HC Deb 06 June 1989 vol 154 cc108-9W
Mr. Knox

To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress has been made by the steering group on undergraduate medical and dental education.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke

The steering group, which contains representatives of all the major bodies concerned with undergraduate medical and dental education, was set up in November 1987 following a conference called by the permanent secretaries of my Department and the Department of Education and Science (Hansard, column 577–8, 18 November 1987). The steering group has now produced an interim report which clarifies the roles and responsibilities of the bodies concerned and makes recommendations relating to the principles underlying undergraduate medical and dental education, and to improved planning, management and information. I have today placed copies of the report in the Library.

Paragraph 4.30 of "Working for Patients" emphasised the Government's continuing commitment to maintaining the quality of medical education and research, and said that the steering group would develop its work and make recommendations in the light of the proposals in the White Paper.

The group began this second phase of its work by considering arrangements for the payment of the service increment for teaching (SIFT) which is designed to offset the excess service costs associated with medical education. The group has recommended that SIFT should continue to be paid through NHS channels and according to the following four principles which I have accepted.

  1. (i) SIFT should be allocated to regions, pro-rata to student numbers;
  2. (ii) Regions or Districts, as appropriate to local curcumstances, taking advice from medical and dental schools, should contract with hospitals (including self-governing hospitals) to provide service facilities for teaching in return for SIFT payments;
  3. (iii) SIFT payments should be made in consultation with medical and dental schools and reflect the teaching activity in each hospital—if the number of students increased or decreased, the allocation of SIFT should be reconsidered;
  4. (iv) while in the past sub-regional allocation of SIFT had been unspecific in many cases, in future payments from regions should be clearly identifiable to all parties as a recognition of the service costs of teaching.

The group has further work in hand and will offer recommendations as soon as they reach conclusions on the issues they must address.

Forward to