Previous Section Index Home Page


Bristol Royal Infirmary

Mr. Swire: To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much money has been set aside to compensate the children who survived the Bristol heart case affair. [27881]

Mr. Hutton [holding answer 17 January 2002]: All claims for compensation are assessed individually, on their merits. Any compensation payments made in relation to cardiac surgery at the Bristol Royal Infirmary will be handled in accordance with the arrangements in place for all other clinical negligence claims against national health service trusts and health authorities.

Mr. Swire: To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many cases where children were left mentally disabled resulting from the Bristol heart cases (a) have been settled and (b) are outstanding. [27880]

Mr. Hutton [holding answer 17 January 2002]: There have been a total of 61 claims made in relation to children who are alleged to have suffered injury following cardiac surgery at Bristol Royal Infirmary. In two of these cases legal proceedings have been issued. Admissions of liability have been made in two other cases, but neither of these were subject to court proceedings. 24 cases have either been withdrawn or are unlikely to proceed. In the remaining 33 cases solicitors have been asked to provide further details.

Mr. Swire: To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much money has been paid out to date by way of compensation to families resulting from the Bristol heart cases. [27882]

Mr. Hutton [holding answer 17 January 2002]: A total of £1,900,000 has so far been paid out to date as compensation for claims relating to cardiac surgery at the Bristol Royal Infirmary.

25 Jan 2002 : Column 1123W

Foundation Hospitals

Ms Walley: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what process will be used to select managers for the proposed foundation hospitals. [29399]

Mr. