Health and Sport Committee

Meeting date: Tuesday, March 19, 2019

Official Report 607KB pdf

---

Subordinate Legislation

---

National Health Service Superannuation and Pension Schemes (Scotland) (Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2019 (SSI 2019/46)

Good morning and welcome to the ninth meeting in 2019 of the Health and Sport Committee. I ask everyone in the room to ensure, please, that their phones are off or on silent. Although it is acceptable to use mobile devices for social media purposes, I ask people not to photograph or record the proceedings. We have received apologies from Sandra White MSP.

Agenda item 1 is consideration of the National Health Service Superannuation and Pension Schemes (Scotland) (Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2019. The Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee considered the instrument, which is subject to negative procedure, on 5 March 2019, and the committee determined that it did not need to draw the attention of the Parliament to the instrument on any grounds within its remit. The instrument relates to pensions in the national health service, among other things. I invite Dave Stewart to comment on the instrument.

Although the issue might seem quite technical and remote, I am quite concerned about the instrument. For members who have not followed the matter in detail, the key issue is that employer contributions will rise by 6 per cent from next month, because of the change in the discount rate. The lower the rate, the higher the level of funding that is required, and the rate is dropping by 0.4 per cent.

The key issue is whether the Scottish Government will receive a full Barnett consequential as a result of the change. I am sure that members will all have seen the correspondence, particularly from general practitioners and their practices. We are all concerned about GP recruitment and retention, and I am concerned that the instrument will particularly affect rural areas. The effect could be redundancies for GP staff. The other issue—this happens across Scotland—is that some general practices are reverting to health board control, which will result in a major problem in relation to recruiting and retaining GPs.

The issue is, of course, wider than that. My colleague Miles Briggs might want to talk about Children’s Hospices Across Scotland. There are particular issues for non-NHS employers, such as hospices, charities and universities. Just the other day, CHAS wrote to us to say that the changes will cost it an extra £350,000 per year, which is equivalent to the cost of nine full-time nurses.

I appreciate that the issues are all reserved, but they have a huge effect on the Scottish Government and on health. To set the scene, I should say that the other factor that is affecting GPs and consultants, in particular, is the changes to the lifetime allowance, which is a United Kingdom pensions restriction. Basically, the changes will have a longer-term adverse tax effect on individuals who go through the ceiling. Having gone round GP practices in the Highlands and Islands, I think that that is certainly affecting the ability of GPs and consultants to work beyond the age of 55 without reducing their hours. As we know, we desperately need full-time as well as part-time GPs.

I suspect that the committee cannot do much about the issue, but it is really important that we highlight it. After all, we can all see what is coming. We are facing a GP crisis in Scotland, and the employer contributions, the lifetime allowance and other tax matters that I will not bore the committee with are going to affect that situation.

I am also very concerned about the effect not just on GPs but on non-NHS employers, particularly hospices. I am sure that we all have hospices in our areas, and I know that the hospice in Inverness in my region does a fantastic job. I am very concerned about the extra costs. I also think that the issue is treated slightly differently in England.

I simply put those points on the table just to highlight my real concerns about recruitment and retention.

Your points have been well made and are well understood. As we have until 29 March to report on the instrument, we have some flexibility to continue our considerations and to seek further information.

I want to reinforce what our resident pension expert has just said. It is important that we take some time out on the matter, given the precedent that was set in 2004 with regard to the proposed increase at that time and the setting aside of additional funds to support non-NHS direct employers. I understand that England and Wales will be included in the funding that is provided to ensure that the additional costs are taken into account, but we have not been able to get clarity on that from either the United Kingdom or Scottish Government. I want us to take a bit more time to see whether we can get those assurances, perhaps before next week’s meeting.

I, too, support David Stewart’s comments. The issue has been raised independently with me by constituents and GP practices, and I am anxious about simply nodding the instrument through without having some understanding about where the money for it is expected to come from.

I see heads around the table nodding at that, so I propose that we write to the Government, asking for reassurances to be provided as urgently, as early and as far as it can on how the costs will be covered to mitigate the impact of the changes on recruitment and retention in general practice and more widely. We will return to the matter next week with, I hope, that information from the Government.