremely important debate was on ensuring that we struck the difficult balance between the rights of the individual and the rights of society to protection from virulent disease. Many of the amendments at stage 2—and, indeed, at stage 3—redressed a balance that the committee felt was not being sufficiently maintained. I refer in particular to section 57B(4)(d)—the information is all at your fingertips—which provides for an appeal after there has been a medical examination without consent. The ministerial team asked what point there would be in lodging an appeal when the medical examination had already been done. The point would be to establish whether the appropriate criteria in those circumstances had been properly applied and then to set a bar—involving principles and criteria—that could be a guide to sheriffs elsewhere. Collectively, we won substantial debates across the whole bill, and I agree with my colleagues that those included debates on substantial issues involving civil court procedures that were a novelty to me after 12 years in practice.
Finally, I come to Ken Macintosh. I want to take time to congratulate you. I am jealous: I am trying to bring forward a bill on licensing, which I hope that the minister will embrace with the same commendably positive attitude with which she embraced your proposed member's bill. The whole of part 8 is virtually your bill. You have had great success and have shown that a back bencher with stoicism and determination who pursues an issue with ministers down the years can get results. In particular, I commend section 90C, on unsupervised coin-operated sunbeds. It is appropriate that it includes the caveat "without reasonable excuse", as someone could deceitfully use a coin-operated sunbed without the owner's knowledge.
I was intrigued by part 9, on statutory nuisances, which introduces into the Environmental Protection Act 1990 a provision on artificial light that is deemed to be "prejudicial to health". I warn the Scottish public at large that, although the provision may not pertain to outdoor garden lights in the summer, it may apply to domestic households that are becoming prone to blazing with competing Santas, sledges, reindeer and icicles. That is just a thought on this sunny June afternoon.
I remind the chamber of what the Presiding Officer has been saying at the beginning of every meeting for the past couple of weeks about the need for members to address their remarks through the chair.
My remarks will address part 8 of the bill, on the regulation of sunbeds. Following my participation in this morning's rather divisive debate on education cuts, I am relieved—possibly unlike Margaret Curran, I am pleased—to be able to thank members from all parties for their support over the years for my proposed member's bill. It has been a long slog from the idea of a sunbed bill being first suggested by the cross-party group on cancer to today's successful—and, I hope, unanimous—adoption of it by the Scottish Parliament.
I joked with colleagues earlier that I hope that the level of support that has been shown for the proposals does not reflect the fact that they have been worn down over the years, but reflects the strength of our arguments. What matters is that the Scottish Parliament has shown yet again its willingness to tackle Scotland's biggest health problems head on. We are taking charge of our own health. We are taking responsibility and rising to the challenges that we face. Skin cancer is a particular Scottish problem—there is no doubt about that. Fair skin, blue eyes and freckles are some of the factors that put people in a high-risk category when it comes to developing skin cancer. I am proud that Scotland is leading the way in the United Kingdom in this cancer prevention measure.
Sunbeds are, however, only part of the problem. As a country, we must change our attitudes to tanning more generally. Nevertheless, the regulation of sunbeds will be an important step in our attempts to reverse the rising incidence of this devastating disease. Thousands of Scots have lost their lives—often, at a cruelly young age—as a result of skin cancer, and many more have faced the trauma of intrusive surgery.
As I have said before, I hope that the measures will work in the same way as a health warning on a pack of cigarettes. They will be of particular benefit to the young, offering protection to those under the age of 18 whose very youth makes them vulnerable to developing the disease. I hope that the new laws will eradicate the all-too-frequent abuses of coin-operated sunbeds or unstaffed salons.
It is the issuing of information on the dangers of tanning to their health that will begin to change the attitudes and behaviours of sunbed users. The Minister for Public Health has promised to revisit the question of licences, should the evidence support the case, and I was very pleased to hear that commitment. I agree with her that the purpose of part 8 of the bill is not to enable us to damage our health in the UK's best-run salons, but to encourage all of us to be more careful about our health in the first place.
My colleague Margaret Curran made the important point that skin cancer is an equalities issue. The salons often target the most vulnerable people and can be found in particularly deprived communities. Unfortunately, individuals from those communities are less likely to pick up on signs of cancer at an early stage. Therefore, unfortunately, they experience poorer outcomes.
