Meeting of the Parliament

Meeting date: Tuesday, February 19, 2013

Official Report 920KB pdf

---

Topical Question Time

---

Structural Funds (European Union Financial Framework)

1. To ask the Scottish Government what implications the agreement on the European Union financial framework for 2014 to 2020 has for the allocation of structural funds in Scotland. (S4T-00250)

The recent agreement reached on the multi-annual financial framework by the European Council could have significant implications for the allocation of structural funds in Scotland. The framework contains detailed arrangements for allocating structural funds according to unemployment, youth unemployment, regional gross domestic product, total regional population, population density and other technical factors. The United Kingdom’s overall allocation for 2014 to 2020 will fall by approximately 6 per cent. However, initial calculations of how much each part of the UK would receive has produced some very concerning results and could see Scotland face an overall reduction of over 30 per cent, with by far the biggest reduction occurring in the Highlands and Islands.

Wales and Northern Ireland would also face significant net reductions, while England would receive an increase. Clearly, I am very concerned by what would be a disproportionate reduction in European structural funding for Scotland. I have therefore spoken to the other devolved Governments and the UK Government. There is an agreement that our officials will work together—first, to better understand the basis for those initial calculations and, secondly, to identify alternative allocation methodologies that not only respect the principles and objectives of the financial framework but ensure a fair allocation of funding across the UK. I will, of course, keep the Parliament updated.

That is concerning indeed. Will the Deputy First Minister confirm when the allocation formula was calculated and whether her devolved counterparts share her concerns? What prospects are there for getting an improved deal?

As I indicated in my original answer, the final formulation was agreed at the European Council meeting that took place on 7 and 8 February, when it was part of the package that was presented by Herman van Rompuy. Although we would have had earlier versions of the methodology, it was not possible to accurately estimate regional receipts in advance of the final formula and budget figures being agreed, which happened at the European Council.

It is fair to say that the devolved Administrations have an interest in securing a fairer allocation of funds within the UK. Although different nations in the UK will have slightly different emphases and interests, we are working together to identify a solution that is suitable for us all. As I said earlier, I spoke last week to Michael Fallon, the responsible UK minister, and he, too, indicated a willingness to discuss how we could reach a fairer allocation.

In response to the last part of Christina McKelvie’s question, I say that the prospects are good, and I am optimistic that we can get to a much better and fairer allocation. However, there is work to do to get there, and I will keep Parliament updated on the progress of that work.

Will the Deputy First Minister give an insight into the agreements that were reached by other member states and whether they have secured different deals?

Obviously, this is an agreement that was reached by member states. The allocations across Europe are based on the same formula. However, as members will be aware from the news coverage of the final Council conclusions, several member states secured special allocations—or top-ups—as part of the overall deal. For example, Hungary, Germany, Belgium, Malta and Cyprus negotiated agreements of that nature.

As I understand it, the UK did not seek to negotiate such a deal. Obviously, the UK had set particular objectives for the conclusion of the deal. The basic formula applies across all member states, but there will be differences in the final position of individual member states depending on the detail of that final agreement.

I welcome the cabinet secretary’s assurances that there are on-going discussions and that she will keep Parliament informed.

The cabinet secretary is right to say that there are concerns across the Highlands and Islands. Is she aware of specific concerns about the fact that structural funding will not be available across the Highlands and Islands and that specific areas, notably Orkney and Shetland, may lose out as a consequence? Will she encourage her officials to pick up that point specifically in the on-going discussions with UK officials?

I acknowledge Liam McArthur’s constituency perspective. I should have said earlier that I updated the European and External Relations Committee in writing last week about the issue, and I will continue to keep it updated.

I am certainly aware of concerns that exist in the Highlands and Islands generally and, indeed, in particular parts of the region. In my first answer, I said that the initial allocations—I stress that they are initial and that there is a lot of work to be done on them—would indicate a cut of more than 30 per cent for Scotland but a bigger reduction for the Highlands and Islands. The Highlands and Islands are categorised as a transition area, so there are particular challenges that will be uppermost in our minds as we try to reach a much better outcome than where we are now. I am happy to keep Liam McArthur updated on the particular issues relating to his constituency.

