Smoking, Health and Social Care (Scotland) Bill: Stage 3
Resumed debate.
We resume consideration of stage 3 amendments to the Smoking, Health and Social Care (Scotland) Bill. I will allow an extended voting period of two minutes for the first division this afternoon. Thereafter, I will allow a voting period of one minute for the first division after the debate on the group. All other divisions will last for 30 seconds.
Group 5 is on the definition of wholly or substantially enclosed. Amendment 57, in the name of Brian Monteith, is grouped with amendment 58. [Interruption.] It would be helpful if we could hear Mr Monteith. Members who are carrying on conversations should do so outside the chamber. I say that to Mr Smith in particular.
It may seem strange to lodge a probing amendment at stage 3, but such will be the nature of the regulations that will accompany the bill when it becomes an act that it is worth exploring a number of points at this stage to find out what the Executive's views are and to allow it to consider whether it should make any further changes. Amendment 57 seeks to change the bill, but I will not put it to a vote because I am more interested in hearing the Executive's views on the matter.
There is still confusion about the phrase "wholly or substantially enclosed" in relation to premises. For that reason, amendment 57 seeks to point out that the approach in England under the Department of Health's white paper, which is out for consultation, includes a clear definition that seems to be different from the definition that has been used in Scotland. That may be wholly intentional on the part of the Department of Health in London and the Health Department in Edinburgh, but I would like to hear from the minister why the definitions of "enclosed" might be different, because that could bring about unintentionally different results in different parts of the United Kingdom. It is important at this stage—before we deal with the regulations—to ascertain what the Executive's aims are.
I move amendment 57.
As I have said, our approach to the smoking provisions in the bill is relatively simple. The intent and scope of the provisions must be clear; the provisions should be readily enforceable; and there should be as few loopholes for evasion as possible. Brian Monteith's amendment 57 would provide an additional opportunity for loopholes to be found.
One of the key concepts in the bill is the kind of premises that may be prescribed as no-smoking premises under the regulations. At stage 2, in response to comments that were made in our consultation on the draft smoking regulations, we amended the bill to make it more specific and flexible on the definition of wholly enclosed spaces to allow opportunities to create non-wholly enclosed spaces in line with established practices under the Irish smoking ban. We have learned from that process rather than from anything that is happening south of the border, because we view the Irish model as very successful in its implementation and enforcement. No-smoking premises will now be defined as premises that are "wholly or substantially enclosed" and which also fall within one of four specified categories. The phrase "wholly or substantially enclosed" is of paramount importance in the designation of no-smoking premises.
We have further defined the phrase "wholly or substantially" in the revised draft regulations, as the member said. We have not yet finalised the regulations, but the drafting clearly sets out our direction of travel, which is consistent with the Irish approach and which may be broadly stated as follows. When a premises either has no roof or has a roof but no walls on 50 per cent of its perimeter, it cannot be considered enclosed. Our view is that such a definition makes our policy intention clear, reduces the possibilities for evasion and is readily enforceable by environmental health officers on the ground. Our proposed changes will add clarity and allow us to be specific but flexible, which is what was asked of us by respondees to the consultation.
Brian Monteith seeks to restrict the type of premises that will be caught by the legislation by narrowing the definition of those premises in the bill. However, we believe that a more flexible approach is needed to ensure that the bill can deliver this important and far-reaching health measure. I hope, therefore, that Brian Monteith will seek to withdraw amendment 57.
I know that my reputation for intrigue and trying to make things happen goes before me, but I assure the minister that, in lodging amendment 57, I did not seek to reduce the scope of the bill. I do not have a scooby what difference the amendment would make to the bill. I have no idea what the difference would be between 70 per cent of the total notional roof and wall area and 50 per cent, which is what the bill currently specifies; I am simply trying to ascertain why the Executive arrived at that different figure.
The minister explained that the Executive has learned from the Irish model. When a bill is finally introduced in England, Westminster, too, may well choose to learn from the Irish model as well as from what is happening in Scotland. I make no judgment on that, but I will take further advice on the minister's remarks. I seek leave to withdraw amendment 57.
Amendment 57, by agreement, withdrawn.
Amendments 58 and 59 not moved.
Group 6 is on part 1 regulation making powers. Amendment 7, in the name of the minister, is grouped with amendment 29.
Amendment 7 is a technical amendment to section 4(8). Following the Subordinate Legislation Committee's observation on the lack of clarity, the Executive believes that section 4(8) should be amended to make it clear that any failure to comply with any additional signage requirements that are specified in regulations that are made under that section will constitute an offence under section 3(1) in the same way that failure to comply with the signage requirements under section 3(1) will be an offence. Section 4(8) would then mirror section 3(3), which was amended at stage 2 to make a similar point about additional signage requirements for buildings.
Amendment 29 will remove redundant section 34(4), following stage 2 amendments to require ministers to consult on any future regulations that are made under either section 4(2) or section 4(7).
I move amendment 7.
As a member of the Subordinate Legislation Committee, I welcome the proposed changes. There was some debate in the committee about the possible problem with the two sections and whether a loophole would inadvertently be created so that it would be difficult to prosecute the offence in certain circumstances. I welcome amendment 7. Amendment 29 is merely a technical amendment that is consequential to amendment 7. We welcome both amendments and will support them.
As the convener of the Subordinate Legislation Committee, I reiterate what Stewart Maxwell said. I have no reservation about his saying it, because he has taken great interest in the bill.
Amendment 7 agreed to.
After section 4
Amendment 60 moved—[Mr Brian Monteith].
The question is, that amendment 60 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
No.
There will be a division.
For
Aitken, Bill (Glasgow) (Con)
Brocklebank, Mr Ted (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Brownlee, Derek (South of Scotland) (Con)
Davidson, Mr David (North East Scotland) (Con)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James (Lothians) (Con)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Gallie, Phil (South of Scotland) (Con)
Goldie, Miss Annabel (West of Scotland) (Con)
Johnstone, Alex (North East Scotland) (Con)
McGrigor, Mr Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
McLetchie, David (Edinburgh Pentlands) (Con)
Milne, Mrs Nanette (North East Scotland) (Con)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Monteith, Mr Brian (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Munro, John Farquhar (Ross, Skye and Inverness West) (LD)
Scanlon, Mary (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Against
Arbuckle, Mr Andrew (Mid Scotland and Fife) (LD)
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baird, Shiona (North East Scotland) (Green)
Baker, Richard (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Ballard, Mark (Lothians) (Green)
Barrie, Scott (Dunfermline West) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Edinburgh Central) (Lab)
Brankin, Rhona (Midlothian) (Lab)
Brown, Robert (Glasgow) (LD)
Canavan, Dennis (Falkirk West) (Ind)
Chisholm, Malcolm (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)
Craigie, Cathie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (Lab)
Crawford, Bruce (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perth) (SNP)
Curran, Ms Margaret (Glasgow Baillieston) (Lab)
Deacon, Susan (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)
Eadie, Helen (Dunfermline East) (Lab)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber) (SNP)
Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray) (SNP)
Ferguson, Patricia (Glasgow Maryhill) (Lab)
Finnie, Ross (West of Scotland) (LD)
Gibson, Rob (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Gillon, Karen (Clydesdale) (Lab)
Grahame, Christine (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Henry, Hugh (Paisley South) (Lab)
Home Robertson, John (East Lothian) (Lab)
Hughes, Janis (Glasgow Rutherglen) (Lab)
Hyslop, Fiona (Lothians) (SNP)
Jackson, Dr Sylvia (Stirling) (Lab)
Jackson, Gordon (Glasgow Govan) (Lab)
Jamieson, Cathy (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (Lab)
Jamieson, Margaret (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab)
Kerr, Mr Andy (East Kilbride) (Lab)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow Pollok) (Lab)
Lochhead, Richard (North East Scotland) (SNP)
Lyon, George (Argyll and Bute) (LD)
MacAskill, Mr Kenny (Lothians) (SNP)
Macdonald, Lewis (Aberdeen Central) (Lab)
Macintosh, Mr Kenneth (Eastwood) (Lab)
Maclean, Kate (Dundee West) (Lab)
Macmillan, Maureen (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Martin, Paul (Glasgow Springburn) (Lab)
Marwick, Tricia (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Mather, Jim (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Maxwell, Mr Stewart (West of Scotland) (SNP)
May, Christine (Central Fife) (Lab)
McAveety, Mr Frank (Glasgow Shettleston) (Lab)
McCabe, Mr Tom (Hamilton South) (Lab)
McFee, Mr Bruce (West of Scotland) (SNP)
McMahon, Michael (Hamilton North and Bellshill) (Lab)
McNeil, Mr Duncan (Greenock and Inverclyde) (Lab)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow Kelvin) (Lab)
McNulty, Des (Clydebank and Milngavie) (Lab)
Morgan, Alasdair (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Muldoon, Bristow (Livingston) (Lab)
Mulligan, Mrs Mary (Linlithgow) (Lab)
Murray, Dr Elaine (Dumfries) (Lab)
Neil, Alex (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Oldfather, Irene (Cunninghame South) (Lab)
Peacock, Peter (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Peattie, Cathy (Falkirk East) (Lab)
Pringle, Mike (Edinburgh South) (LD)
Purvis, Jeremy (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale) (LD)
Radcliffe, Nora (Gordon) (LD)
Robison, Shona (Dundee East) (SNP)
Rumbles, Mike (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD)
Scott, Eleanor (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Scott, Tavish (Shetland) (LD)
Smith, Margaret (Edinburgh West) (LD)
Stephen, Nicol (Aberdeen South) (LD)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)
Stone, Mr Jamie (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
Swinburne, John (Central Scotland) (SSCUP)
Swinney, Mr John (North Tayside) (SNP)
Turner, Dr Jean (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (Ind)
Wallace, Mr Jim (Orkney) (LD)
Watson, Mike (Glasgow Cathcart) (Lab)
Welsh, Mr Andrew (Angus) (SNP)
White, Ms Sandra (Glasgow) (SNP)
Wilson, Allan (Cunninghame North) (Lab)
Abstentions
Tosh, Murray (West of Scotland) (Con)
The result of the division is: For 16, Against 82, Abstentions 1.
Amendment 60 disagreed to.
