---

4 Mar 2004 : Column 1126W—continued

General Practitioners

Andy Burnham: To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many general practitioner vacancies there were in each primary care trust on 1 March. [158689]

Mr. Hutton: The last Recruitment and Retention Vacancy (RRV) survey took place between 1 April 2002 and 31 March 2003. Information on the number of general practitioners (GP) vacancies in each primary care trust (PCT) that occurred during this period has been placed in the Library.

The RRV survey is a count of all GP vacancies that have occurred during each year. It will include existing posts that doctors have left and also new posts created to increase the workforce, even where they were filled very quickly. The number of vacancies in part, is a result of there being more posts overall, reflecting the Government's plan to increase the GP workforce.

Simon Hughes: To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many general practitioners there were per head of population in (a) England and (b) each London primary care trust in each of the last five years for which figures are available. [155274]

Mr. Hutton [holding answer 23 February 2004]: The latest available data for unrestricted principals and equivalents (UPEs) per 100,000 population is September 2002. Information is available since 1998 for England and information is available since 2001 at a London primary care trust level and has been placed in the Library.

Health (Government Funding)

David Davis: To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much was spent from central Government funds per capita on health in (a) the East Riding of Yorkshire and (b) the UK for each of the last five years. [155328]

Mr. Hutton: Information relating to the per capita expenditure in the East Riding area and England is shown in the table. The information is based on the East Riding and Hull Health Authority area up to 2001–02 and then the North and East Yorkshire and Northern Lincolnshire Strategic Health Authority for 2002–03. Information for the rest of the United Kingdom is a matter for the devolved administrations and the Northern Ireland Office.

£ per head

	1998–99	1999–2000	2000–01	2001–02	2002–03
East Riding and Hull Health Authority	624.72	722.28	787.13	863.59	n/a
North and East Yorkshire and Northern Lincolnshire Strategic Health Authority	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a	943.10
England	659.76	763.79	825.38	926.13	991.07

Notes:

1. The total amount of central Government funds spent on health cannot be analysed by health authority area. Expenditure per capita is calculated on health authority areas from the expenditure reported in health authorities and related primary care trusts.

2. The health authority and all England expenditure figures are not prepared on a consistent basis as some elements cannot be accounted for at the health authority level. The majority of general dental services expenditure and an element of pharmaceutical services expenditure is included in the England total but not in the individual health authority accounts or primary care trust summarisation schedules. This expenditure is separately accounted for by the Dental Practice Board and Prescription Pricing Authority respectively.

3. Expenditure is taken from audited health authority summarisation forms and primary care trust summarisation schedules which are prepared on a resource basis and therefore differ from cash allocations in the year. The expenditure is the total expenditure by the relevant health authorities, and the commissioner costs of the primary care trusts. Figures are given in cash terms.

4. Allocations per weighted head of population provide a much more reliable measure to identify differences between funding of health authorities and primary care trusts.5. Figures for 1998–99 to 2001–2002 have been prepared using gross expenditure figures. This is to ensure consistency between years. Figures for 2002–2003 based on strategic health authority areas have been adjusted to eliminate expenditure which would be double counted where an authority acts as a lead in commissioning healthcare or other services.

6. In many health authorities, there are factors which distort the expenditure per head. These include:

the health authority acting in a lead capacity to commission healthcare or fund training on behalf of other health bodies; and

asset revaluations in NHS Trusts being funded through health authorities or primary care trusts.

7. For these reasons expenditure per head cannot be compared reliably between health authorities or between different years.

Sources:

1. Health authority audited summarisation forms 1998–99 to 2001–02.

2. Strategic health authority audited summarisation forms 2002–03.

3. Primary care trust audited summarisation schedules 2000–01 to 2002–03.

4. Weighted health authority population figures 1998–99 to 2002–03.

4 Mar 2004 : Column 1127W

Infection Control

Mr. Burstow: To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much of the additional funding announced in January 2001 for infection control has been spent. [157569]

Mr. Hutton: The additional funding announced in January 2001 was for improving decontamination in national health service hospitals in England. £112 million has been allocated to NHS trusts for that purpose so far.

Information Technology

Mr. Burstow: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the projected cost of the National Programme for Information Technology in the NHS was when it was originally announced; what the latest available projected cost is; and if he will make a statement. [154989]

Mr. Hutton: The projected costs for the national programme for information technology (NpfIT) in the national health service were announced in the strategy document, "Delivering 21st Century IT in the NHS", as £2.3 billion for the period up to March 2006. Central funding for the NPfIT is to be made available from the Spending Review 2002 as follows—£370 million in 2003–04, £730 million in 2004–05 and £1.2 billion in 2005–06.

We are on schedule and on budget to spend £2.3 billion on centrally procured IT by March 2006.

Future expenditure will form part of the ongoing financial management processes within Spending Review 2004 and future envelopes. By 2008, IT funding will be in line with the levels proposed within the Wanless Review; that is, 4 per cent., of total NHS expenditure.

Mr. Burstow: To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will estimate the cost of (a) training and (b) installation for the National Programme for Information Technology in the NHS; and from which budgets the funding will be taken. [154990]

Mr. Hutton: Central funding for the National Programme for Information Technology (NPfIT) in the national health service is to be made available from the

4 Mar 2004 : Column 1128W

Spending Review 2002 as follows—£370 million in 2003–04, £730 million in 2004–05 and £1.2 billion in 2005–06.

Training plans are still evolving as is to be expected when approaching a phased programme of implementation and roll out of new applications, systems and services. The training requirements are not solely related to the NPfIT as general IT skills are now an everyday element for any public service and service-based organisation. The move to e-learning and development and the NHSU will both create more demand for computer and online skills and provide more channels and solutions to bring training to people.

As the Department completes the more detailed plans for each geographical cluster and local service provider contract, it will be able to map out the extent of IT support for clinical practice and patient care over the phased implementation of the NPfIT. This will generate clearer training requirements and will enable the Department to consider the most appropriate ways of providing training and development and produce firmer costs.

The delivery of the NPfIT and any costs related to the implementation are included within the overall envelope of central funding. In line with normal commercial practice, the final pricing structure included in each contract and the fine details of the bids are confidential.

Mr. Burstow: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what restrictions have been placed on bidders for the National Programme for Information Technology in the NHS making public statements about the project; whether these restrictions are usual Government practice; and what the reasons are for the restrictions. [154991]

Mr. Hutton: The National Programme for Information Technology (NpfIT) in the national health service follows normal Government and commercial practice in regard to managing procurements and contracts and has drawn upon standard guidance from the Office of Government Commerce. This is available at www.ogc.gov.uk/sdtoolkit/reference/ogc library/procurement/cup59d.pdf. This precludes suppliers from

4 Mar 2004 : Column 1129W

discussing their contracts or the key elements relating to the subject matter of their contracts without the agreement of the Department.

Contractors and employees of the programme are contractually required to comply with this protocol. The reasons for this are to ensure consistency, avoid confusion, and to enable any issues or proposals to be managed efficiently. It is also important to ensure that normal commercial and business rules of confidentiality are observed.

---