---

Paediatric Services

2. To ask the Scottish Government what support it provides to national health service boards for the delivery of paediatric services. (S4T-00253)

In response to changing demands for paediatric services, the Scottish Government and NHS Scotland have invested significantly in the NHS workforce, resulting in increased numbers of consultants, trainees and advanced nurse practitioners in paediatric services.

The Scottish Government submitted evidence to the Migration Advisory Committee that all grades of paediatric doctors should remain on the shortage occupation list, to ensure that all avenues remain open when recruiting.

We are working with NHS Education for Scotland to develop a sustainable training programme that will increase the number of advanced nurse practitioners in paediatric services in the NHS in Scotland.

Last June, the children’s ward at St John’s hospital in Livingston was forced to close for three weeks, due to chronic staff shortages, which left patients and parents in limbo. That should have been the moment for decisive action. Instead, yesterday—eight months on—we learned of the true scale of the problem nationwide: NHS Forth Valley has half the doctors that are required; NHS Dumfries and Galloway should have seven but has fewer than three; and in NHS Borders two posts have been vacant for two years.

Dr Andrew Eccleston, of the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health, said:

“There is a national crisis in terms of paediatric staff.”

Does the cabinet secretary agree?

There is an international shortage of paediatric consultants. Despite that, we have increased the number of paediatric consultants operating in Scotland by 34 per cent since we came to power in 2007. As well as increasing the number of consultant paediatricians, we have expanded other relevant occupations. The whole-time-equivalent number of advanced nurse practitioners has expanded from 27.4 in 2009 to 44.7 in September 2012. I do not accept that we have been anything other than active, as I said in my reply to the member’s initial question.

It is consultants themselves who are beginning to question the future of vital paediatric services in communities across Scotland. The last time that the cabinet secretary was confronted with uncomfortable headlines, he was concerned enough to produce an emergency action plan worth £1 million. It seems that headlines motivate him into action, so will he advise the Parliament when an action plan on paediatric staff shortages will be produced and how much funding he is willing to allocate? Will he assure us that no paediatric services in Scotland will close?

Mr Hume has a cheek, given that he represents a party that in government is cutting the budget in Scotland by 8 per cent for revenue and 26 per cent for capital. Far from waiting for headlines, as he clearly did before he was motivated to ask the question, we have been involved in a host of action items to deal with the problem, not since last week but over the past few years, because of the mess that we inherited from the previous, Labour-Liberal Democrat Administration.

It appears that the message that should go out from the cabinet secretary and the Parliament is that there is no problem and doctors are completely wrong in saying that there is.

Will the cabinet secretary answer the second part of Jim Hume’s question? Will the Government give the public in Scotland an absolute guarantee that children’s wards will not close in future due to staff shortages? If he cannot give that guarantee, all the stuff about additional consultants and so on is worthless. The public are entitled to know whether their children’s wards will remain open. Can he guarantee that?

First, I did not say that there is no problem; I said that there is a shortage of paediatric consultants in Scotland. There is a shortage of paediatric consultants in England. There is a shortage of paediatric consultants in Wales. There is a shortage of paediatric consultants internationally. There is an international problem, which is made worse by the fact that the Labour Government followed a right-wing agenda on immigration and cut off opportunities to recruit people from outside the European Union. I therefore do not think Dr Simpson is in a very good position to criticise.

As has been evident from the action that I have taken to keep St John’s paediatric services going 24/7, I am absolutely committed to maintaining the quality and quantity of paediatric services throughout Scotland.

Given that it is of course the responsibility of NHS boards to plan and deliver clinical services taking into account local demands, demographic changes and other relevant local issues, will the cabinet secretary clarify again the number of consultants specialising in paediatrics who are currently employed by the NHS and how that compares with the number employed when the Scottish National Party first came to office in 2007?

At the moment, there are 223.8 whole-time-equivalent paediatric consultants in Scotland, compared with 167.2 in September 2006. That unprecedented 34 per cent increase in the number of paediatric consultants in Scotland is something that we are very proud of.

That ends topical questions.