Section 7A—Sale of tobacco to under-age persons: variation of limit
Group 7 is on the sale of tobacco to underage persons. Amendment 1, in the name of Stewart Maxwell, is grouped with amendments 28 and 32.
Amendment 1 is intended to help clarify the policy intention behind the amendment at stage 2 that inserted section 7A. I am sure that Duncan McNeil's intention was not that ministers could take the power to lower the age for buying cigarettes to below 16. Section 7A(1) states that ministers may substitute for the age specified in the Children and Young Persons (Scotland) Act 1937 such other age or ages as they consider appropriate. I am sure that the current Executive would not do this, but the danger is that it cannot tie the hands of any future Executive, which could, using that power, reduce the legal age for buying cigarettes or other tobacco products to below 16. I am sure that that was not the policy intention behind Duncan McNeil's amendment at stage 2.
By inserting the word "higher" between the words "other" and "age", we would keep the power but ensure that the age could be raised or left at 16, but not lowered. The amendment is merely a technical one that attempts to clarify the original intention behind Mr McNeil's amendment, which was supported by the Health Committee at stage 2. Amendments 28 and 32 are consequential on the insertion of section 7A and we support them as well.
I move amendment 1.
This is my first contribution to this debate, so it is appropriate for me to acknowledge Stewart Maxwell's support for the bill throughout its parliamentary stages and the contribution that his member's bill made in terms of flushing out a number of the key issues and concerns surrounding the introduction of legislation on smoking. His bill allowed evidence to be taken that established beyond doubt the harmful effects of environmental tobacco smoke and helped to move on the argument to where we are today.
The amendments in group 7, including Mr Maxwell's amendment, recognise that a key objective of the bill is to discourage young people from starting to smoke in the first place. Duncan McNeil and his colleagues on the Health Committee deserve a good deal of credit for the progress of the bill and Mr McNeil's stage 2 amendment gave Scottish ministers powers to vary the legal age for buying tobacco. Duncan McNeil made a powerful case that that could be an important contribution to the process of reducing the numbers of young smokers.
Does the Scottish Executive have any intention of using that power?
From the beginning, we have made it clear that we first want to be sure that there is strong evidence that varying the legal age of tobacco purchase will be effective in its stated aims. We have also been clear that any order to give effect to such a change will be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure in the Parliament. That is the effect of amendment 28, which meets our commitment at stage 2 to take this course.
Building on Duncan McNeil's stage 2 amendment, Stewart Maxwell's amendment 1 will allow ministers, responding to further research on the issue, to send a strong message by raising and maintaining the legal age of tobacco purchase if—but only if—such a measure is to shown to offer an effective way of discouraging young people from taking up smoking.
Depending on the further research that we have commissioned in this area, the provision is an important and valuable tool that might help to reduce the high level of young people who take up smoking. I am therefore happy to commend Mr Maxwell's amendment 1, as well as amendments 28 and 30.
The Liberal Democrats are quite happy to support Stewart Maxwell's amendment. I have certain reservations relating to the question whether the fact that we view people as being adult enough to marry at 16 might make it difficult to raise the age of consent for other things. However, I welcome the fact that further research will be commissioned into why young people take up smoking or why they do not. That research will be valuable and if the evidence suggests that we should raise the age at which people can buy tobacco, that will be all fair and good. The research is the bonus that comes out of this process and it is fair enough to include in the bill the ability to act on that research.
I welcome the amendments that have been lodged by the Executive and Stewart Maxwell, because they give us an opportunity to review the age restriction on the sale of tobacco that dates back to the previous century, when smoking was viewed as harmless and glamorous. That was before the availability of scientific evidence that demonstrated the health impact of smoking. Knowing what we know now about the dangers of smoking, it is our duty to protect young people from them.
In 2005, is it correct to leave to 16-year-olds the decision about whether to buy cigarettes? According to a BBC healthy Britain survey, the majority of the public—particularly those between the ages of 18 and 34—supports the raising of the age limit. Furthermore, I am pleased to be able to announce that the British Medical Association conference decided today that the Government should be more effective in denying the supply of alcohol and tobacco to minors and that the minimum legal age for the sale of cigarettes should be raised to 18—that is now BMA policy.
Several European countries, including Sweden, Ireland, Finland, Iceland, Malta, Norway and Poland have set the minimum age for tobacco sales at 18. As we know, the age restrictions in North America are even stricter; some American states have set the age limit at 21. Recently, Nova Scotia and Ontario increased the age limit to 19. Of course, there is no need to look across the world for good examples when there is a good example under our noses. Guernsey, with its devolved Government, has introduced a package of measures to reduce smoking. It has increased to 18 the age at which people may buy tobacco and the island is now credited as a world leader in reducing smoking among young people. The number of young people who report that they smoke has reduced by half and only 3 per cent of 11-year-olds think that they will smoke when they are older. Nearly twice as many young people smoke in the UK as in Guernsey.
If amendment 1 leads to an increase in the legal age for tobacco sales from 16 to 18, we will not be a world leader. We will not even be the first part of the British isles to introduce such legislation. We will simply be modernising our laws to give children the protection that is the norm throughout the modern world.
I was interested to hear the minister say that research had already been commissioned. Will he confirm whether the Executive has commissioned research on this issue that could lead to affirmative action, which he mentioned in response to Mike Rumbles's question, being taken through the Parliament?
Stewart Maxwell's amendment 1 will mean that the Parliament will still have the opportunity to have a full debate about the issue, based on evidence, before it makes a decision. That is a proper approach, with which we have no difficulty, although it is interesting that the amendment prejudges the evidence by suggesting that the age would be increased. That raises the question what we would do if the evidence showed that the age should be left alone or reduced. However, my main concern is to hear from the minister what action has already been taken that will help us to reach a view on the amendment.
On many issues, the Liberal Democrats place the age of responsibility at 16, so I find it rather strange that we are asked to support an amendment that seeks to increase the age to 18. I would like to hear from the minister how the measure, if it was implemented, would be effective. In my view, the most important thing is to prevent our 12 to 14-year-olds from smoking—that is the key, surely, and not the 16 to 18-year-olds. As I understand it, there have only ever been two prosecutions in relation to under-16s, so is the proposal not just a fig leaf?
I am keen to support the proposed change, but I emphasise the need to enforce the legislation. The Protection of Children (Tobacco) Act 1986 was a private member's bill that I put through the House of Commons to deal with a tobacco product called Skoal Bandits, which was a threat at that time—it was a sucking tobacco. The 1986 act was intended, by shifting the onus of proof, to make it easier to get prosecutions against shopkeepers and retailers who sell tobacco products to children. The Government of the United Kingdom at that time, to its eternal shame, failed to do anything proactive to enforce that legislation. I want the legal age to be increased; above all, I want the legislation to be enforced. That is essential for the safety of children and young people in Scotland.
It is striking to note the extent to which smoking is rooted in youth. Some 90 per cent of smokers start smoking before they reach the age of 18. If someone has not started smoking by the time they reach the age of majority, it is unlikely that they will start thereafter. Increasing the age to 18 will therefore make a substantial difference. Some 30 per cent of our 15-year-olds smoke. Those figures are approximate, but they suggest that a large majority of smokers start before the age of 15, which is one year short of the present legal age.
I identify with John Home Robertson's comments on enforcement and prosecution. Problems with prosecution have occurred in the past. In fact, no prosecutions, convictions or fines were recorded for underage tobacco sales from 1996 to 1997. I know that the Lord Advocate is considering how to advance the position, but children's charities have been unfavourable towards the idea of using children to gather evidence. Increasing the age to 18 might allow charities to come on board with us on enforcing the law and prosecuting those who sell tobacco to young people.
As announced at stage 2, we have asked a group under Laurence Gruer to examine such matters and we have commissioned research to start in September. Unfortunately, I cannot provide Mr Monteith with the results of that. If we were in such a position, we would take a slightly different view today. We have made it clear that the intention is to undertake that research.
Mr Rumbles suggested that amendment 1 would increase the minimum age to 18. It would not. The amendment would give ministers the power to raise the age if the research showed that doing so would be effective. Effectiveness, which is critical, was at the heart of the speeches by John Home Robertson and Irene Oldfather.
Provision has been made for action when shopkeepers or others sell tobacco or tobacco products to underage people. Fines of up to £2,500—level 4 on the standard scale—are possible; the same applies to those who permit smoking in no-smoking premises.
Mike Rumbles asked how we could make a change in the age limit effective. Duncan McNeil's comments on the effectiveness of age limitations elsewhere were telling.
Before we take any measures that use the proposed powers, we will return to the Parliament under the affirmative resolution procedure.
I welcome the support for my amendment 1 from various sections of the Parliament. I was going to say that it is obvious that nobody supports lowering the minimum age below 16, but after Brian Monteith spoke, I was not absolutely sure whether we all agreed on that.
John Home Robertson was right about enforcement. Enforcing the legislation is critical. There would be no point in making the changes if we did not enforce them. We should enforce the current laws and if we decide to change the law to raise the age, we should enforce that.
I agree absolutely with what the minister said about the group of amendments. All that I add is that when the order is made under the affirmative resolution, we will need not only the consultation. The Parliament will have to abide by and agree with what we want to do, because the Parliament will have the power to vote down the order, if it so wishes.
Many of the comments about whether we should raise the age are for debate at another time, because that is not the issue. The point is to ensure that the power is correct. My amendment would restrict the Executive's power so that it could not lower the age below 16. That is perfectly sensible. The evidence from Guernsey and elsewhere that Duncan McNeil cited made the point well. I hope that the Parliament will support my amendment.
The question is, that amendment 1 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
No.
There will be a division.
