MALCOLM BURNS reviews the latest goings-on in Scotland.
Plain common sense
ACCORDING to a BBC poll before the Scottish election a year ago, public finance for public projects was thought to be the most important of all election issues by the public themselves.
One of the Scottish National Party's most popular policies in that election - indeed, one of the main reasons why they were successful - was their promise to end the private finance initiative and fund public projects through public finances.
At least that's what we thought we heard them say.
But the plan that Finance Secretary John Swinney produced for a Scottish Futures Trust turned out not to be a clear end to PFI.
Instead, fearful of European legislation and with big city advisers whispering in his ear, Swinney proposed a trust dominated by private financiers and a funding method described optimistically as "non-profit distributing."
The vague plan met with much criticism, led by Scottish public-sector union UNISON. And, as the implications have become clearer, it has become progressively less attractive.
Even First Minister Alex Salmond himself told the STUC congress last month that the traditional public finance route had been shown to be "the best, most effective method of financing available ... better than PFI and better, too, than the 'non-profit distributing' method" for funding the massive new Southern General Hospital in Glasgow.
The Scottish Futures Trust plan is now being scrutinised by the Scottish Parliament finance committee.
UNISON Scottish organiser Dave Watson was joined in giving evidence and slamming PFI at the finance committee last week by Educational Institute of Scotland assistant secretary Ken Wimbor and Jon Ford, the British Medical Association's head of health policy and economic research.
Their organisations represent tens of thousands of local authority and public service workers and health professionals, plus teachers, lecturers and doctors - the people whom the public pay to actually deliver the services in the buildings which are funded out of the public's money, whether by PFI or not.
I would hope that the committee was in serious listening mode.
UNISON set out its five-point alternative to PFI, which involves reviewing existing PFI contracts, no new contracts under PFI, awarding government capital grants equally to all projects irrespective of the method of procurement, introducing prudential borrowing for health boards and strengthening the public-private partnership staffing protocol to help protect terms and conditions.
"Evidence is stacked against PFI," Watson told the committee. "The public have said they do not want it and it is time to say 'no more'."
Who can disagree with the public on that?
Well, Labour has done so far. But, despite former finance minister Andy Kerr's protests that PFI has delivered for Scotland, what it delivered for Labour last May was an electoral kicking.
The SNP still appears to want to proceed with the dressed-up version of PFI which is the Scottish Futures Trust.
But, as Dave Watson pointed out to the finance committee, "if the Scottish government can conclude that public funding provides the best value for money for the massive new hospital campus at Glasgow's Southern General site, why can this not be the approach across Scotland?"
The answer is, it could. Ending PFI and replacing it with proper public funding would be both popular and efficient.
The real question is, which of the two main parties in Scotland needs policies like that the most?
A woman's right to choose
SUPPORTERS of the right of women to choose on issues to do with their own bodies have been in a majority now for some time, after many decades of campaigning.
Yet, time and again, opponents of that right attempt to deny it in whatever way they can. The anti-abortion amendments to the Human Embryology and Fertilisation Bill being voted on by MPs at Westminster on Tuesday attempt to lower the time limit on abortion.
Among the bodies which are opposed to any lowering of the time limit are the STUC, the TUC and the main trade unions, as well as the British Medical Association, Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, British Association of Perinatal Medicine, Royal College of Nursing and the Westminster government's own Department of Health.
It is important that these amendments to limit abortion rights are defeated. There's still time to lobby your MP.
Abortion Rights Scotland is organising teatime demonstrations on Monday night in Glasgow's George Square from 5.30pm and at the Mound in Edinburgh from 6pm to publicise the campaign to defeat the time limiting amendments. Bring placards, banners and friends.
Contact abortionrightsscotland@yahoo.com or check out abortionrights.org.uk for more information on the campaign.
Another instalment of Labour in Wonderland
THE answer to the question in my main piece is Labour, by the way. Here's another Wonderland scenario.
On Thursday May 15, the Holyrood Parliament voted for the reinstatement to the Scottish budget of £30m attendance allowance annually which has been withdrawn by the Department of Work and Pensions in Westminster.
The cut took place after Scotland adopted a policy on free personal and nursing care for the elderly in 2002. That policy was introduced by the then Labour-led Scottish Executive. It has been very popular.
The recently published independent review of free personal and nursing care under Lord Sutherland argued strongly that this money should be reinstated.
Scottish Labour, now in opposition, initially agreed to back this recommendation. But, last Thursday, Scottish Labour MSPs voted against the call for the return of the annual £30 million.
Explaining this reverse, Labour shadow health secretary Margaret Curran said that Labour had "consistently argued that the resources should come to Scotland."
However, she claimed that supporting the SNP and Scottish Labour's own view in a vote to that effect would allow the Scottish government to "use that as just an attempt to get into a narrow dispute with London."
I would say that, if you have a clear and correct position, it's better usually to just put it, rather than vote against it. Voters don't appreciate or even understand that kind of logic.
If the voters don't appreciate or understand you, you're in trouble.
Subscribe to the Morning Star online
For peace and socialism - the only socialist daily paper in the English language
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment