Seòmar agus comataidhean

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.

Through our medium-term financial framework—I think that we published that in 2022. Is that correct?

We have already met that target—we are ahead of schedule on it by two years, I think. That has already been delivered within this parliamentary session.

Absolutely, given the role that some AAs and PAs play and the need for us to have a statutory regulatory process in place. In my opening statement, I said that patient safety lies at the heart of this; it is about accountability for healthcare professionals in their roles and the important role played by PAs and AAs.

You mentioned, for example, the role that anaesthesia assistants can play in the theatre environment. It is important that they are accountable for how they manage that provision. Of course, they do provide those services under medical supervision, but it is important that there are clear lines of accountability and responsibility.

That is all the more reason for having a regulatory environment in which there is statutory regulation of those groups. It is in patients’ interests as well as the wider healthcare system’s interests for those roles to be properly regulated and clearly defined and for there to be clear accountability for any decisions or actions that those professionals take. They should be held to account in the way that other healthcare professionals are.

I have nothing to add.

I move,

That the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee recommends that the Anaesthesia Associates and Physician Associates Order 2024 [draft] be approved.

The reality is that about £1.3 billion is invested in mental health services. About £290 million of that is central funding from the Scottish Government, and that has increased—in fact, it has doubled since 2020-21. Over the course of the past two to three years alone, we have doubled the level of that investment and maintained it, despite the difficult financial environment in which we are operating. That has allowed a very significant expansion of mental health services in Scotland, and we want to sustain and maintain that. Over the course of the past couple of years, there has been a huge increase in the level of investment that we are putting into mental health services.

Yes, it is part of a long-standing piece of work that we have been taking forward with the UK Government. Back in 2019, the then Cabinet Secretary for Health and Sport signalled agreement with the UK Government that we should introduce legislation to regulate AAs and PAs. However, there were issues around the wider regulatory framework, which was part of that discussion, and with carrying out a significant review of the regulation of healthcare professionals. The view was that trying to do all that at one time would not be effective, because it was too complex, and it was decided to deal with the AA and PA aspect of regulation separately from the wider work on health regulation. That is a separate piece of work, which is why the AA and PA aspect is being dealt with through a standalone order.