For
Arbuckle, Mr Andrew (Mid Scotland and Fife) (LD)
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baird, Shiona (North East Scotland) (Green)
Baker, Richard (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Ballance, Chris (South of Scotland) (Green)
Ballard, Mark (Lothians) (Green)
Boyack, Sarah (Edinburgh Central) (Lab)
Brown, Robert (Glasgow) (LD)
Canavan, Dennis (Falkirk West) (Ind)
Chisholm, Malcolm (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)
Craigie, Cathie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (Lab)
Crawford, Bruce (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Curran, Ms Margaret (Glasgow Baillieston) (Lab)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber) (SNP)
Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray) (SNP)
Ferguson, Patricia (Glasgow Maryhill) (Lab)
Finnie, Ross (West of Scotland) (LD)
Gibson, Rob (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Gillon, Karen (Clydesdale) (Lab)
Grahame, Christine (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Henry, Hugh (Paisley South) (Lab)
Home Robertson, John (East Lothian) (Lab)
Hughes, Janis (Glasgow Rutherglen) (Lab)
Hyslop, Fiona (Lothians) (SNP)
Ingram, Mr Adam (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Jackson, Dr Sylvia (Stirling) (Lab)
Jackson, Gordon (Glasgow Govan) (Lab)
Jamieson, Cathy (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (Lab)
Jamieson, Margaret (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab)
Kerr, Mr Andy (East Kilbride) (Lab)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow Pollok) (Lab)
Livingstone, Marilyn (Kirkcaldy) (Lab)
Lochhead, Richard (North East Scotland) (SNP)
Lyon, George (Argyll and Bute) (LD)
MacAskill, Mr Kenny (Lothians) (SNP)
Macdonald, Lewis (Aberdeen Central) (Lab)
Macintosh, Mr Kenneth (Eastwood) (Lab)
Maclean, Kate (Dundee West) (Lab)
Macmillan, Maureen (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Martin, Paul (Glasgow Springburn) (Lab)
Marwick, Tricia (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Mather, Jim (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Maxwell, Mr Stewart (West of Scotland) (SNP)
May, Christine (Central Fife) (Lab)
McAveety, Mr Frank (Glasgow Shettleston) (Lab)
McCabe, Mr Tom (Hamilton South) (Lab)
McFee, Mr Bruce (West of Scotland) (SNP)
McMahon, Michael (Hamilton North and Bellshill) (Lab)
McNeil, Mr Duncan (Greenock and Inverclyde) (Lab)
Morgan, Alasdair (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Muldoon, Bristow (Livingston) (Lab)
Mulligan, Mrs Mary (Linlithgow) (Lab)
Munro, John Farquhar (Ross, Skye and Inverness West) (LD)
Murray, Dr Elaine (Dumfries) (Lab)
Neil, Alex (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Oldfather, Irene (Cunninghame South) (Lab)
Peattie, Cathy (Falkirk East) (Lab)
Pringle, Mike (Edinburgh South) (LD)
Purvis, Jeremy (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale) (LD)
Radcliffe, Nora (Gordon) (LD)
Robison, Shona (Dundee East) (SNP)
Scott, Eleanor (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Scott, Tavish (Shetland) (LD)
Smith, Iain (North East Fife) (LD)
Smith, Margaret (Edinburgh West) (LD)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)
Swinburne, John (Central Scotland) (SSCUP)
Swinney, Mr John (North Tayside) (SNP)
Turner, Dr Jean (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (Ind)
Watson, Mike (Glasgow Cathcart) (Lab)
Welsh, Mr Andrew (Angus) (SNP)
White, Ms Sandra (Glasgow) (SNP)
Wilson, Allan (Cunninghame North) (Lab)
Against
McNulty, Des (Clydebank and Milngavie) (Lab)
Abstentions
Aitken, Bill (Glasgow) (Con)
Brocklebank, Mr Ted (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Brownlee, Derek (South of Scotland) (Con)
Davidson, Mr David (North East Scotland) (Con)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James (Lothians) (Con)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Gallie, Phil (South of Scotland) (Con)
Goldie, Miss Annabel (West of Scotland) (Con)
Johnstone, Alex (North East Scotland) (Con)
McGrigor, Mr Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
McLetchie, David (Edinburgh Pentlands) (Con)
Milne, Mrs Nanette (North East Scotland) (Con)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Monteith, Mr Brian (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Scanlon, Mary (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Tosh, Murray (West of Scotland) (Con)
The result of the division is: For 75, Against 1, Abstentions 17.
Amendment 1 agreed to.
Before section 9
Group 8 is on eye examinations, sight tests and oral health assessments. Amendment 63, in the name of Kate Maclean, is grouped with amendments 64, 17, 67 and 68.
I can deal quickly with Duncan McNeil's amendments 64, 67 and 68. I cannot disagree with them, because they essentially replicate the first part of my amendment 63. However, as I continue, it will become obvious that I think that amendments 64, 67 and 68 do not go far enough.
There is evidence of—and a consensus on—the fact that perhaps as many as one in five young people in our schools have undetected sight problems. Such problems can lead to poor academic and sporting achievement and behavioural difficulties. For example, I heard about a girl in a Glasgow school who was in a special unit for children with learning disabilities and behavioural problems until a simple eye test showed that she could barely see beyond the end of her arm. After she got the spectacles that she required, she was able to return to mainstream education.
Although it would not be ethical to conduct scientific research into the link between poor vision and poor academic performance and behaviour, common sense seems to dictate that there is a link between being unable to see properly and being unable to learn to one's full potential.
The Executive will argue that there is insufficient evidence to support amendment 63. However, I dispute that. I feel that I have presented to the Executive and all MSPs evidence both of the existence of significant undetected sight loss among school pupils and of the efficacy of sight screening. In particular, I e-mailed to everyone a peer-reviewed, published article entitled "School vision screening, ages 5 to 16 years: the evidence-base for content, provision and efficacy", which I think contains all the proof that is needed.
As for the Executive's criticism that amendment 63 is inflexible, I would argue that it is very flexible. I am asking for the very minimum: an eye examination on entry into primary school and a sight test on entry into secondary school. A body of opinion holds that further screenings in between those two examinations would be useful but, as I have said, I am asking only for the minimum. If further research proved that further screenings would be beneficial, they could obviously be introduced.
I realise that the Executive and the majority of the ophthalmology lobby support the recommendation in the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health's fourth edition of "Health for all children"—or Hall 4—that there should be an eye examination at the age of four or five. I agree absolutely with that, because there is no doubt that such a provision would allow problems that are mainly or solely treatable before the age of five or six to be identified and treated. Indeed, I think that the recommendation has universal support. With amendment 63, I seek to enshrine that provision in legislation.
The disagreement comes with the provision that children should have a sight test on entry into secondary school. I agree that, on a purely medical screening model, such a provision would be unnecessary. However, the sight test would show not only disease and pathologies but visual disorders, particularly myopic conditions, many of which develop between the ages of eight and 12.
Although the Executive does not support my amendment, it is supported by a large number of organisations, whose statements of support have been forwarded to all members. I hope that members have had a chance to look at those and at the copy of the article that I mentioned earlier.
Members might also be interested to know that the World Health Organisation's VISION 2020: The Right to Sight initiative has identified as one of its major priorities uncorrected refractive disorders. I understand that the Scottish Executive might now offer to commission research into the need for and the efficacy of the type of sight screening that is set out in amendment 63. I am concerned that, if that research is once again informed largely by one area of medical opinion, it will reach the same conclusion that Hall 4 reached and children will continue to suffer because of undetected and untreated sight loss. Indeed, one of the people who contacted me about amendment 63 and who could feed into the process said in an e-mail that it did not matter if children got spectacles later than they need them. Well, it matters to me, which is why I will press the amendment and why I urge every MSP to support it.
I move amendment 63.
It is difficult to disagree that health problems, including sight problems, have to be identified. However, it is also important to point out, as Kate Maclean said, that children already receive free sight tests, although we might have to address certain issues with regard to take-up.
As Kate Maclean pointed out, the current policy is that all children aged four to five will receive a sight test as part of comprehensive vision screening in their pre-school year. No one is complacent, of course. Built into the current policy is the recognition that there must be on-going review, and that is necessary. It is important to point out that the current childhood vision screening policy is supported by a large body of professional consensus and scientific research from the United Kingdom and North America. I suggest that further advances on, or a review of, current policy will be successful only if we proceed by consensus. Continued consensus must be based on robust evidence, and the professional consensus for routine sight testing as outlined in Kate Maclean's amendment is simply not there. There is a debate about that, as we have seen in the e-mails from people who have contacted us, and I believe that my amendment 64 can resolve some of the issues that arise from that debate.
Amendment 64 would place a duty on Scottish ministers
"to meet all reasonable requirements, to provide for the detection of vision problems in children."
It would allow for a flexible approach, so that experts could assess the optimal age for screening, the most appropriate screening technique and the most suitable personnel to undertake and supervise the screening. Most important, it would allow the assessment and clear definition of the health impact of that intervention.
I hope that there will be as inclusive and broad a consultation as possible and that RNIB Scotland will be involved in that. I hope that there will be a timeframe to push on that consultation study and that some of that work will include pilot schemes in certain areas to address that unmet need in our most vulnerable groups across Scotland.
Amendment 17 is straightforward. It would provide for the Executive to place a duty on health boards to ensure that people who are currently eligible for free eye and dental checks are targeted more effectively. The people to whom I refer are the most vulnerable in society, yet their health is most at risk because they escape the net and therefore fail to have the checks carried out. Even if free checks become available to everyone, those people will still need to be targeted. It is well known that the Conservative group considered that to provide free eye and dental checks for everyone by 2007 would not be the best use of public resources. Free checks are already available for people who need them and the difficulty lies in persuading those who are eligible to come forward and, in the case of dentistry, in finding sufficient national health service dentists to carry out checks.
With regard to amendments 63 and 64, no one could deny that it is important to pick up eye problems in children as early as possible. That is why I previously indicated my support for the screening of schoolchildren at primary and secondary levels. Since then, however, I have looked at the matter in some detail and have found that the situation is more complex than I had thought. There is little doubt that screening at age four to five is desirable, and I am glad that that will be carried out, but more research is probably needed before sensible recommendations can be made about screening for impaired visual acuity at secondary school level. As Duncan McNeil said, according to professional advice, the optimal age for screening, the most appropriate technique and the most suitable personnel to undertake it, as well as other factors, must all be investigated before a screening programme can be recommended by the national screening committee. However, I have a great deal of sympathy with Kate Maclean's amendment 63, and I share her concern that sight testing is apparently not currently taken into consideration in the medical model that influences the national screening committee. Duncan McNeil's amendment 64 to place a duty on ministers
"to provide for the detection of vision problems in children"
should ensure that future recommendations made as a result of research will be carried out. I understand that the Executive plans to instigate more research. If I receive an assurance from the minister that the need for sight testing for children before they enter secondary school will be assessed as part of that research, that would help me to decide which amendment to support.
