Private Hospitals (NHS Patients)
To ask the Scottish Government for what reason there has been a reported 300 per cent rise in the number of national health service patients treated in private hospitals. (S4T-00987)
Audit Scotland’s most recent assessment showed that NHS spending in the independent sector has fallen in the past year and represented only 0.8 per cent of the Scottish NHS front-line budget. NHS Scotland makes very limited use of the independent sector for targeted services, ensuring that people are seen quickly and get the services that they need, regardless of where they live. There were more than 1.5 million in-patient and day cases in 2013-14, of which fewer than 6,500—or 0.4 per cent—were treated in the independent sector.
The cabinet secretary has to be genuine about this. The decrease to which she referred represents only a handful of patients, but the truth is that the number of patients treated in private hospitals is more than four times what it was a decade ago. In 2011, the Scottish National Party First Minister, Alex Salmond, claimed that the private sector had been eradicated from the NHS in Scotland, but the reality is that four times as many patients are being treated privately than was the case a decade ago. On Saturday, Nicola Sturgeon told her conference that SNP MPs would vote to halt the tide of privatisation in England. Should she not start with her own NHS in Scotland?
I am sure that Jenny Marra understands that the number of patients treated overall has increased massively over the past 10 years. Next year, the new £15 million performance fund will have a very direct impact on the level of NHS capacity, and it will help to reduce private spend, particularly by NHS Lothian.
I will not take any lessons from Labour on the subject because, when it left office, the UK Government’s private spend in England had risen to 4.4 per cent, and under the Tories it has increased to 5.9 per cent. The equivalent figure in Scotland is 0.84 per cent. Another reason why I will not take any lessons from Labour is the number of private finance initiative contracts that it signed when it was in power in Scotland, which will result in £235 million being paid out next year on PFI and public-private partnership contracts in the NHS.
The Government’s position was demonstrated very ably by the First Minister when, as Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing in 2009, she reversed Labour’s privatisation of the Stracathro regional treatment centre and brought Stracathro hospital back into NHS control. Actions speak louder than words.
If actions speak louder than words, is the cabinet secretary content with the fact that there has been a fourfold increase in private provision? When Labour left government in Scotland 10 years ago, 1,560 NHS patients were treated privately. Under the SNP, that figure is now 6,417. Does she think that Alex Salmond managed to eradicate private provision from the NHS?
When Labour left office in 2006-07, 2,379 patients were treated in the private sector. The figure that Jenny Marra cited was for 2004-05, whereas Labour left office in 2006-07. She has the wrong figures; she needs to get her figures right.
It is important to remember that the number of patients treated over those years has also increased. We are looking at the percentage share of patients who have been treated in the private sector. The number of patients treated overall has increased dramatically over that period.
I am not complacent about the situation. I want more patients to be treated in the NHS. The new £15 million performance fund will allow that to happen by increasing the level of NHS capacity, particularly in NHS Lothian, which has the highest spend in the private sector. That will make a real difference to the amount of money that is spent in the private sector and to patients in the NHS Lothian area.
I will take no lessons from a party that, while in government, signed us up to some of the worst PFI contracts, which have left us facing a bill of £235 million next year. That dwarfs the amount of money that is being spent on patient treatment in the private sector. What a legacy from Labour being in power.
The SNP should take the 300 per cent rise in the number of NHS patients who are treated in private hospitals as a stark warning on staff recruitment and retention in our NHS. Does the cabinet secretary agree that her Government’s real-terms cut in the health budget, which was highlighted last week by Audit Scotland, will put further pressure on the NHS to use private facilities and expensive locums, leading to false economies and creeping privatisation on the SNP’s watch? Will she provide details of how she will deal with the growing staffing crisis?
Jim Hume gives hypocrisy a whole new meaning. The last time I looked, it was the Liberals who were in power with the Tories at Westminster. Let me remind him of the figures. Under the Tory-Liberal coalition at Westminster, private sector spend increased to 5.9 per cent in 2013-14 and it is rising. The equivalent figure in Scotland is 0.84 per cent. Therefore, I will take no lectures from the Liberal Democrats on use of the private sector when they have propped up the Tories, who are essentially privatising the health service in England. The Liberals have gone along with that, but I can assure Jim Hume that we will not do that here.
