§ Mr. Ashleyasked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many representations he has received since the Government took office in favour of (a) faster progress towards a distribution of resources for the health service regions that matched the formula devised by the resource allocation working party and (b) slower progress towards that end.
§ Dr. VaughanThe Government have received 16 representations calling for faster progress in the redistribution of NHS resources, all on behalf of regions which would stand to gain from a speeding up of the process. There have been no representations directly calling for slower progress.
§ Mr. Ashleyasked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether there have been any changes in the formula for assessing health service needs first recommended by the resource allocation working party; and whether he has any plans to modify the formula.
§ Dr. VaughanVarious refinements have been made to the resourse allocation working party (RAWP) formula since the working party reported in September 1976. The one having most effect on regional allocation targets, the use of an adjustment in respect of higher labour costs in London, was adoprted in 1980–81 on the advice of the advisory group of resource allocation. We have no plans to depart from the general principals set out by RAWP.
§ Mr. Ashleyasked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will give figures to show the extent to which changes in the targets indicated by the resource allocation 227W working party for revenue and capital allocation (a) in the health service regions, (b) to the area health authorities in the West Midland region and (c) to the Staffordshire area health authority in particular have changed since the Government took office; and what steps he intends to take with regard to existing changes.
§ Dr. VaughanRegional targets, as a percentage of national resources available, for 1979–80 and 1981–2 are shown below:
Regional health authority Revenue Capital 1979–80 Per cent. 1981–2 Per cent. 1979–80 Per cent. 1981–2 Per cent. Northern 7.02 6.96 6.95 6.90 Yorkshire 7.65 7.68 7.76 7.77 Trent 9.23 9.21 9.66 9.64 East Anglian 3.81 3.87 4.15 4.08 NW Thames 7.22 7.20 6.83 6.93 NE Thames 8.14 8.26 7.63 7.84 SE Thames 7.91 7.91 7.64 7.62 SW Thames 6.62 6.59 6.29 6.37 Wessex 5.40 5.50 5.78 5.83 Oxford 4.20 4.21 4.50 4.48 South Western 6.68 6.79 6.83 6.94 West Midlands 10.81 10.66 11.00 10.78 Mersey 5.56 5.50 5.41 5.37 Northwestern 9.74 9.66 9.57 9.42 England 100 100 100 100 Information on area targets is not held centrally. Changes in targets are reflected in the annual revenue and capital allocations to Regional Health Authorities.