I have much sympathy with Kate Maclean's amendment 63. I will support it, on balance, although that was not an automatic decision. I speak as a former school doctor who was brought up not only with Hall 4, but with Hall 1, 2 and 3 beforehand and very much in the medical model.
I am reassured that the amendment does not in any way take away from the pre-school vision screening, which I believe is the crucial one for picking up any eye conditions that could, if undetected, lead to permanent poor sight in later life. However, I take the point that children may fail educationally not because of an eye pathology of that nature, but because of a refractive error that is not corrected by glasses.
When I first started as a school doctor we tested vision at regular intervals. That was gradually whittled down in response, I believe, to evidence that was examined in the compilation of the Hall reports.
There is an argument for testing vision on school entry, but there is an issue about who does it. The letter that Kate Maclean circulated said quite a lot about optometrists doing it, but I think that school nurses are in a very good position to do it because they can capture all children. There are unresolved issues but, on balance, I will support amendment 63 because this is a very important issue.
I passionately believe that children should have eye tests before they go to primary school, during primary school and before they go to secondary school. I come into the category of people who want the extra test. The test in the middle would be done to pick up all the things that were missed by the first test. People often go through the medical sieve—they do not get picked up—and it is very important for children's education that eye problems are picked up. Kate Maclean and Eleanor Scott have said it all. I am definitely in favour of amendment 63.
We must bear it in mind that another group of people are often forgotten about. If a child has poor eyesight and is deaf—I do not mean stone deaf—they cannot even see what people are saying. We realise what a different world people who are exceptionally short-sighted live in when we listen to their descriptions of what they see. I have had friends—including a relative—who have been extremely short-sighted. It is terrible to isolate those people and it is wrong to prevent them from making the best of their schooling.
I will vote for Kate Maclean's amendment 63. I would like the provision to be coupled with regular hearing tests.
I will make a short speech in support of amendment 63. It is totally unacceptable—I was not previously aware of the fact—that 20 per cent of primary and secondary school pupils have an undiagnosed sight problem. Of course, the problem is that that can severely impact on their education. The system fails to screen children consistently after age four and five. There are very patchy sight-screening programmes in some schools. That is not good enough. We need a comprehensive school-age screening programme. I believe that Kate Maclean's amendment 63 will ensure that.
Duncan McNeil's amendment 64 is much weaker and non-specific. For that reason, we hope that members will support Kate Maclean's amendment 63.
I agree with Kate Maclean about the importance of picking up poor eyesight. She is right that there are horror stories. Jean Turner also emphasised that point.
My difficulty with Kate Maclean's amendment 63 is that it is too prescriptive—it confines people to those two eye examinations when the evidence may show that that is not enough or that it is too much. There is general agreement that there should be pre-school screening. That is fine and that will happen. We should not confine people to two eye checks if more than that turns out to be the better option. I favour amendment 64, because it does not restrict us to two eye examinations: it opens up the possibility of more.
I will briefly comment on Nanette Milne's amendment 17. People who are eligible for free eye and dental checks do not come forward for their checks because they do not know that they are eligible. When free eye and dental checks are universal, there will be no confusion about who is eligible. That will go a long way towards ending people's reluctance to come forward for checks.
I register a personal interest in the matter. I was one of the children whose eyesight problems were picked up in the standard school test that used to be carried out. My eyesight problems were the reason why my work was falling behind at the time—I suffer from quite severe short-sightedness.
Amendment 63 reflects the unanimous view of the Health Committee, which is stated in paragraphs 90 and 91 of the committee's stage 1 report. The Health Committee strongly recommended that the Executive lodge suitable amendments at stage 2 to address the issue. I acknowledge that amendment 64, which Duncan McNeil lodged, represents an attempt to find a compromise position, but it is no more than a compromise and does not reflect what I thought was the unanimous view of the committee. I hope that Kate Maclean will press amendment 63 and I invite members to support it. Amendment 63 is clear and unambiguous and wholly superior to amendment 64. We ought to support clarity rather than vagueness.
I acknowledge Kate Maclean's commitment to sight screening, her work with the Scottish Parliament cross-party group on visual impairment and her connections with the RNIB and other such organisations, and I commend her passion and commitment.
The Executive endorses measures to ensure the early identification and treatment of health problems in children, but amendment 63 would create an inflexible framework for childhood vision screening policy, which would be inappropriate. As we have said throughout the passage of the bill, we want to ensure that legislation is evidence based. During the debate on amendment 55, I said to Irene Oldfather that there is no evidence to support the view that smoke has an effect on people's health outdoors, and I say to Kate Maclean that there is no substantial, peer-reviewed evidence on the matter that she raises. According to the RNIB:
"The role of vision screening after school entry remains controversial, as there is a paucity of evidence to support the benefits of screening in this age group. The degree of disability caused, at this age, by uncorrected refractive errors is unknown."
Kate Maclean has pushed the Executive extremely hard on the matter, but policy needs a rational evidence base.
It has been suggested that the United Kingdom national screening committee is focused only on medical matters, but that is not the case. The committee informs its proposals by drawing on the latest research evidence and the skills of specifically convened multidisciplinary expert groups, which always include patients and service users. The committee's expert group on childhood vision screening involved all three eye care professional groups: optometrists; orthoptists; and ophthalmologists. Of course, the Hall 4 recommendations on vision screening reflect the recommendations of the national screening committee. Accusations that the committee's approach does not address vision screening are therefore unfounded.
Amendment 64 helps us out in relation to research. There is an evidence base for the orthoptist-led vision screening programme for children in their pre-school year, when they are between four and five years old. As a result of the programme sight problems will be detected, as will medical conditions such as ambiopia, when sufferers are at an age at which there is evidence that their problems are most amenable to treatment. I share members' concerns that we must identify sight problems early, to ensure that they do not impact on children's learning. For that reason we published guidance that recommends a sight test for any child who appears to be struggling at school. The approach is linked to the measures that are being implemented as a result of the Education (Additional Support for Learning) (Scotland) Act 2004, to support children and enable them to learn effectively.
The Executive's approach to vision screening is based on the recommendations of the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health, which emerged after an extensive review of available evidence on vision screening practice, which members mentioned and is commonly known as Hall 4. The review involved all three eye care professions and its recommendations have the backing of the respective professional bodies. The chair of the Scottish branch of the British and Irish Orthoptic Society wrote to ministers to highlight the fact that efforts should focus on the implementation of the Hall 4 pre-school programme, for which there is a strong evidence base. In particular it was highlighted that she was unable to endorse proposals for additional tests which were rejected by the national screening group and ophthalmic professional bodies on the ground of lack of robust evidence.
Decisions about our children's health and health care are not to be taken lightly and must be based on sound evidence. We seek to do research that will determine whether the routine sight testing of schoolchildren identifies previously undetected significant sight problems. I reassure all members that the Executive is committed to doing that research, which will also investigate the optimal intervals for testing, who should undertake the tests and which tests should be used.
An eye care review, led by an expert group, is currently under way. Optometrists, orthoptists and ophthalmologists are all involved in the review and they can progress the vision screening of schoolchildren. They will determine how best to undertake the research and I will certainly ask the review group for further information on timescales and publication of the report. I hope that members will understand that the Executive is serious; if we find evidence that we should do this, we will do it.
That is the point of Duncan McNeil's amendment 64 and I hope that members will consider supporting it, because it is about what we have tried to achieve through the bill and it is about providing that evidence base. Members can rest assured that the Executive is committed to doing that. I would be happy to hear from members about the content of the review and the research. Amendment 64 will create a specific duty on Scottish ministers in respect of vision screening for children while providing flexibility to adapt the approach as new evidence appears. That is why the Executive supports the amendment.
As was explained at stage 2, the prescriptive nature of Mrs Milne's amendment 17 would place an unreasonable duty on health boards. In particular, health boards would in future always be required to refer to categories of people who were entitled to receive free eye tests and dental examinations before 1 April 2006. That would become extremely burdensome to our health boards. We take very seriously the responsibility of ensuring that vulnerable groups can access the health services to which they are entitled. The Executive is currently undertaking a number of initiatives such as the well man initiative and the unmet needs pilots, to consider how to improve access to health services among vulnerable groups across Scotland.
Our health improvement policy has an overarching aim of reducing health inequalities and it is good practice for health boards to focus on tackling health inequalities and adapting local services in order to engage with vulnerable people and those in more deprived communities. We have made it clear that we support measures to increase the uptake of free checks and have made a commitment to work with health boards to target those vulnerable groups who are already eligible. So, while I support the principle of encouraging the uptake of free eye and dental checks, I believe that amendment 17 is unduly restrictive. I therefore invite Mrs Milne not to move it.
I reassure members—particularly in relation to Duncan McNeil's amendment 64—that we are committed to carrying out the research. If it shows us the way forward for screening tests, the Executive will deliver on that commitment.
I want to address a couple of points that members made. Nora Radcliffe said that the consequences of my amendment 63 would be too restrictive if more sight tests were required in the future. However, the amendment calls for
"a minimum of an eye examination for all pupils on entry to the first year of primary education and a sight test for all pupils on entry to the first year of secondary education."
That does not in any way exclude the possibility of another sight test being given at age seven or eight when young people become literate and it is easier to test their visual acuity than it is when they are four or five.
The Minister for Health and Community Care and I will just have to agree to differ about the evidence. I feel that I have presented evidence in support of the fact that there are significant but undetected sight problems in school pupils and problems with the efficacy of screening. If we move away from screening more regularly than just the once at age four or five, we will be going against what is happening in other countries.
On Duncan McNeil's point about the fact that there are free eye tests, the provision is being brought in by the bill and while we might all think that it is a very good idea, there is no scientific research base to show that there is any public health benefit in giving people access to free eye tests. If we look at the statistics for areas where all children are entitled to free eye tests and free dental checks and where there is easy access to those—Dundee, for example—we find a higher incidence of sight loss and dental disease. That shows that, if free access is not organised into a screening programme, its existence will not necessarily mean its uptake.
I have presented enough evidence for the Parliament to support amendment 63 and I will press it.
The question is, that amendment 63 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
No.
There will be a division.
On a point of order, Presiding Officer.
I am sorry, but we are in the middle of a vote.
It is to do with the vote.
We are in the middle of a vote.
I tried three times to insert my card.
