³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ

There is no additional capital budget. Our capital budget has been cut by the UK Government by 10 per cent, and the construction costs for projects that are already in delivery have increased. We are trying to use the capital budget as fairly and reasonably as we can, but no additional money is available because of the cut that we have experienced alongside the construction inflation that projects face.

It is a reflection of the difficult public financial environment in which we are operating. Although we are not able to make all the increases that we would like, we have made a significant increase in the past couple of years. Sustaining that in the present financial environment is really challenging. We have sought to protect mental health funding as best we can and to sustain the significant increase in investment that we have made in the past couple of years, but whether we will be able to increase that further will depend on budgets in future years. If the present approach to public finances continues, it will be really challenging to do that, given the pressures on public sector budgets right across government.

About £15 million is for the national care service.

Do you mean multi-year budgets?

I think that the 218 service came through the justice funding that went into IJBs; it was not from health funding. I am not entirely sighted on exactly what has happened with the justice funding. I think that it would probably go back to the old justice boards and the funding that was transferred across to IJBs, rather than coming directly from the health portfolio. I would imagine that it is a matter that the justice secretary would be able to respond on, because it is not something that sits directly in my portfolio.

We do not micromanage services on the ground within individual health boards, but, clearly, there is a requirement for boards to ensure that there are safe staffing levels. Where there are concerns, there is a mechanism for staff to raise them and escalate them within the board.

There is a lot of work going on around the safe staffing legislation that we introduced. If concerns have been raised with you directly by staff, they should escalate them through the local mechanism to ensure that they are addressed. My expectation is that boards would address such concerns and do so quickly.

I have heard some of the commentary on that, and I do not subscribe to it. We have a range of health regulators that regulate a range of professional groups. In my view, the GMC taking on the regulation of AAs and PAs will not cause any confusion, so long as there is a clear regulatory body that is responsible for dealing with any issues relating to AAs and PAs. I have heard some of the commentary, but I am not persuaded by it, given the fact that we have a range of other regulators that cover a variety of professional groups. I do not see why that would create any confusion for the GMC, given that it does not do so for other health regulators.

I do not know what the exact costs associated with that are, but the UK Government has decided to fund the GMC to support the introduction of the regulation of PAs and AAs. Eventually, we will move to the normal self-funding model, which the majority of the regulators, if not all of them, operate.

How we use PAs and AAs in NHS Scotland will be determined by us. That will be the approach that we will take through the group that we have set up. As I mentioned, it will consider the role of PAs and AAs.

We have taken a very different approach from that of the UK Government, about whose approach to the matter the BMA has flagged up concerns. The use of PAs and AAs is a key part of the UK Government’s workforce plan, and a lot of concerns have been raised about the proposed fairly rapid expansion of their use. I understand that, which is why we have taken a different approach here in Scotland. I have outlined to the BMA that we will take much more of an incremental and evidence-based approach to how PAs and AAs will be used in NHS Scotland and how they will be deployed and utilised in the workforce. We have put in place a process to manage that.

We do not intend to replicate the rapid expansion of the use of PAs and AAs that the UK Government is planning in NHS England. We are taking a much more evidence-based approach to their use and how that will be defined, which will be much more limited.

I go back to my earlier answer. There was a debate around that, and it was part of the consultation in which we asked for feedback on which body would be the most appropriate to regulate PAs and AAs. The very clear majority—just under 60 per cent—said that the GMC should be responsible for that. The GMC has also been clear that it believes that it is capable of carrying out that regulatory function, and it has already begun putting arrangements in place to manage the process. It gave evidence to the committee, and we have met with it and discussed the matter.

I used to be regulated by the Health and Care Professions Council; it regulates a range of bodies and different professional groups, and I do not think that that causes confusion for the public. The idea of another regulator taking on an additional bit of regulatory work is not greatly difficult for the public to understand.