Ian McKee: Debates don't always go as expected in our nifty new democracy

Published on Monday 18 May 2009 18:49

LAST month, I briefly mentioned a Conservative-sponsored debate in which the motion welcomed the contribution of the independent sector to the success of a treatment centre set up at Stracathro Hospital in Angus and urged the government to give us more of the same.

I return to that subject, not particularly because of its importance in the greater scheme of things but because the debate illustrates well how minority government has changed the whole character of parliamentary proceedings.

The Conservatives naturally wanted to give a boost to private healthcare companies, as you would expect from a party that gains support from big business, but realised that, with only 16 votes out of 128, they would not get far unless they had an ally.

They knew the SNP government had set its face against long-term private sector involvement in the running of the NHS, so they could get no support from this quarter and, indeed, the SNP amendment that came forward expressed these reservations.

Their hope was that, as the previous administration set up the venture at Stracathro, Labour and Lib Dem members might be open to a little flattery and therefore they included a section in their motion praising this involvement.

An extra 62 votes in support would have guaranteed them victory.

Alas, these hopes were soon dashed. The Lib Dems were happy to support the Conservatives as long as they accepted an amendment guaranteeing that the use of the private sector did not undermine the rest of the NHS locally.

The Conservatives could have swallowed this, but supporting any Conservative motion does not come easy to Labour members, even if it praises one of their policies.

So the Labour amendment said yes, they were pleased at the success of the Stracathro treatment centre, but they were also delighted that they had nationalised the former HCI Hospital in Clydebank. Of course, this was totally unacceptable to the Conservatives.

When it came to decision time, all the opposition parties joined in giving the SNP government a kicking, and their amendment went down by a hefty majority.

But, having lost this contest, the SNP members joined with Labour to support the nationalisation of the hospital at Clydebank, and all supported the rather benign Lib Dem amendment.

The heavily amended motion was passed by 96 votes to 16 – the 16 being the Conservatives who had proposed it in the first place.

What does this tell us about the new democracy? It shows that the government can lose a parliamentary vote without it being the end of life as we know it.

It shows how opposition parties still find it difficult to get their act together when attacking the government.

But, above all, it shows that no-one can take for granted how any debate is going to end. And many, weary of the monolithic domination of the governing party in the past, find this rather encouraging.

Meanwhile, the health and sport committee is doggedly continuing with its inquiry into how we look after the mental health needs of children and young people in Scotland; most recently in the witness stand have been public health minister Shona Robison, and children's minister Adam Ingram.

It is too early, of course, to come to any firm conclusion, but three things are becoming apparent to me: specialist mental health teams in this field are hugely under-staffed and under-resourced; existing, sensible development plans are not being implemented everywhere; and confusion over confidentiality is preventing many young people from seeking the help they need. I hope the final report highlights these issues.

Finally, and as reported, Margo MacDonald's bill on end-of-life choices received the necessary 18 signatures to move to the next stage of consideration, much to many people's surprise.

We will be hearing a lot on this emotive subject over the next few months.

&#149 Ian McKee is a Lothians MSP and a member of the Scottish Parliament's health and sport committee.