I cannot take a point of order during a vote.
For
Baird, Shiona (North East Scotland) (Green)
Ballance, Chris (South of Scotland) (Green)
Canavan, Dennis (Falkirk West) (Ind)
Crawford, Bruce (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perth) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber) (SNP)
Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray) (SNP)
Gibson, Rob (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Hyslop, Fiona (Lothians) (SNP)
Lochhead, Richard (North East Scotland) (SNP)
MacAskill, Mr Kenny (Lothians) (SNP)
Maclean, Kate (Dundee West) (Lab)
Mather, Jim (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Maxwell, Mr Stewart (West of Scotland) (SNP)
McFee, Mr Bruce (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Morgan, Alasdair (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Neil, Alex (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee East) (SNP)
Ruskell, Mr Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Scott, Eleanor (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow) (SNP)
Swinburne, John (Central Scotland) (SSCUP)
Swinney, Mr John (North Tayside) (SNP)
Turner, Dr Jean (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (Ind)
Welsh, Mr Andrew (Angus) (SNP)
White, Ms Sandra (Glasgow) (SNP)
Against
Aitken, Bill (Glasgow) (Con)
Arbuckle, Mr Andrew (Mid Scotland and Fife) (LD)
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Richard (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Barrie, Scott (Dunfermline West) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Edinburgh Central) (Lab)
Brankin, Rhona (Midlothian) (Lab)
Brocklebank, Mr Ted (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Brown, Robert (Glasgow) (LD)
Brownlee, Derek (South of Scotland) (Con)
Chisholm, Malcolm (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)
Craigie, Cathie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (Lab)
Curran, Ms Margaret (Glasgow Baillieston) (Lab)
Davidson, Mr David (North East Scotland) (Con)
Deacon, Susan (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James (Lothians) (Con)
Eadie, Helen (Dunfermline East) (Lab)
Ferguson, Patricia (Glasgow Maryhill) (Lab)
Finnie, Ross (West of Scotland) (LD)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Gallie, Phil (South of Scotland) (Con)
Gillon, Karen (Clydesdale) (Lab)
Goldie, Miss Annabel (West of Scotland) (Con)
Henry, Hugh (Paisley South) (Lab)
Home Robertson, John (East Lothian) (Lab)
Hughes, Janis (Glasgow Rutherglen) (Lab)
Jackson, Dr Sylvia (Stirling) (Lab)
Jackson, Gordon (Glasgow Govan) (Lab)
Jamieson, Cathy (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (Lab)
Jamieson, Margaret (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab)
Johnstone, Alex (North East Scotland) (Con)
Kerr, Mr Andy (East Kilbride) (Lab)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow Pollok) (Lab)
Livingstone, Marilyn (Kirkcaldy) (Lab)
Lyon, George (Argyll and Bute) (LD)
Macdonald, Lewis (Aberdeen Central) (Lab)
Macintosh, Mr Kenneth (Eastwood) (Lab)
Macmillan, Maureen (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Martin, Paul (Glasgow Springburn) (Lab)
May, Christine (Central Fife) (Lab)
McAveety, Mr Frank (Glasgow Shettleston) (Lab)
McCabe, Mr Tom (Hamilton South) (Lab)
McConnell, Mr Jack (Motherwell and Wishaw) (Lab)
McGrigor, Mr Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
McLetchie, David (Edinburgh Pentlands) (Con)
McMahon, Michael (Hamilton North and Bellshill) (Lab)
McNeil, Mr Duncan (Greenock and Inverclyde) (Lab)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow Kelvin) (Lab)
McNulty, Des (Clydebank and Milngavie) (Lab)
Milne, Mrs Nanette (North East Scotland) (Con)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Monteith, Mr Brian (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Muldoon, Bristow (Livingston) (Lab)
Mulligan, Mrs Mary (Linlithgow) (Lab)
Munro, John Farquhar (Ross, Skye and Inverness West) (LD)
Murray, Dr Elaine (Dumfries) (Lab)
Oldfather, Irene (Cunninghame South) (Lab)
Peacock, Peter (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Peattie, Cathy (Falkirk East) (Lab)
Pringle, Mike (Edinburgh South) (LD)
Purvis, Jeremy (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale) (LD)
Radcliffe, Nora (Gordon) (LD)
Robson, Euan (Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (LD)
Rumbles, Mike (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD)
Scanlon, Mary (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Scott, Tavish (Shetland) (LD)
Smith, Iain (North East Fife) (LD)
Smith, Margaret (Edinburgh West) (LD)
Stephen, Nicol (Aberdeen South) (LD)
Stone, Mr Jamie (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
Tosh, Murray (West of Scotland) (Con)
Wallace, Mr Jim (Orkney) (LD)
Watson, Mike (Glasgow Cathcart) (Lab)
Wilson, Allan (Cunninghame North) (Lab)
The result of the division is: For 30, Against 75, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 63 disagreed to.
Amendment 64 moved—[Mr Duncan McNeil]—and agreed to.
After section 10
Amendment 17 not moved.
Section 14—Provision of certain services under NHS contracts
Group 9 is minor and technical amendments. Amendment 18, in the name of the minister, is grouped with amendments 27, 30 and 31.
Amendment 18 is merely technical and moves section 14 of the bill to after section 21 to reflect its widened scope.
Amendment 27 concerns the right of appeal under section 50(3) of the Adults with Incapacity (Scotland) Act 2000, which provides a right of appeal for
"any person having an interest in the personal welfare of the adult"
with incapacity in relation to any treatment that has been decided on between a medical practitioner and the adult's proxy decision maker. That gives extra protection to the adult on decisions that are made about his or her medical treatment.
Section 30 of the bill introduces into the Adults with Incapacity (Scotland) Act 2000 a new, additional right of appeal for the medical professional who has primary responsibility for the medical treatment of the adult. That recognises that a person's general practitioner may have cause to question a decision that is made by another relevant professional person, such as a dentist. Amendment 27 makes it clear that the new right of appeal for the GP applies in cases in which discussions about treatment take place between one of the other new categories of people who can issue a certificate and the proxy decision maker. In such cases, the medical practitioner will be able to intercede on behalf of the adult if one of those other professionals and the adult's proxy decision maker have made a decision on treatment with which the GP does not agree.
Amendment 30 is a technical amendment that tidies up an inaccurate reference elsewhere to the Public Health (Scotland) Act 1897 as a consequence of amendment at stage 2, and amendment 31 is a minor formatting amendment.
I move amendment 18.
Amendment 18 agreed to.
Section 15—Lists of persons undertaking to provide or approved to assist in the provision of general dental services
Group 10 concerns the disclosure of information by those already on NHS lists. Amendment 19, in the name of Nanette Milne, is grouped with amendments 20 to 22.
I can be brief on this group. The amendments are intended to ensure that those who already provide dental or ophthalmic services are subject to the same disclosure checks in the same timeframe as those who are being added to the registered list.
If disclosure checks are necessary for new practitioners before they can be listed, they are necessary for all registered practitioners. That is only fair and it should be made clear on the face of the bill.
I move amendment 19.
The amendments in this group are similar to amendments that Nanette Milne lodged at stage 2, when they were debated in committee. For the avoidance of doubt, I make it clear, as ministers did then, that it is our policy intention that a requirement for disclosure of information will apply equally to relevant professionals who are applying to join a list and practising professionals who are already on such a list. The provisions of the bill are drafted in such a way as to lead to that outcome.
Professionals who are applying to join a list will be required to disclose the necessary information before their application for inclusion on a list by an NHS board is considered. It will be up to the individual concerned to obtain and provide that information, and there is no prescribed timescale as such.
For those professionals already on an NHS board list, arrangements will be put in place to define a reasonable period within which they should submit relevant information when required to do so by the NHS board. However, it is simply not appropriate to define such a period in the bill. The issue must be discussed with the relevant professional bodies.
Nanette Milne does not advocate putting such a precise timescale on the face of the bill, but she does seek to require the same timescale to apply to existing and new practitioners. Since there is no timescale as such for new applicants in the bill, there cannot be one for existing practitioners. Therefore, her amendments could not achieve the result that she intends.
We want to ensure continuity of patient services and to make certain that practitioners and their patients are not disadvantaged by the requirements. I cannot be precise on the timescale for implementing the requirement for persons who are already listed. Those details have still to be discussed—and are best discussed—with the relevant professional bodies. However, I can assure Nanette Milne and other members that that will be completed as quickly as possible, without creating unnecessary additional burdens on any of those involved.
Nanette Milne's purpose can be achieved without amendments 19 to 22. Therefore, the amendments are not necessary and I hope that, in light of my assurances, she will withdraw amendment 19 and not move the other amendments. We will move the matter forward as quickly as we can.
I invite Nanette Milne to wind up and to press or withdraw amendment 19.
I felt it important to flag up the issue. Disclosure checks should be carried out as quickly as possible both on existing and on new practitioners. However, after listening to the minister's assurance, I seek leave to withdraw amendment 19.
Amendment 19, by agreement, withdrawn.
Amendment 20 not moved.
Section 17—Lists of persons undertaking to provide or approved to assist in the provision of general ophthalmic services
Amendments 21 and 22 not moved.
Section 24—Payments to certain persons infected with hepatitis C as a result of NHS treatment etc
Group 11 is on the Skipton Fund eligibility date. Amendment 24, in the name of the minister, is grouped with amendment 65.
Before calling the minister, I draw members' attention to a small correction to amendment 24 as it appears in the marshalled list. The text to be inserted by the amendment is set out as if it is a paragraph. It should be a sub-paragraph.
The basis of making ex gratia payments to those who have been infected with hepatitis C following NHS treatment is to help to alleviate the suffering and the life changes that people experience as a result of living with the infection. Our hearts go out to the individuals, and their families, who have had to undergo such a change in their lifestyles.
This is an issue on which Scotland has led the way in the United Kingdom, leading to the establishment of the UK-wide Skipton Fund scheme. However, I emphasise that the payments are not compensation; they are ex gratia payments that reflect the Executive's recognition that, although it has no legal liability, there is a genuine need to provide help to people who are facing hardship and distress as a result of contracting the disease.
