THIS week’s sectoral debate line-up has attracted a number of ministers, junior ministers, government back-benchers and opposition spokespersons.

However, despite the strong line-up of speakers, there is no doubt who the spotlight will be on, and what important issue will be highlighted when the Minister, Dr Fenton Ferguson, speaks on Tuesday,

Dr Ferguson’s ‘baby’ is obviously the issue of hospital user fees or, even more importantly, universal health coverage (UHC), which is being promoted by the World Bank, and which has given birth to a global movement leading to the World Health Assembly calling on governments to “develop their health systems, so that all people have access to services and do not suffer financial hardship paying for them”.

Since assuming the Cabinet position of minister of health in January 2012, Ferguson has been testing public opinion on the future of the current no user fees policy introduced by the previous government, which his administration obviously feels has been draining the resources of the ministry.

He has had some support from government back-bencher, Dr Dayton Campbell (North West St Ann) who believes that the operation of the no user fee system at public primary and secondary health facilities since 2010, has only been a “pyrrhic” victory for the Opposition.

In his contribution to the debate, Campbell pointed out that the previous People’s National Party (PNP) User Fees policy generated 11 per cent, or $1.7 billion in public health care funding in 2006/2007.

According to him, this level of funding cannot be ignored by the Government, as it enabled the hospitals’ management to quickly respond to local problems, including malfunctioning facilities and equipment.

But, the Opposition Jamaica Labour Party (JLP) does not seem to be relenting on its position that Jamaicans should not suffer because of an inability to pay hospital or school fees.

That position has been reinforced by both Opposition Leader Andrew Holness, and the opposition’s spokesman on health, Dr Kenneth Baugh, as well as its spokesperson on social security and poverty reduction, Shahine Robinson, when she spoke recently in the debate.

Robinson acknowledged that there was discussion in several quarters about the possibility of the reintroduction of user fees in the health-care facilities, but cautioned that “it was the poor and the most vulnerable” who would be affected by the decision. She said that if there are no mechanisms to ensure that this safety net works, then it would be ill advised, during this period of fiscal austerity, to remove mechanism to support the poor and most vulnerable.

However, there have been continuing discussions between the government and the opposition on the issue, which would most likely be a compromise in which those who can pay or who have health insurance would pay all or some of the fees, while those who cannot afford it would continue to get free health care. But the question is whether the government is willing to take the gamble of shuffling the fees, while the smell of bus fare and water increases linger in the political arena.

SENATE

The Senate’s meeting on Friday was cut ridiculously short by a mix-up over a motion from Opposition member, Senator Kamina Johnson, seeking to have a joint select committee appointed to consider amendments to the Offences Against the Person Act, the Sexual Offences act and the Child Care and Protection Act.

Senator Johnson Smith wants the Acts to be amended to redefine or augment offences and punishments applied to: the murder of pregnant women; the murder of children; sexual offences against children; and the abduction of children.

It seemed that the senators were prepared for a lengthy debate on the issue Friday, but this fell through as the Senate was adjourned minutes after passing a bill amending the Financial Investigations Division (FID) Act, because the preparations for debating the Bill were not completed.

Senator Johnson Smith eventually withdrew the original motion and tabled a replacement with the full details which will now likely be debated next week. The foul-up meant that the Senate sat for less than an hour, although it planned to do a full day’s business.

HOUSE FOUL-UP

There was also a foul-up in the House of Representatives on Wednesday, while members debated the controversial amendments to the Revenue Administration Act.

Close to 8:30 pm, it became clear that the House had been sitting for nearly an hour past its 7:30 pm deadline without approval to do so.

Leader of the House, Phillip Paulwell, sought and got support from the members for an extension of the sitting beyond 7:30 pm. But Opposition MP Mike Henry asked whether that was good enough.

“Was that a retroactive approval, Mr Speaker, because if not, then everything that we have said since 7:30 really shouldn’t apply,” Henry noted.

“Yes, it’s a retroactive approval,” Smith admitted reluctantly.

Earlier in the day, there was the threat of a showdown between the Government and the Opposition, when Opposition MP Olivia “Babsy” Grange refused to give up her speaking time to allow for the debate on the Revenue Administration Act.

Grange said that she was programmed to speak after Minister of National Security Peter Bunting, and refused to adjust to a later time for her presentation.

“And who is going to compensate me for the people whom I have brought here from my constituency for my presentation? I have been a member of this House for the past 16 years, I am not any lesser than anybody in here and I am not going to be treated that way,” Grange insisted, when it seemed like the Government would go ahead with the financial bill debate.

However, the House leaders met and agreed that she would be allowed to speak before the financial bill was debated.