Prescription Charges

Speech by Ross Finnie on Thu 21st Jan 2010

The Presiding Officer (Alex Fergusson): Good morning. The first item of business is a debate on motion S3M-5572, in the name of Mary Scanlon, on prescription charges and national health service spending priorities, with particular reference to health visitors.

Ross Finnie (West of Scotland) (LD): The Liberal Democrats approach the debate on prescription charges and spending priorities from a slightly different perspective. We are quite clear that a discussion on prescription charges in the context of a Parliament and a Government that are debating the way in which the budget must be determined is a debate about the Government having to make difficult choices-which is what government is about. Changed economic circumstances call for different approaches to be taken and, in some cases, that means making even more difficult choices.

This morning's debate focuses on just one element in respect of which, in a very different financial climate, the Scottish Government is being asked not necessarily to abandon its long-term aspirations but to recognise that, in a tight financial settlement, a reordering and retiming of priorities is called for in certain circumstances. I am sure that the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing will want to read Beveridge's biography. It is clear from her comments that she has not studied it with care, as he made it absolutely clear that, in difficult financial circumstances, difficult choices must be made. We cannot simply take a one-size-fits-all approach. Against that background-and for different reasons-Liberal Democrats will support the first part of the Conservative motion calling for the withdrawal of the Government's proposals for further reductions in prescription charges.

The Liberal Democrats would support proposals to give protection to those who have long-term conditions. I listened with care to the cabinet secretary's remarks about how difficult and awkward the situation is and how her solution is better. With respect to the cabinet secretary, however, her speech was largely one that she could have made one, two, three or even four years ago.

Christine Grahame (South of Scotland) (SNP): Does that make it wrong?

Ross Finnie: No, indeed. However, it means that the Government has not tried to reorder its priorities in changed financial circumstances-that is the issue. We are not talking about abandoning principles; we are talking about recognising the need to change priorities.

Nicola Sturgeon: Does Ross Finnie concede that I was making the point that, if we went down the road of exempting all long-term conditions-if we could overcome the difficulties in doing that-the difference between that and complete abolition, in financial and administrative terms, would not justify the retention of prescription charges for the small number of people who would still have to pay?

Ross Finnie: In changed financial circumstances, we are asking for a degree of fairness because some people can afford to pay and some cannot. That is the priority that the Government must address.

We are unable to support the Labour amendment because, although we could all make a case for providing relief for cancer patients, that would perpetuate the unfairness of giving further support to those who do not need financial assistance. The amendment also happens to be worded in terms that pre-empt our amendment. Some parts of the cabinet secretary's case, which propose support for other persons who are in difficulties, may have merit. Nevertheless, if we are trying to decide who should and who should not receive financial support, in an economic crisis, those who can afford to pay do not come into the Liberal Democrat definition of fairness.

On the basis of using the current financial crisis to promote a fairer society, the Liberal Democrats have also been vociferous in our condemnation of bonus payments in the private sector, particularly the banking sector. In a similar vein, we have called for pay restraint in the private sector, especially among the higher paid. We have also-as my colleague, Jeremy Purvis, has made absolutely clear-called for a 5 per cent cut in the public sector fat cat pay bill. At a time when everyone is having to tighten their belts, a fair society demands that such cuts are made in both the private and the public sector. We therefore believe that there is no justification for making consultants distinction and clinical excellence awards in 2010-11, including under the new Scottish clinical leadership and excellence awards scheme.

Dr Richard Simpson (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab): Does the member acknowledge that the chancellor has reduced the allowances for those who earn more than £100,000 a year; that he has introduced an additional 10 per cent tax on those who earn more than £150,000 a year; and that he has reduced those people's pension allowances substantially so that there is already a universal tightening of belts for everybody who earns more than £100,000 a year?

Ross Finnie: I accept that, but those measures relate to standard pay-they do not address the issue of those who want bonuses. I am talking about the awarding of bonuses.

Dr Simpson: It is not a bonus.

Ross Finnie: Dr Simpson might think that anyone should be able to receive a bonus in these tightened financial times, but Liberal Democrats do not share that view. I accept that the current scheme was in operation when the Liberal Democrats were in government. Nevertheless, I repeat that it is unfair for the public sector to continue to pay bonuses this year as though nothing has changed. The principle of fairness should apply equally to payments in the public and in the private sector. I do not believe that the public will understand why, at a time when people are being critical of bonuses being paid to bankers and others, they should wake up in the morning and find that the highest earners in the NHS are also able to command bonuses of up to £75,000 a year on top of their salaries-especially when some of those who are being paid by the NHS do not even work within the NHS. Richard Simpson's point about taxation does not cover that and we do not believe that that is fair. That is why we lodged our amendment.

We would use the moneys that are available for that scheme to do what we have said consistently in the Parliament that we would do. We must make financial room to deal with the current financial crisis-in particular, the way in which it is affecting young people in this country. That is not to suggest that we do not believe that the health visitor issue, which the Conservatives have raised, is worthy of being addressed. However, across the totality of the budget, we believe that the economic crisis is bearing down particularly hard on the young, who could become a lost generation as a consequence. They are the people to whom we want to direct more resource, and we must make space to do that. We believe that withdrawing the proposals for prescription charges and consultant bonuses would reintroduce a degree of welcome fairness into our society.

I move amendment S3M-5572.2, to leave out from "the money" to end and insert:

"it is unjustifiable for the Scottish Government to continue to make consultants' distinction and clinical excellence awards in 2010-11 including under its new Scottish Clinical Leadership and Excellence Awards scheme to be introduced on 1 April 2010, and further believes that the money saved from both of these measures would be better spent on other priorities."