What we seek to do is to provide help with the extra costs that can arise over a period of years from living with hepatitis C. However, there is a need to strike a balance between funding ex gratia payments to those affected and funding other demands on the health budget. On that basis, payments under the Skipton Fund will be made only to those who were alive on 29 August 2003, when the scheme was announced. Extending payments to people who died before that date would take us away from the key principle of this being an ex gratia payment scheme that ministers have offered and implemented. For those reasons, I do not believe that there is a strong enough case for extending payments to dependants of those who died before the announcement of the payment scheme.
The Executive accepts that payments could be made to dependants of eligible persons, where the persons died after the scheme was announced and before a claim was made. In those circumstances, an expectation may have been created that a payment would consequently be made. Therefore, I do not intend to seek to undo the stage 2 amendment that gave effect to that provision.
I would like to explain some of the factors that are built into the existing ex gratia payment Skipton Fund scheme. Under the current scheme, derogation has been granted by the UK Government specifically in relation to Skipton Fund payments in respect of the assessment of assets for social security benefits, which is a reserved issue. That means that payments made to a person from the Skipton Fund are disregarded when the person's capital in relation to social security benefits such as housing benefit, income support, jobseekers allowance and state pension credits is calculated. The arrangements would not apply in the case of any extension of payments beyond the Skipton Fund criteria, which could significantly disadvantage those who receive payments, depending on individual circumstances.
At stage 2, the Health Committee agreed an amendment, lodged by Shona Robison, that removed from section 24 the eligibility date of 29 August 2003. As I have said, the purpose of the ex gratia payments under the Skipton Fund scheme—which were intended for those who were alive when the scheme was announced on 29 August 2003—was always to alleviate the suffering and life changes that people experience as a result of living with the infection. I believe that the scheme as established is based on a set of fair principles and priorities and balances the interests of those who have a real need for assistance against the wider interests of patients and the delivery of health services. That is why I have had to lodge amendment 24, which would restore to the bill the commencement date of the scheme in relation to primary infectees.
Amendment 65, in the name of Shona Robison, would remove the cut-off date of 29 August 2003 for secondary infectees. In effect, it would permit claims to be made on behalf of secondary infectees who died before the scheme was introduced on 29 August 2003. For the reasons that I have explained, I cannot support an amendment of that nature, as it is not commensurate with an ex gratia payment scheme to help support the living.
I urge members to support the Executive's amendment and invite Shona Robison not to move hers.
I move amendment 24.
I rise to speak in favour of amendment 65 and against amendment 24.
Amendment 65 would remove the arbitrary date of 29 August 2003 in relation to those infected through secondary transmission and would provide consistency with the rest of the bill, as amended at stage 2. Frankly, the issue comes down to justice, fairness and consistency. If the minister gets his way with amendment 24 and the date of 29 August 2003 is reinstated in the bill, the family of someone who died on 29 August 2003 will be entitled to receive financial assistance from the Skipton Fund, whereas the family of someone who died on 28 August 2003 will not. There is no consistency, fairness or justice in that.
Let us consider the significance of the date of 29 August 2003. It is the date on which the previous Minister for Health and Community Care, Malcolm Chisholm, happened to announce officially the establishment of the Skipton Fund by issuing a press release. It is an arbitrary date that is not meaningful in any way to the families of those who have died as a result of contracting hepatitis C through NHS treatment.
As Mike Rumbles said at the Health Committee's meeting of 31 May 2005:
"As it stands, the bill is neither just nor fair."—[Official Report, Health Committee, 31 May 2005; c 2001.]
The bill was not just or fair on 31 May, when the committee agreed with me and voted by five votes to two to remove the date of 29 August 2003 from the bill. If that date was not just or fair on 31 May, it is not just or fair today. I urge those members—particularly the Liberal Democrats—who supported me on that day to remain consistent to fairness and justice and to ensure that that date does not return to the bill.
I touch on two of the minister's arguments for proposing the date of 29 August 2003 that I notice he did not focus on today particularly, although he has done so in the press and in the letter to the Health Committee.
The first concerns the numbers. The minister has stated that 4,000 people in Scotland could have been infected with hepatitis C, that there would be hundreds of claims and that the cost could be £20 million. Those figures are totally inaccurate. I refer the minister to a 2002 minute from the expert group that emphasised the fact that the 4,000 figure that generated the estimates of the cost of the scheme in the preliminary report was a projection of the number of people who were likely to have been infected. The minute said that the actual number of people who had been identified was 568. That is a seventh of the number to which the minister referred, so the cost would be significantly lower than the minister has led people to believe.
The minister could look to other sources of information for the figures. The Skipton Fund has received only six applications from the families of those who died prior to 29 August 2003. He could look at the number of deaths reported to the procurator fiscal—the minister should have those figures since, from 1998, hospitals have been supposed to report every case of someone dying of hepatitis C. One can get an accurate idea of the levels from those figures, so perhaps the minister can tell us how many such deaths have been reported to the procurator fiscal in that period.
The second reason that the minister has given for why we cannot have such a change in Scotland is that it would undermine consistency with the UK scheme and that that would almost pap Scotland out of the scheme. However, his argument is undermined by the fact that he does not intend to put back into the bill the second date of 5 July 2004. Therefore, we will still have a different set of arrangements in Scotland from those down south.
However, all those arguments together are nothing compared with the issue of justice for the families who have had no public inquiry. I say to the minister that I know that compensation is not the issue, but financial assistance is so important because it would acknowledge the families' loss as a result of their loved one contracting hepatitis C through NHS treatment.
On this last day of Parliament before recess, I urge members throughout the chamber please to do the right thing by the families of hep C sufferers and not to put the date of 29 August 2003 back into the bill. Members should support the Health Committee's position by rejecting amendment 24 and supporting amendment 65.
I give credit to the previous Health Committee that fought so hard to get agreement on the principle that there should be ex gratia payments to people who contracted hepatitis C. That was tremendously good work. I also pay tribute to the current Health Committee for fighting to get the proposed improvements made to the scheme.
It is perfectly fair that 29 August 2003 should be the date from which people should expect to get ex gratia payments, not 5 July 2004, which is when the scheme was up and running. People should not be disadvantaged by administration in that way. I commend the Executive for coming back to the date of 29 August 2003.
I abstained on the issue at the Health Committee because I wanted to find out more about it. However, I now agree that the definition of eligibility for ex gratia payments from the Skipton Fund is unfair, because, as Shona Robison said, the cut-off date is arbitrary. The number of people who are involved is finite and not high. I have now made up my mind that I agree with the Health Committee's decision to remove that arbitrary date from the bill.
Will the member ask the Liberal Democrats to explain why the later date, which has been removed, is administrative, but the earlier date is not administrative or arbitrary? Will she ask them to explain why it is fair for the family of somebody who died at one minute past midnight on the appropriate date to receive an ex gratia payment, while the family of somebody who died at one minute to midnight will not get a payment? Frankly, I do not understand that.
If the Liberal Democrats do not already see that that is unfair, I might have the same difficulty as other members have had in persuading them that it is.
I will vote against the minister's amendment 24 and for Shona Robison's amendment 65.
As members might expect given my background, I cannot accept the dates at all—people were either infected in Scotland by an NHS hospital or they were not; that is all that needs to be proved. I fully appreciate that the payments are ex gratia. It is generous that money will not be deducted in accounting for other benefits. The payment is just for the suffering and life changes of people who contracted hepatitis C, but the condition sometimes takes a long time to be diagnosed—sometimes it is not even clear on the death certificate. Therefore, it might take a while for families to realise what was going on. I know from experience that patients' families spend a great deal of money and lose wages to look after them. For example, I have known people to spend a great deal of money on trying to persuade a patient to eat tasty meals. I cannot justify the inclusion of dates, so I will vote for Shona Robison's amendment 65.
I would love to think that, before the cost of the ex gratia payment was worked out, the worst scenario was considered. The figures that we have been given do not stack up. Even the Haemophilia Society believes that only a small number of people are involved. I hope that we can finish this term by agreeing to pay them and to scrub the dates.
As always, I came to Parliament this morning proud of the fact that I am a member. Today, I came with an extra special enthusiasm, because I was coming to vote for an excellent bill that will make an enormous difference to the lives of people in Scotland. I look forward to supporting it at 6 o'clock tonight. My views are somewhat tempered by the antics at lunch time, but that is enough said about that.
Parliament will excel itself today if it supports Shona Robison's amendment 65 and votes against the minister's amendment 24. Within days of my election to the House of Commons eight years ago I was asked to see a couple called John and Pat McAughey, from the village of Stanley in Perthshire. John McAughey was a haemophiliac who, along with many other people in our country, was infected with hepatitis C through contaminated blood products. For years, I saw John and Pat McAughey and other constituents and listened carefully to their concerns. I have found support and encouragement for them from members of the Parliament's Health Committee and from ministers, who have engaged on the issue and addressed some of its serious consequences.
Without going into too many details about the family's circumstances, it would be fair to say that John and Pat expected that John would die before Pat, but things did not work out like that. Pat died suddenly before John, who died around three weeks ago. For the eight years that I knew them as constituents, they were completely consumed by the issue. They and their families could think of almost nothing else.
Just before the debate, I received a letter from their son—John McAughey—that asked me to go to the Parliament today to make the case on behalf of his two deceased parents, one of whom had, as I said, contracted hepatitis C through contaminated blood products. The issue is not about administrative dates, but about the point that Jean Turner has just made. The problem begins to apply at the moment when the infection is contracted, which is an identifiable point, as health records will substantiate the position. Once evidence becomes clear, it is up to the Skipton Fund to make a judgment that is based on the totality of the issues and cases with which it will deal. Therefore, I cannot understand why the minister is bringing before us an issue that could result in his taking the gloss off what would be a super bill for the Parliament to pass. One chink of injustice will be left in it.
Some of the lines of defence that the minister has used are quite astonishing. He tried to suggest that there would be a massive increase in costs for the Skipton Fund. However, I understand that the Skipton Fund has an underspend in the order of £7 million. If the minister's proposition is valid, evidence must exist to demonstrate where all the cases that will suddenly cause financial strain on the Skipton Fund will come from. We are not waiting for evidence to emerge. That evidence must exist, as all cases should have been reported to procurators fiscal throughout the country—I think that Shona Robison made that point.