I ask you to indulge me, Presiding Officer, as I thank those who really made the proposals on sunbeds happen today. I am grateful to so many people for helping us to get where we are. Jamie Inglis, formerly of Health Scotland, first brought the idea to the attention of the cross-party group on cancer. Professor Jimmy Ferguson and Harry Moseley from the photobiology unit at Ninewells hospital and the University of Dundee, Professor Colin Munro from the Victoria infirmary and the Southern general hospital in Glasgow, as well as all their colleagues in Scotland's dermatology community, gave me so much of their time and expertise.
I thank John Sleith from the Royal Environmental Health Institute of Scotland, who has done so much work over so many years to provide evidence from local authorities about the operation of sunbed salons. I have special thanks for the campaigners who are with us in the gallery. Vicky Crichton from Cancer Research UK is here, and she can pass on our thanks to Sarah Woolnough and other colleagues from CRUK. I thank Leigh Smith and Ian Nicol from the melanoma support group Scotland. Their personal testimony and experience will have done so much to engage and win the sympathy of MSPs and people outside the Parliament.
I should thank not only the Health and Sport Committee clerking team, who were typically supportive and helpful, but—unusually for an Opposition MSP—the officials in the bill team, who I think took a very constructive attitude. All the campaigners were struck by the way in which we felt engaged in a common endeavour for the public good.
In a similar vein, it would be ungracious of me not to thank the Minister for Public Health herself. I know that she was one of the signatories to my proposed member's bill and that she was an active member and supporter of the cross-party group on cancer over many years. Although this might be an all-too-rare occasion—despite the supposed new politics in this country—I genuinely wish to thank her and colleagues from all parties for the support that they have given my proposals.
I was encouraged to hear the minister's words on how to deal with some of the unresolved issues in the bill, particularly those around health and safety and the prohibition on the making of false or dubious health claims. I particularly look forward to the public health campaign that will accompany the legislation as it is enacted.
Sunbed regulations might have been a long time coming, but in many ways the journey has been as important as the destination. We are winning the battle on lung cancer, on cervical cancer and on bowel cancer. I hope that, from today, we will win the battle on skin cancer, too.
It is always a real pleasure to be called to speak at this late point in a stage 3 debate, because there are so many new and fresh ideas to be injected into the discussion. However, as I am not responsible for the timetabling of the debate, I do not feel the need to apologise for repeating some of the points that have already been raised.
Several members have said that consideration of the bill has largely been consensual, not just during today's debate but during its consideration by the committee. Margaret Curran has just left the chamber for the moment, but I must confess that her attempt at consensual debate was very worthy. In fact, I would go so far as to say that consensual debate comes rather naturally to Margaret Curran, and I encourage her to continue in that vein in the future.
During our consideration of amendments, Mary Scanlon made an important point about the support that is available to back-bench members who want to lodge amendments. I hope that the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body will consider the matter. The problem arose during the first session of the Parliament, when I served on the Justice 1 Committee as a back-bench member of an Opposition party. However, I recall that the gaps between stage 1 and stage 2 and between stage 2 and stage 3 were longer, which meant that clerks had more opportunity to consider the consequential effects of amendments that were lodged. Perhaps further consideration should be given to timetabling bill stages to give clerks and others such opportunities.
Technical difficulties with Opposition members' amendments are an age-old problem. When I was in opposition I often regarded ministers' comments about technical difficulties with amendments as a counsel of despair—I am sure that that is not the case during this debate. However, there is a genuine issue to do with ensuring that members are given appropriate support.
Like other members, I welcome the bill, which will ensure that our public health legislation and regulations are fit for the 21st century. The bill will put us in a better position to be able to tackle major public health issues that our nation will face in future.
Like Ross Finnie and others, I congratulate the minister on how she conducted herself in her work with the committee on the bill. In opposition it was not always my experience that ministers were forthcoming with committees when there was disagreement or when amendments were sought. The minister demonstrated a willingness to work in partnership with the committee, in line with the original intentions about how the Parliament would operate. She took on board many concerns that the committee raised and when it was not technically possible to amend the bill she offered to address issues in guidance. Her response to the committee prior to stage 2 was extremely useful, as I said at the time. When stage 1 debates took place in the past members often had no idea what position the Executive would take. The full response that the minister provided gave us useful ideas about the Government's approach.
