Tissues

The Scottish Parliament is not all-powerful – no news there then.

So I find myself having to look at what is happening at Westminster from time to time. We have a significant number of pieces of “secondary legislation” which relate to previous Acts which were passed before our Parliament came into being.

Each day approximately three such SSIs – Scottish Secondary Instruments – are tabled for consideration. Most are “negative” instruments.

By and large they represent a mechanism for Ministers to vary lists, set fees and similar low level activities delegated to the government by various Acts of Parliament.

At Westminster these constitute a significant volume of legislation. And we should not imagine that they are all benign.

It was just such a piece of legislation, published a few weeks before an election, that removed 6,000 square miles of Scottish fishing waters into English jurisdiction.

The other kind of SSI is the “affirmative” instrument – one which requires the agreement of Parliament before it can pass into law. These are generally dealt with in Committee and only reach the floor of Parliament if seen as particularly contentious.

One I moved against recently sought to raise the fees for planning applications that local authorities must charge. I asked why, when the government’s stated policy was to empower councils, they were setting such charges at all.

Why not allow Councils to set the charges themselves? The efficient, and those wanting to attract new industries and housing, could set low rates and lay out their stall as being “open for business”. The Councils which are badly run and inefficient could suffer.

But no – competition in this regard would be “unfair” – says Labour Minister Mary Mulligan.

With a uniform business rate across Scotland and with the formula which determines how much money our local council gets ensuring that we are chronically under-funded, we have few enough competitive advantages that our council can use to promote our area.

So it might have been just a little boost to have one tool in the box to fight with.

Instead I heard that this government plan a consultation – they have had about 600 already since coming to power – on the subject. If we need a motto for this government it could be “consult and avoid decisions” as that seems increasingly to represent their way.

Core legislation takes the form of Bills before Parliament – in Scotland as at Westminster. And it is perfectly reasonable that we look at the experience of another Parliament before taking a topic forward.

But for the lack-lustre crew running the Scottish government, this is a one-way process. They look all too often to follow Westminster.

I am taking an interest in the Westminster “Human Tissue Bill” precisely because Malcolm Chisholm, the Scottish Health Minister, has said that he expects to mirror the proposals within it when we legislate in the Scots Parliament.

The Bill is much needed. It seeks to prevent the abuses which arose at a number of hospitals which saw babies’ brains and other organs retained for research without the parents’ knowledge.

But its detail is likely to have much wider implications.

It basically says that before any tissue can be used for any purpose other than to promote the health of the individual from which it came, written permission must be provided.

On the face of it, a sound proposal.

On a visit to the Immunology Department at Aberdeen’s Foresterhill Hospital, I saw that it could make life very difficult even for routine lab work vital to patients.

The definition of “tissue” in the Bill appears to include blood samples and normal human waste. So?

Much of the delicate work of our labs requires “reference” material to go through the tests alongside suspect material taken from patients. This provides a vital check that lab processes and equipment are working correctly.

At present such material is readily available to the labs. In the new world it could cost as much as £30 per test for “consented” material and be in much shorter supply.

The rules in this Bill seem some way distant from protecting the rights of children and their parents.

I am going to keep a close eye on this as I have no problem with anyone “taking the P…” from me if that helps another human being.

A Day in Edinburgh

One of my favourite Parliamentary activities is meeting constituents who drop into Parliament. And school visits are especially well catered for by our Parliamentary staff.

Banff Academy joined us here this month and pressed MSPs, including myself, with some pretty hard questions. And then they had a mock Parliamentary debate.

It must have been a good day – the teachers have signed up to come again next year.

I welcome engagement of our youngsters in the democratic process. The alternative is dictatorship.

Competent?

With the announcement of a referendum on the proposed European constitution and the looming EU Parliament elections, focus is once again on fish.

Inevitably much of the debate is legalistic. And I now carry a copy of the draft with me because hardly anybody knows what is in it.

But it would be a ‘cheap shot’ if I were to hand it to every person I meet who makes a comment on the constitution.

The reality is that referenda are blunt instruments. They deliver political verdicts on governments rather than answers to the questions posed.

And for us, the key part of the Constitution is Article 12 which is headed up as ‘Exclusive Competence’. Let me make sure all readers can argue from an informed position. Here is the first, and relevant, of the two paragraphs:

“The Union shall have exclusive competence to establish the competition rules necessary for the functioning of the internal market, and in the following areas:

• monetary policy, for the Member States which have adopted the euro,
• common commercial policy,
• customs union,
• the conservation of marine biological resources under the common fisheries policy.”

And in case there is any doubt what ‘exclusive competence’ means; it means that the EU decides and we must legally do it – if we sign up.

The very real debate about whether Europe already has the power to force us to conform to their lunatic ideas about fishing – or not – does not matter. The point is that now, while we are discussing the introduction of a formal constitution for the first time, we can make a change of benefit to Scotland.

The Liberals and Labour in the Scottish government seem to be taking the very strange position that we signed a treaty on this in the early 70s and cannot get out of a commitment made by the Conservative government of the time. This despite the proposed new constitution being a new treaty which replaces all the previous ones.

Since when have Labour in particular been reluctant to change previous Tory dogma? Well actually less in practice than on paper. But you know what I mean.

In any event one can search previous treaties in vain for the word ‘exclusive’. The reality is that if exclusivity exists at all, it derives from a court case in 1976. And there is no doubt that a treaty over-rides case law.

The bottom line is – who wants to protect our fishing industry?

The Labour and Liberal Scottish government say that the EU’s CFP can be ‘fine tuned’ to deliver what we need.

Thirty years of EU fishing failure, and the lack of action by Tory and Labour governments at Westminster to respond to those failures, does not convince many that this time we shall get we need.

Unless we persuade them to force through changes to the constitution.

Back to School

My wife and I went back to school last week. I was one of 52 in my P7 class in the 1950s. Sandra attended a country school with a total of 24 pupils – rather similar to New Byth who had invited us in.

The key thing the pupils wanted, was to engage us in the campaign to ensure that all the world’s children had at least some access to free education.

Well they convinced us. An example to us all.

Feet

The Scottish Parliament is claiming a world first – or at least a first in these islands. We are the first to have a debate on chiropody, or as it is now called podiatry. The science of looking after feet.

And this is by no means a trivial matter. The dramatic increase in diabetes over recent years is one reason.

A side effect of diabetes is problem circulation. Not enough blood gets to the feet in particular. And regular foot care by a professionally qualified podiatrist increases the chances that problems will be spotted early and fixed.

So it is reasonable that diabetes sufferers can now get free chiropody. But that does not mean all is rosy in the world of feet.

Our older citizens, whose health and independence depends on their mobility, are routinely denied such free access.

A slightly ingrowing toenail can develop into a seriously debilitating condition. Someone previously active and asking little from the public purse can quickly become housebound and dependent. And cost very much more than the cost of the chiropody that would have prevented it.

So it was right that we challenged the deputy health minister on the subject of feet. Many warm words resulted.

But his closing words in the debate carry a stark warning for any watcher of this government; “we will continue to monitor the situation”.

And we will monitor the minister to see if any action actually results.