The minister's second line of defence has been that all the United Kingdom Administrations have agreed on the approach that will be taken. That the approach has been agreed is undeniable, but is not devolution about doing things differently in Scotland? Is it not about finding Scottish solutions to Scottish problems? If we are not convinced by the arguments that are put forward in other parts of the United Kingdom, we will do things differently. Indeed, surely we are doing things differently with the Smoking, Health and Social Care (Scotland) Bill.
At 6 o'clock, I will vote enthusiastically for the remainder of the bill, which is superior to legislation in the rest of the United Kingdom. I am immensely proud of that. I loved hearing the Secretary of State for Health say on the radio the other day that she expected that the rest of the United Kingdom would catch up with Ireland's and Scotland's smoking legislation in the years to come—that made me feel proud of our Parliament and of the leadership that the minister and the First Minister have given on the issue. If we can do such things with respect to smoking, why cannot we legislate for the Skipton Fund to help individuals with hepatitis C contamination?
The issue is simple. We are sent here to do the right thing. There are four words on the mace that sits in front of us: "Wisdom. Justice. Compassion. Integrity." I cannot think of four more relevant words that should determine how we should vote on the group of amendments that we are discussing. Those people need wisdom, justice, compassion and integrity to be used. We are talking about individuals such as John and John and Pat McAughey, whose lives have been completely consumed by a tragedy that befell them. We have not been able to deliver a public inquiry or compensation for such people. The Government has come up with the pragmatic solution of ex gratia payments. In fairness, we should ensure that that solution applies to everyone.
Scotland led the way on this scheme. Scotland drove it forward and it was adopted by the rest of the UK. With due respect to the members who have made passionate speeches, including John Swinney, the issue at stake is one of principle. We are not changing our principles. We have repeatedly emphasised that the scheme is about giving help to those who are living with hepatitis C and suffering hardship and about helping them to meet the extra costs that result from their condition; it is not about compensation. In general, the NHS does not pay compensation to patients for harm and injury in cases such as this, in which there is no legal liability.
We have to make tough decisions in these matters, and many folk have talked about the cut-off date. Are members saying that any piece of legislation and any announcement that a minister makes—irrespective of its subject—immediately becomes retrospective? Does the Parliament immediately become liable for any retrospective aspects of whatever the legislation that we pass is about? That is what is being said. We set out a principle that was agreed by the Parliament. That principle was the provision of ex gratia payments to support survivors who had been infected with hepatitis C, and that is the principle on which we rest. We have acknowledged the work that the Health Committee has done on the cut-off date one year on from the August 2003 date. We have taken cognisance of that in the support that we are giving, and we are leaving that amendment in place. Nonetheless, we founded the Skipton Fund on the basis of ex gratia payments, not on the principle of compensation.
I ask members to reflect on one further point. If we start to play around with the Skipton Fund, those who have received payments and will receive payments in the future will not get the derogation from the UK-wide agreement that the Skipton Fund scheme represents. That is the fact of the matter. I know that this is an extremely difficult matter and I understand the concern that is being expressed by members. Nevertheless, we must stick to the principle of the Skipton Fund scheme, which the Parliament agreed and on which the Parliament led the way in the UK. That principle is ex gratia payments, not compensation.
The question is, that amendment 24 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
No.
There will be a division.
For
Alexander, Ms Wendy (Paisley North) (Lab)
Arbuckle, Mr Andrew (Mid Scotland and Fife) (LD)
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Richard (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Barrie, Scott (Dunfermline West) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Edinburgh Central) (Lab)
Brankin, Rhona (Midlothian) (Lab)
Brown, Robert (Glasgow) (LD)
Chisholm, Malcolm (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)
Craigie, Cathie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (Lab)
Curran, Ms Margaret (Glasgow Baillieston) (Lab)
Deacon, Susan (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)
Eadie, Helen (Dunfermline East) (Lab)
Ferguson, Patricia (Glasgow Maryhill) (Lab)
Finnie, Ross (West of Scotland) (LD)
Gillon, Karen (Clydesdale) (Lab)
Godman, Trish (West Renfrewshire) (Lab)
Henry, Hugh (Paisley South) (Lab)
Home Robertson, John (East Lothian) (Lab)
Hughes, Janis (Glasgow Rutherglen) (Lab)
Jackson, Dr Sylvia (Stirling) (Lab)
Jackson, Gordon (Glasgow Govan) (Lab)
Jamieson, Cathy (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (Lab)
Jamieson, Margaret (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab)
Kerr, Mr Andy (East Kilbride) (Lab)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow Pollok) (Lab)
Livingstone, Marilyn (Kirkcaldy) (Lab)
Lyon, George (Argyll and Bute) (LD)
Macdonald, Lewis (Aberdeen Central) (Lab)
Macintosh, Mr Kenneth (Eastwood) (Lab)
Macmillan, Maureen (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Martin, Paul (Glasgow Springburn) (Lab)
May, Christine (Central Fife) (Lab)
McAveety, Mr Frank (Glasgow Shettleston) (Lab)
McCabe, Mr Tom (Hamilton South) (Lab)
McMahon, Michael (Hamilton North and Bellshill) (Lab)
McNeil, Mr Duncan (Greenock and Inverclyde) (Lab)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow Kelvin) (Lab)
McNulty, Des (Clydebank and Milngavie) (Lab)
Muldoon, Bristow (Livingston) (Lab)
Mulligan, Mrs Mary (Linlithgow) (Lab)
Murray, Dr Elaine (Dumfries) (Lab)
Oldfather, Irene (Cunninghame South) (Lab)
Peacock, Peter (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Peattie, Cathy (Falkirk East) (Lab)
Pringle, Mike (Edinburgh South) (LD)
Purvis, Jeremy (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale) (LD)
Radcliffe, Nora (Gordon) (LD)
Robson, Euan (Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (LD)
Scott, Tavish (Shetland) (LD)
Smith, Iain (North East Fife) (LD)
Smith, Margaret (Edinburgh West) (LD)
Stephen, Nicol (Aberdeen South) (LD)
Stone, Mr Jamie (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
Wallace, Mr Jim (Orkney) (LD)
Wilson, Allan (Cunninghame North) (Lab)
Against
Aitken, Bill (Glasgow) (Con)
Baird, Shiona (North East Scotland) (Green)
Ballance, Chris (South of Scotland) (Green)
Ballard, Mark (Lothians) (Green)
Brocklebank, Mr Ted (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Brownlee, Derek (South of Scotland) (Con)
Canavan, Dennis (Falkirk West) (Ind)
Crawford, Bruce (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perth) (SNP)
Davidson, Mr David (North East Scotland) (Con)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James (Lothians) (Con)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber) (SNP)
Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray) (SNP)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Gallie, Phil (South of Scotland) (Con)
Gibson, Rob (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Goldie, Miss Annabel (West of Scotland) (Con)
Grahame, Christine (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Hyslop, Fiona (Lothians) (SNP)
Ingram, Mr Adam (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Johnstone, Alex (North East Scotland) (Con)
Lochhead, Richard (North East Scotland) (SNP)
MacAskill, Mr Kenny (Lothians) (SNP)
MacDonald, Margo (Lothians) (Ind)
Maclean, Kate (Dundee West) (Lab)
Marwick, Tricia (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Mather, Jim (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Maxwell, Mr Stewart (West of Scotland) (SNP)
McFee, Mr Bruce (West of Scotland) (SNP)
McGrigor, Mr Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
McLetchie, David (Edinburgh Pentlands) (Con)
Milne, Mrs Nanette (North East Scotland) (Con)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Monteith, Mr Brian (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Morgan, Alasdair (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Munro, John Farquhar (Ross, Skye and Inverness West) (LD)
Neil, Alex (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee East) (SNP)
Ruskell, Mr Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Scanlon, Mary (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Scott, Eleanor (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow) (SNP)
Swinburne, John (Central Scotland) (SSCUP)
Swinney, Mr John (North Tayside) (SNP)
Turner, Dr Jean (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (Ind)
Watson, Mike (Glasgow Cathcart) (Lab)
Welsh, Mr Andrew (Angus) (SNP)
White, Ms Sandra (Glasgow) (SNP)
The result of the division is: For 56, Against 52, Abstentions 0.
The SSP members are not here.
Order.
Amendment 24 agreed to.
Amendment 65 moved—[Shona Robison].
The question is, that amendment 65 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
No.
There will be a division.