I find it pretty depressing that we are once again witnessing the politicisation of the health service by Labour and the SNP—and indeed by the Liberal Democrats.
How many Scottish NHS patients have been treated in private hospitals outside Scotland since the SNP became the governing party in Scotland, and what has that cost the NHS?
I say to Nanette Milne that occasionally politics creep into these debates but, at the end of the day, the most important thing is patient care.
We use the private sector at the margins of the health service to treat patients who would otherwise have to wait too long, but it is absolutely at the margins. We want to do more within the NHS, and the £15 million performance fund will help to reduce the level of spend on the private sector and increase the amount of spend within the NHS, particularly in areas such as NHS Lothian.
On the specifics of the question, I will write to Nanette Milne this week with that information.
University of Aberdeen (Budget)
To ask the Scottish Government what discussions took place between the Scottish Further and Higher Education Funding Council and the University of Aberdeen before the announcement of a £10.5 million budget reduction and the loss of 150 jobs. (S4T-00988)
The Scottish funding council maintains regular dialogue with all of Scotland’s higher education institutions. The Scottish Government understands that there have been no specific discussions between the funding council and the University of Aberdeen on the institution’s plan to realise £10.5 million of savings through a programme of voluntary redundancy.
The minister will be aware that the University of Aberdeen believes that it needs to make savings on that scale following in part from a decision by the Scottish funding council to reduce its research funding by nearly £1.6 million. That, in turn, reflected the decision to cease to make any funds available from the global excellence initiative, which has supported world-leading research—a decision that cost the University of Aberdeen about £1.2 million. Was the decision to suspend that initiative taken by the Scottish funding council or by the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning?
I want to pick up on several points that have been made. First, it must be emphasised that the global excellence initiative, which the member mentioned, was always time limited. It should be said, too, that the research excellence grant, which I think is one of the other areas of funding that the member is alluding to, was awarded on a competitive basis.
I believe that Scotland’s universities have had a great deal of support from the Government. Our record on that speaks for itself. The very fact that we are giving our universities £1 billion a year proves that commitment. It is quite right that decisions about the deployment of staff are taken not by ministers but by the universities themselves.
I am interested in that response, but I want to press the minister further on the suspension of the global excellence initiative. Naturally, I checked back to see what Michael Russell said when he launched the fund two years ago, and he said simply that it would
“further boost Scottish output of world-leading research.”
A year ago, in the paper “Scotland’s Future: Higher Education Research in an Independent Scotland”, Mr Russell promised that
“existing levels of Government investment”
would be
“at least maintained.”
The minister says that this important initiative, which supported the best research in Scottish universities, was always time limited. Can he demonstrate where the time-limited nature of the fund was published at the time when it was announced?
The letter that I think the member refers to says:
“While I appreciate that it may not be possible to renew funding for the Global Excellence Initiative in next year’s initial spending plans, it is my intention that, if funds become available ... these are dedicated to supporting research informed by the reference results in December.”
It is worth adding that I spoke to the principal of the University of Aberdeen, Sir Ian Diamond, earlier today, and we discussed the importance of ensuring that, whatever decisions it takes, they are taken with conversations with the university’s staff and trade unions uppermost in the university’s mind.
I reiterate a point that I made earlier. This Government supports our universities. It has a long record of doing so, and I am proud to say that the University of Aberdeen is an excellent example of that support in action.
Lewis Macdonald referred to the withholding of funding for the global excellence initiative over the course of the coming year. Obviously, that affected more than simply the University of Aberdeen. Can the minister advise the chamber on any conversations that are taking place with other universities that may be forced to consider similar moves in the near future?
I keep coming back to the fact that the Scottish Government has shown its support. The point that I think the member is raising, possibly in relation to Aberdeen and possibly in relation to other universities, is that, although we can all have the debate it does not impact on the decisions that have been made directly at the University of Aberdeen, simply because the sums that the University of Aberdeen is seeking to redeploy in no way resemble the sums of money involved in fluctuations in the grants concerned. I wish to stress again that my conversation with the university principal emphasised the importance of ensuring that the university’s workforce and trade unions are involved in all the discussions about deployment of staff in the future.
Previous
Time for ReflectionNext
Dairy Industry