In the stage 1 debate, Mr Finnie expressed concern about the bill in relation to the European convention on human rights. I hope not only that he has been reassured that he need no longer be concerned but that the Parliament will acknowledge that the bill is fully ECHR compliant.
The regulation of sunbeds has probably been the major focus of public and media attention. Like other members, I congratulate Ken Macintosh on his diligence and hard work in pursuing the issue during recent years. I acknowledge that the passing of the bill will present difficulties for some businesses in Scotland, particularly those that run coin-operated sunbed parlours. Some businesses might have to close. However, this is an issue on which public health takes precedence over personal difficulties. We have made progress on a number of fronts in relation to other medical conditions and I hope that the passing of the bill will demonstrate that Scotland is determined to address the growing problem of skin cancer.
If the Parliament agrees to pass the bill at decision time, it will be important that subsequent regulations and guidelines address issues that the committee raised and that we ensure that local authorities effectively implement the bill's provisions, to ensure that the public health benefits of the bill are delivered.
I welcome the opportunity to take part in this afternoon's debate on the Public Health etc (Scotland) Bill. We spend a lot of time in the Parliament debating health and other big issues—for example, how we spend the £11 billion budget, deal with drug and alcohol policy and tackle health inequalities. There is no doubt that we need to have a framework in which to deal with public health. If we get that right, it will contribute towards the overall health and wellbeing of the Scottish people. It is important that the bill, which I hope will be passed today, serves those objectives. It is definitely a step in the right direction.
Other members have spoken about the need to modernise our public health legislation, much of which, as Ross Finnie said, is rooted in the 19th century. We must pay heed to the fact that, as the world changes and everyone travels more, we are more likely to come into contact with different diseases. From that point of view, I welcome the amendments that the bill makes to the Environmental Protection Act 1990, particularly in relation to the addition of premises from which insects emanate or premises that give rise to artificial light nuisance, and situations in which water covering land becomes a public health risk or nuisance.
If organisations or companies are found to be responsible in such instances, their unsociable behaviour should be dealt with. We need to take a strong stand against them, and the provisions in the bill will help us to do that. The bill will help to protect individuals from such public health risk or nuisance and will encourage organisations and companies to respect individuals and communities.
Most speakers have rightly paid tribute to Ken Macintosh, who has been instrumental in developing the part of the bill that deals with the regulation of provision of sunbeds. His work has been critical, not only during the passage of the bill but over the years, during which he has campaigned constantly on the issue. The point of being involved in politics—I am talking not only about Labour members but members across the chamber—is to make a difference. Ken Macintosh has made a difference, particularly in relation to part 8 on the regulation of provision of sunbeds.
A couple of weeks ago, campaigners set up a stall in the chamber lobby to raise awareness of melanoma. Like many members, I visited the stall. I talked to one woman who spoke eloquently on the subject. Sadly, her husband had passed away the previous month as a result of skin cancer. She spoke passionately about why it was important that the Parliament pass the bill, particularly the part on which Ken Macintosh has campaigned. She told me that it would make a difference by raising awareness and reducing the incidence of skin cancer throughout Scotland. I acknowledge the importance of all the other aspects of the bill, but if politics is about making a difference, the work that Ken Macintosh has done sends out a strong message throughout Scotland on the dangers of sunbed use. I welcome that. I reiterate Margaret Curran's comments on the number of sunbed salons in some communities. As she said, a high proportion of such salons can be found in areas of social deprivation, which is of concern.
The committee and the minister spent a lot of time looking at the issue of licensing. The minister has given a commitment that, if the Government feels that the provisions in the bill do not, in practice, meet its objectives, she will come back to the chamber on the matter.
I welcome the provisions that are being introduced to modernise the investigation of public health incidents. Those provisions are absolutely correct, given that no new legislation has been passed on that area.
In the stage 1 debate, I raised concerns about the intention to use the summary application procedure in Scottish civil court proceedings, as that was not legally competent. That provision has now been revised at stage 3. I hope that the mistake is not repeated in other bills that are brought before the Parliament.