For
Aitken, Bill (Glasgow) (Con)
Baird, Shiona (North East Scotland) (Green)
Ballance, Chris (South of Scotland) (Green)
Ballard, Mark (Lothians) (Green)
Brocklebank, Mr Ted (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Brownlee, Derek (South of Scotland) (Con)
Canavan, Dennis (Falkirk West) (Ind)
Crawford, Bruce (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perth) (SNP)
Davidson, Mr David (North East Scotland) (Con)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James (Lothians) (Con)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber) (SNP)
Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray) (SNP)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Gallie, Phil (South of Scotland) (Con)
Gibson, Rob (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Goldie, Miss Annabel (West of Scotland) (Con)
Grahame, Christine (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Hyslop, Fiona (Lothians) (SNP)
Ingram, Mr Adam (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Johnstone, Alex (North East Scotland) (Con)
Lochhead, Richard (North East Scotland) (SNP)
MacAskill, Mr Kenny (Lothians) (SNP)
MacDonald, Margo (Lothians) (Ind)
Maclean, Kate (Dundee West) (Lab)
Marwick, Tricia (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Mather, Jim (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Maxwell, Mr Stewart (West of Scotland) (SNP)
McFee, Mr Bruce (West of Scotland) (SNP)
McGrigor, Mr Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
McLetchie, David (Edinburgh Pentlands) (Con)
Milne, Mrs Nanette (North East Scotland) (Con)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Monteith, Mr Brian (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Morgan, Alasdair (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Neil, Alex (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee East) (SNP)
Ruskell, Mr Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Scanlon, Mary (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Scott, Eleanor (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow) (SNP)
Swinburne, John (Central Scotland) (SSCUP)
Swinney, Mr John (North Tayside) (SNP)
Turner, Dr Jean (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (Ind)
Watson, Mike (Glasgow Cathcart) (Lab)
Welsh, Mr Andrew (Angus) (SNP)
White, Ms Sandra (Glasgow) (SNP)
Against
Alexander, Ms Wendy (Paisley North) (Lab)
Arbuckle, Mr Andrew (Mid Scotland and Fife) (LD)
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Richard (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Barrie, Scott (Dunfermline West) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Edinburgh Central) (Lab)
Brankin, Rhona (Midlothian) (Lab)
Brown, Robert (Glasgow) (LD)
Chisholm, Malcolm (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)
Craigie, Cathie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (Lab)
Curran, Ms Margaret (Glasgow Baillieston) (Lab)
Deacon, Susan (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)
Eadie, Helen (Dunfermline East) (Lab)
Ferguson, Patricia (Glasgow Maryhill) (Lab)
Finnie, Ross (West of Scotland) (LD)
Gillon, Karen (Clydesdale) (Lab)
Godman, Trish (West Renfrewshire) (Lab)
Henry, Hugh (Paisley South) (Lab)
Home Robertson, John (East Lothian) (Lab)
Hughes, Janis (Glasgow Rutherglen) (Lab)
Jackson, Dr Sylvia (Stirling) (Lab)
Jackson, Gordon (Glasgow Govan) (Lab)
Jamieson, Cathy (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (Lab)
Jamieson, Margaret (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab)
Kerr, Mr Andy (East Kilbride) (Lab)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow Pollok) (Lab)
Livingstone, Marilyn (Kirkcaldy) (Lab)
Lyon, George (Argyll and Bute) (LD)
Macdonald, Lewis (Aberdeen Central) (Lab)
Macintosh, Mr Kenneth (Eastwood) (Lab)
Macmillan, Maureen (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Martin, Paul (Glasgow Springburn) (Lab)
May, Christine (Central Fife) (Lab)
McAveety, Mr Frank (Glasgow Shettleston) (Lab)
McCabe, Mr Tom (Hamilton South) (Lab)
McMahon, Michael (Hamilton North and Bellshill) (Lab)
McNeil, Mr Duncan (Greenock and Inverclyde) (Lab)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow Kelvin) (Lab)
McNulty, Des (Clydebank and Milngavie) (Lab)
Muldoon, Bristow (Livingston) (Lab)
Mulligan, Mrs Mary (Linlithgow) (Lab)
Munro, John Farquhar (Ross, Skye and Inverness West) (LD)
Murray, Dr Elaine (Dumfries) (Lab)
Oldfather, Irene (Cunninghame South) (Lab)
Peacock, Peter (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Peattie, Cathy (Falkirk East) (Lab)
Pringle, Mike (Edinburgh South) (LD)
Purvis, Jeremy (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale) (LD)
Radcliffe, Nora (Gordon) (LD)
Robson, Euan (Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (LD)
Scott, Tavish (Shetland) (LD)
Smith, Iain (North East Fife) (LD)
Smith, Margaret (Edinburgh West) (LD)
Stephen, Nicol (Aberdeen South) (LD)
Stone, Mr Jamie (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
Wallace, Mr Jim (Orkney) (LD)
Wilson, Allan (Cunninghame North) (Lab)
The result of the division is: For 51, Against 57, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 65 disagreed to.
Group 12 is on the Skipton Fund—appeals and eligibility. Amendment 25, in the name of the minister, is grouped with amendment 26.
Amendment 25 introduces to section 24 a right of appeal for applicants whose claim under the Skipton Fund scheme is refused. The Executive undertook at stage 2 to lodge such an amendment. It has always been the intention of Scottish ministers for there to be a right of appeal against decisions taken about the acceptance of claims made under the Skipton Fund scheme and the amendment consolidates that intention.
Amendment 26 addresses an inconsistency in the provisions of section 24. At stage 2, the bill was amended to allow for claims to be made by certain persons who had been infected with hepatitis C through contact with persons who had previously been infected by NHS treatment. That was required so that the scheme meets the policy requirement of ensuring that ex gratia payments can be made to all eligible people—both primary and secondary infectees—in order to help to alleviate their suffering. One of those stage 2 amendments modified the provisions to enable the scheme to specify conditions of eligibility in respect of claims on behalf of potentially eligible secondary infectees who died before making a claim. Amendment 26 will secure that, in the interests of fairness and equity, there is consistency with the different types of infectees who are eligible under the scheme by ensuring that the scheme can similarly specify conditions of eligibility in respect of claims on behalf of potentially eligible primary infectees who died before making a claim.
I move amendment 25.
Amendment 25 agreed to.
Amendment 26 moved—[Mr Andy Kerr]—and agreed to.
Section 30—Amendment of Adults with Incapacity (Scotland) Act 2000: authorisation of medical treatment
Amendment 27 moved—[Mr Andy Kerr]—and agreed to.
Section 31—Joint ventures
Group 13 is on joint ventures. Amendment 2, in the name of Carolyn Leckie, is grouped with amendment 69, also in the name of Carolyn Leckie. Given that Ms Leckie is not present to move her amendments, the debate on them cannot take place unless another member wishes to move amendment 2. Does anyone wish to do so?
No.
Amendment 2 not moved.
Section 34—Regulations or orders
Amendment 66 not moved.
Amendments 28 and 29 moved—[Mr Andy Kerr]—and agreed to.
Before schedule 1
Amendment 62 moved—[Mr Brian Monteith].
The question is, that amendment 62 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
No.
There will be a division.
For
Brocklebank, Mr Ted (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Brownlee, Derek (South of Scotland) (Con)
Davidson, Mr David (North East Scotland) (Con)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James (Lothians) (Con)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Gallie, Phil (South of Scotland) (Con)
Goldie, Miss Annabel (West of Scotland) (Con)
Johnstone, Alex (North East Scotland) (Con)
McGrigor, Mr Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
McLetchie, David (Edinburgh Pentlands) (Con)
Milne, Mrs Nanette (North East Scotland) (Con)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Monteith, Mr Brian (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Munro, John Farquhar (Ross, Skye and Inverness West) (LD)
Scanlon, Mary (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Against
Alexander, Ms Wendy (Paisley North) (Lab)
Arbuckle, Mr Andrew (Mid Scotland and Fife) (LD)
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baird, Shiona (North East Scotland) (Green)
Baker, Richard (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Ballance, Chris (South of Scotland) (Green)
Ballard, Mark (Lothians) (Green)
Barrie, Scott (Dunfermline West) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Edinburgh Central) (Lab)
Brankin, Rhona (Midlothian) (Lab)
Brown, Robert (Glasgow) (LD)
Canavan, Dennis (Falkirk West) (Ind)
Chisholm, Malcolm (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perth) (SNP)
Curran, Ms Margaret (Glasgow Baillieston) (Lab)
Deacon, Susan (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)
Eadie, Helen (Dunfermline East) (Lab)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber) (SNP)
Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray) (SNP)
Ferguson, Patricia (Glasgow Maryhill) (Lab)
Finnie, Ross (West of Scotland) (LD)
Gibson, Rob (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Gillon, Karen (Clydesdale) (Lab)
Godman, Trish (West Renfrewshire) (Lab)
Grahame, Christine (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Henry, Hugh (Paisley South) (Lab)
Home Robertson, John (East Lothian) (Lab)
Hughes, Janis (Glasgow Rutherglen) (Lab)
Hyslop, Fiona (Lothians) (SNP)
Ingram, Mr Adam (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Jackson, Dr Sylvia (Stirling) (Lab)
Jackson, Gordon (Glasgow Govan) (Lab)
Jamieson, Cathy (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (Lab)
Jamieson, Margaret (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab)
Kerr, Mr Andy (East Kilbride) (Lab)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow Pollok) (Lab)
Livingstone, Marilyn (Kirkcaldy) (Lab)
Lochhead, Richard (North East Scotland) (SNP)
Lyon, George (Argyll and Bute) (LD)
MacAskill, Mr Kenny (Lothians) (SNP)
Macdonald, Lewis (Aberdeen Central) (Lab)
MacDonald, Margo (Lothians) (Ind)
Macintosh, Mr Kenneth (Eastwood) (Lab)
Maclean, Kate (Dundee West) (Lab)
Macmillan, Maureen (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Martin, Paul (Glasgow Springburn) (Lab)
Marwick, Tricia (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Mather, Jim (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Maxwell, Mr Stewart (West of Scotland) (SNP)
May, Christine (Central Fife) (Lab)
McAveety, Mr Frank (Glasgow Shettleston) (Lab)
McCabe, Mr Tom (Hamilton South) (Lab)
McFee, Mr Bruce (West of Scotland) (SNP)
McMahon, Michael (Hamilton North and Bellshill) (Lab)
McNeil, Mr Duncan (Greenock and Inverclyde) (Lab)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow Kelvin) (Lab)
McNulty, Des (Clydebank and Milngavie) (Lab)
Morgan, Alasdair (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Muldoon, Bristow (Livingston) (Lab)
Mulligan, Mrs Mary (Linlithgow) (Lab)
Murray, Dr Elaine (Dumfries) (Lab)
Neil, Alex (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Oldfather, Irene (Cunninghame South) (Lab)
Peacock, Peter (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Peattie, Cathy (Falkirk East) (Lab)
Pringle, Mike (Edinburgh South) (LD)
Purvis, Jeremy (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale) (LD)
Radcliffe, Nora (Gordon) (LD)
Robison, Shona (Dundee East) (SNP)
Robson, Euan (Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (LD)
Ruskell, Mr Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Scott, Eleanor (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Scott, Tavish (Shetland) (LD)
Smith, Iain (North East Fife) (LD)
Smith, Margaret (Edinburgh West) (LD)
Stephen, Nicol (Aberdeen South) (LD)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)
Stone, Mr Jamie (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
Swinney, Mr John (North Tayside) (SNP)
Turner, Dr Jean (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (Ind)
Wallace, Mr Jim (Orkney) (LD)
Watson, Mike (Glasgow Cathcart) (Lab)
Welsh, Mr Andrew (Angus) (SNP)
White, Ms Sandra (Glasgow) (SNP)
Wilson, Allan (Cunninghame North) (Lab)
The result of the division is: For 16, Against 87, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 62 disagreed to.
Schedule 2
Minor and consequential amendments
Amendments 30 and 31 moved—[Mr Andy Kerr]—and agreed to.
Long title
Amendment 32 moved—[Mr Andy Kerr]—and agreed to.
Amendments 67 and 68 moved—[Mr Duncan McNeil]—and agreed to.
Amendment 69 not moved.
That ends consideration of amendments.