HC Deb 03 June 1980 vol 985 cc1235-8
11. Dr. Mawhinney

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he has any plans to reduce the number of beds at the Westminster hospital.

Sir George Young

No, Sir.

Dr. Mawhinney

I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Is he aware that a senior member of London university and a Member of the other place is claiming that the decision in the Flowers report

that the waiting list in England for inpatient admission in December 1974 was 517,000. By March 1979 it had risen to 752,000. The latest available figures show a fall of about 50,000, to about 700,000 last year.

On the hon. Gentleman's specific question, the Trent regional health authority has now determined a target waiting list for each specialty, in order to achieve the Department's targets. The achievement of the target in surgical specialties will require a substantial increase in admissions and operations over the next few years.

Mr. Crowther

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Trent region, which includes South Yorkshire, is at the bottom of the league in the allocation of Health Service resources? Is he further aware that the equalisation process begun by the previous Government has come to a stop? What will he do about an area that desperately needs these services, but does not happen to return many Conservative Members to this place?

Sir G. Young

When my right hon. Friend made the allocations to the regions a few months ago he managed to get a larger-than-average increase to those regions, such as Trent, that were underfunded. If we are to make real progress in the equalisation of Health Service resources throughout this country, we must generate some economic growth with which to pay for it.

Following is the information:

to do away with the Westminster medical school was based on a decision, reputedly from his Department, to reduce the number of beds in Westminster hospital? Because of that, will my hon. Friend take steps today to write a full response to the university, embodying the reply that he has just given to me?

Sir G. Young

I think that my hon. Friend is referring to a consultative report by the London health planning consortium. Those views are not the views of Ministers. If and when the consortium's proposals are submitted to us, after consultation we shall ask the new London advisory group, under Sir John Habakkuk, to consider them and any other proposals affecting the level of acute services in central London. Until we have Sir John Habakkuk's advice later in the year, we have no intention of forming a view on any of these issues.

Mr. James A. Dunn

Will the Minister undertake a review of the circumstances surrounding the recommendations that have been made? It would appear that this is confusion confounded. Indeed, if one were to take note of the various inputs one would finish up absolutely confused on all the relevant facts. In those circumstances, will he make a fuller statement to the House?

Sir G. Young

We had a full Adjournment debate on this subject a few weeks ago, when the matter was ventilated by a number of hon. Members. The London health planning consortium was set up two years ago by the previous Government, and it was the consortium's report to which I think the hon. Member was referring.

Mr. Mellor

With the greatest respect to my hon. Friend, will he please make it clear that if it is not the Government's view that the consortium's report is right, that fact should be given the widest publicity? London university is acting on the assumption that it may be the Government's policy, and it is taking its decision in July. It is disgraceful that it should still be under this misapprehension.

Sir G. Young

Ministers have not yet come to a conclusion on the various issues that my hon. Friend has raised. The views of the London health planning consortium are the views not of Ministers but of the officials who compiled the report.

Mr. Ennals

Will the Minister confirm that the vice-chancellor of the university said, within the hearing of hon. Members from all parties, that it was clear that there would have been no proposal to close Westminster medical school, had it not been assumed that there would be a cut of 400 beds? Does the Minister agree that it would be appalling if the university were to make a decision about the medical school, based on an assumption which he has confirmed has no foundation?

Sir G. Young

The University of London should be under no such illusion. It should make the changes that it thinks right, in the light of the Flowers report. Both my right hon. Friend and I have made clear that the Secretary of State will not prejudge the proposals for changes in the pattern of hospital services until he has heard from the London advisory group.

Forward to