The alignment of the appointment of public health inspectors with the appointment of appropriate competent people by local authorities and health boards is absolutely correct. That should help to instil public confidence when investigations take place, which is paramount. On health protection plans, it is important that health boards and local authorities work together. However, the bill talks about consultation on that, rather than agreement. We must consider that issue in future.
As others have done, I pay tribute to the work of the Health and Sport Committee. I am not a member of the committee, but I have read many of its deliberations. It is clear that there is a lot of expertise on the committee. If one considers the development of the bill from stage 1 to stage 3, one can see that the committee has made many positive contributions and has affected the eventual outcome, in part through positive discussions with the minister.
The bill is an important one that lays down an essential framework for public health that can make a real difference in some areas. I welcome its passage today.
We now move to the winding-up speeches. I call Ross Finnie.
No.
Jamie Stone?
No.
I call Jackson Carlaw.
I offer my congratulations to the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing and the Minister for Public Health in particular on the imminent conclusion of their first major piece of legislation since coming to government. That the bill has attracted a consensual approach throughout the Parliament is to be welcomed and we will of course support it in the final vote tonight. From time to time during its passage, the extraordinary age of some of the legislation it succeeds has been mentioned, in particular the Infectious Disease (Notification) Act 1889 and the Public Health (Scotland) Act 1897. In reflecting on that, I thought that it might be interesting to consult the Hansard official record of those earlier times to see what lessons might be learned.
Coincidentally, in the wider context of public health, it should be noted that Coca-Cola was invented in 1889. Indeed, it was originally produced by a company called the Pemberton Medicine Company. I presume that, if its status as a medicine had not changed, it would in due course have been available on free prescription. On this day in 1889, the Eiffel tower had been open for just a few weeks, from early May, and 88 souls perished in an Irish train disaster. Otto Frank, Anne Frank's father had just been born—ironically, days after the man who would destroy his family and shatter the peace of the world half a century later. Kaiser Wilhelm II, who did much the same in half the time, had just succeeded, the tsar still ruled and the Marquis of Salisbury led the Government.
Jamie Stone may be encouraged to hear that in the debate on the proposed legislation, various members intervened to challenge why the member for Caithness, a Dr Clark, had been unable to participate. The validity of proceedings was called into question because the member for Caithness had not been able to state his point. I am sure that colleagues here today will want to reassure Mr Stone that, together, we would cheerfully and willingly march in his defence were he, as the member for Caithness in the Parliament, unable to set that outrageous wrong of history right. It is just a great shame that Mr Stone has no intention of doing so this afternoon, but I had not anticipated that small matter.
I am not sure how riveting the notification of infectious disease was to Westminster, for the lord mayor of Dublin—all Ireland then benefiting from membership of the union—was moved to comment:
"We have been here through a most fatiguing week. We were here till nearly 3 o'clock this morning, and the present Sitting has lasted more than seven hours. Does the Government think that there is no limit to the physical endurance of Members?"—[Official Report, House of Commons, 24 August 1889; Vol 340, c 438.]
The cabinet secretary and the minister must be relieved that, while all the respective health teams in the Scottish Parliament have certainly spent more than seven hours of late discussing various topics of considerable interest, we have not sat here on this matter alone for just so long.
One point of interest in the debate in 1889 was the argument about the role of medical men, the forebears of general practitioners, having to give notification of disease outbreaks. It caused some controversy then, too; the member for Lincolnshire, Spalding somewhat fatuously argued against the measure on the basis that a report he had seen demonstrated that there was less incidence of disease where it was not reported.
By 1897 and the passage of the Public Health (Scotland) Bill, the Irish author Bram Stoker had just published "Dracula"; the first fingerprint bureau had opened in, curiously, Calcutta in India; the word "computer" had been used for the first time in connection with an electronic device; Anthony Eden was born; and Queen Victoria had celebrated her diamond jubilee. There was a rather cantankerous exchange in the Commons, and memorable phrases, such as the bill being
"remarkable not so much for what it contained as for what it did not contain",
were coined. How often have we heard that since? There were contributions from the members for Banffshire, Dundee, Edinburgh, Midlothian and Glasgow Blackfriars—the latter noting, somewhat vexatiously, that the arrangements introduced into the Bill would lead to
"an extraordinary expenditure of time and money. It would cause dilatory objections to be made. It would confer enormous advantages on the rich, and impose serious drawbacks on the poor. To many local authorities the delays, expense, and trouble would be a serious matter. The Bill would apply, not to rich places only, but to scores of poor districts in Scotland which could ill afford the money to devote".—[Official Report, House of Commons, 22 March 1897; Vol XLVII, c 1150, 1160.]
That was a somewhat ridiculous footnote from history, but one with its own echoes.
I dwell on all of this—as members will have concluded by now—in the absence of much else to say. There is some pleasure to be had in knowing that our Official Report will record the historical contribution of others in the on-going legislative story of public health, but I will note, finally, that in the 19th century too, the overall spirit of the debate, despite the lateness of the hour, was characterised by the resolve of members on all sides to work together. Farewell, then, to our guardians past.
I have two points to leave with the Government. First, Mary Scanlon's amendment 1 was sincerely offered. We are concerned that GP morale has softened. I have noted previously that the removal of the notification fee—although not substantially material in its own right—was seen by GPs in the context of recent renegotiations as a further chipping away at earlier commitments. Whether the GPs were right or wrong, I hope that future outcomes do not cause the Government to rue the day.
Secondly—although I do not wish to labour the point—the Government might note that members of the Subordinate Legislation Committee had our attention drawn to some lazy drafting with this bill in particular. I hope that we can move on and that the matter has been duly noted and addressed.
We congratulate the Government and the members of the Health and Sport Committee on investigating succinctly many of the queries and concerns of the stage 1 debate. We also congratulate the clerks who assisted them.
With the measures in the bill, Scotland will be better prepared to meet future challenges to our public health. We have incorporated into the proposals sensible actions to regulate the use of sunbeds. We could not fairly have expected our Victorian predecessors to anticipate such a need but, thanks to Kenneth Macintosh, Victorian values have been represented in the bill. So, with a nod to them, we end by repeating the Scottish Conservatives' support for the motion.
I call Dr Richard Simpson. He should note that there is no compulsion to dwell too long on the 19th century.
I would not in any way try to compete with Jackson Carlaw, but I will say that his speeches are always greatly interesting. We have had two lectures on history—one from Jackson Carlaw just now, the other from Dr McKee during the stage 1 debate.
I should perhaps begin by thanking Ross Finnie for his kind—I think—remarks about the joint consultation on the bill that Dr McKee and I undertook. Like others, I will try to be consensual, but when I started writing this speech—
He cannot start with a "but".
But, although I had intended to start my speech by saying that this bill is historic, I feel that that word is becoming devalued through overuse. That point has not yet been recognised, but it may be in due course.
This is an important piece of legislation in an otherwise fairly threadbare legislative programme, but that does not detract from the bill's importance. I want to thank the minister for her gracious remarks on the previous Administration's work on the bill—the Liberal-Labour coalition did all the consultative work.
The bill reflects the needs of a modern society. Members have raised various issues—Christine Grahame, for example, referred to anthrax: an old friend that reared its head again recently, giving us important lessons on why we needed a modern framework—but the need is also driven by the emergence of new diseases.
As I said during the stage 1 discussions, as medical students we were under the false impression that, after 20 years of the national health service and of modernisations in medicine, infectious diseases would be conquered and would not confront us in future, but HIV/AIDS has emerged as a hugely important problem. There is also the possibility of an avian flu pandemic. We faced a near epidemic with severe acute respiratory syndrome, which is another new condition. Those are only three of an enormous number of new conditions that are emerging, such as Ebola virus, which, thank goodness, has not hit this country.
Although Ross Finnie was joking, he is quite right to say that we scrutinised the list of organisms closely. There are powers in the bill to add new organisms to that list and I expect that the minister will do so regularly.
As a result of the three stages of scrutiny of the bill, I believe that we now have a modern public health framework that is robust and sustainable and will allow us to prepare for the challenges that I have just outlined.
The original Infectious Disease (Notification) Act 1889, to which Jackson Carlaw referred so eloquently, is not the oldest act that is affected by the bill; I discovered that the Public Works Loans Act 1887 is also affected. Indeed, the 1889 act is not the oldest act that we have challenged in the Parliament; in our first session, we amended bills from the 16th century. In moving towards modernisation of our legislative framework, we are undoing some of the past acts that have, apparently, stood us in good stead for a long time.
I will not dwell on the original drafting of the bill. It is regrettable that it was not up to the usual excellent standard of Government bill drafters. Mary Scanlon has detailed the problems that we faced at stage 1. Suffice it to say that those matters have been addressed appropriately and that the bill will now meet the needs of the Scottish courts, which is important.
Many of the points that were raised in committee have now been embedded in the bill satisfactorily. Thanks should go to the witnesses and stakeholders who gave evidence and to the minister and her bill team for their excellent engagement, which made it a pleasure to develop the bill appropriately.
A number of important issues arose, which were based, at least in part, on the need to balance public health protection with the rights of the individual. I am glad that we changed the sections on providing information to individuals.
Mary Scanlon made an interesting point about the relationship between the bill—and many of the other bills that we have passed—and the Adults with Incapacity (Scotland) Act 2000 and the Adult Support and Protection (Scotland) Act 2007. People must be aware of the need to ensure that individuals, even those with partial capacity, understand what is happening.
On the whole, we have struck a balance between protecting public health and maintaining civil liberties. Ross Finnie's amendment on entry into private dwelling-houses helped us strike the appropriate balance. That illustrates how we took the bill forward.
Members have referred to the need for an integrated, joined-up approach, which is vital. At stage 2, I argued that the joint public health protection plan should not be made after consultation with the local authority, but should be agreed jointly. However, I accepted the minister's assurance that plans will be agreed jointly in practice. As James Kelly, Michael Matheson and others have said, the regulations and guidance associated with the bill will be important in ensuring that an integrated approach is taken.
The addition of the requirement to notify the authorities of a person's place of work or school, which the Government accepted, is important. Although individual general practitioners might be aware of individual cases, they might not recognise the overall importance of a butcher's shop or a nursery school or school. Reporting people's place of work or school, as well as the other elements, allows the authorities to coalesce information to determine whether there is a problem, such as the problem that we had with E coli at a butcher's shop and other problems that we have had in schools.
The issue of sunbeds, on which all members have paid credit to Ken Macintosh, has been debated fairly fully. The decisions that we reached are reasonable and balanced, and we should all be reassured by the minister's agreement to revisit the issue if the current light-touch approach does not work. I thank the minister for her emphasis today on the HSE pursuing that work. It is important that we ensure that the public are reassured about what is happening.
The most important point to come out of that debate is the message that sunbeds alone are not the most important aspect of skin cancer and that the phrase "a healthy tan" should perhaps be dropped from the lexicon. It is important for children—indeed, for us all—to understand that exposure to sun, particularly when it burns the skin, leads to higher rates of cancer. The rate of skin cancer, if not at epidemic levels, is rising significantly. As part of our selling the legislation, we should put out the message that we should perhaps return to our predecessors' view and be proud of having pale rather than tanned skin.
I thank the minister and her bill team for their engagement, and the convener of the Health and Sport Committee for the way she held the reins in committee. I am not sure that the task was too difficult, but controlling individuals who always have a lot to say can be difficult. I also thank the clerks to the committee for their support during the passage of the bill; it was a great help. I also thank my fellow committee members for the way in which, collectively, we were able, with the Government, to develop the bill. Even if it will not stand the test of time for a period like that from 1887 to 2008, it has produced a modern and robust framework that should stand the test of time for some time to come. Labour will support the motion.
This is certainly an important day for public health in Scotland. It is an opportunity to say a fond farewell to the legislation of 1897, which has undoubtedly served Scotland well for more than 100 years, and an opportunity for Jackson Carlaw—not for the first time—to bring something new to the debate with his run-through of the headlines of that time. It is also an opportunity to herald provisions that will address some of the public health threats of today and tomorrow.
I thank all the members who have spoken today—particularly the Liberal Democrats, who have generously given up their closing speech time to allow us to speak for longer, should we want to. I am grateful for that. Once again, I thank both the Health and Sport Committee and the Subordinate Legislation Committee, which Jamie Stone has egged us on to mention. I am pleased to note its input into the scrutiny of the bill. I thank the stakeholders, who as I mentioned in my opening speech were very important. I also thank my officials in the bill team. They have perhaps had one or two sleepless nights over the issues, so I put on record my thanks for their hard work.
The debate has been useful in clarifying and confirming some of the issues that have been dealt with and flagging up one or two issues to reflect on—I will come to those in a minute. I welcome the constructive spirit that has come from unexpected sources. Margaret Curran may start to like her new, consensual approach—
Never!
We never know; stranger things have happened. However, that approach was appropriate for this debate.
I welcome the acknowledgement that, although the majority of public health incidents are dealt with without recourse to statutory powers, there is a need for effective legislation to protect the people of Scotland from potentially life-threatening infectious diseases and contamination.
I turn to a few points that were made in the debate. Margaret Curran made the important point that a health inequalities agenda is involved because of the prevalence of sunbed parlours in some communities. She mentioned the power of licensing to protect public health. I encourage those in local government with licensing responsibility always to wear their public health hat when deciding on such matters. That is happening more and people are getting better at that.
Mary Scanlon made the important point that passing the bill is not the end of the process. It will be followed by important training and communication on implementation of the act. I assure her that we are already focusing on that and that work is being done on qualifications. I will say a bit more about the sunbed provisions in a moment.
Ross Finnie made an important point about the burden on us as legislators to get things right, which we all take seriously. The Parliament has worked as it should work to ensure that the bill is as good and workable as it can be.
I rise to the fly that the minister casts over me as the convener of the Subordinate Legislation Committee. I hope that Jackson Carlaw agrees with me that it is right and proper to pay tribute to the minister and her team for the constructive way in which they examined the points that our committee made and came halfway and more to meet us to improve the bill.
This is turning into a bit of a love-in and I am blushing.
I never thought that the day would come.
I know. I thank the member for those kind words, which are appreciated. I am sure that the bill team appreciates them, too.
Ken Macintosh made the important point that skin cancer is a particular Scottish problem. He went a bit too close to home for me when he described the people who are most at risk, as I have only to look at the sun for freckles to appear instantly. The public health campaign that will follow the bill is the key. I am sure that he will watch that with interest and I hope that he will be further involved in implementation. Given his involvement to date, that would be most welcome.
Richard Simpson made an important point about consumer protection legislation in his intervention, to which I responded briefly. He also referred to that in his closing speech. The Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 (SI 2008/1277) revoked the Control of Misleading Advertisements Regulations 1988 (SI 1988/915) at the end of last month. The new regulations offer more consumer protection on a range of issues, which include the making of misleading claims, and could help to strengthen the sunbed provisions in the bill. Sunbed operators will have to ensure that balanced information is provided and that consumers are fully aware of the whole picture of the health implications of sunbed use.
I hope that I have responded to all the issues that members raised. Christine Grahame started the bill process by describing the bill as worthy but dull. Many provisions in the bill are not as newsworthy as other work in the Parliament, but the same might well have been said of previous crucial public health legislation that transformed our people's public health. The bill will put in place the required building blocks to take public health protection to another level.
Through extensive and detailed scrutiny by all those concerned, the bill has been fine tuned. I am happy to say that it is a much-improved product as a result of that process.
We cannot eradicate the risk of public health threats. Although, as Richard Simpson said, doctors in the past might have thought that we might get to a situation in which we no longer have the threat of infectious diseases, unfortunately that will never be the case. We will always have to deal with emerging threats.
In this era of the globalisation of trade and travel and the increasing threat of bio-terrorism, it is important that our legislation is as good as it can be and that people are protected. Of course, wherever possible, we should deal with such threats without resorting to legislation. However, we need to ensure that our public health professionals have the tools at their disposal—if necessary, through statutory controls—to deal quickly and effectively with potential threats, in order to reduce or contain the spread of disease or contamination. That is what the bill does, and I commend it to Parliament.
I suspend the meeting until 5 pm.
Meeting suspended.
On resuming—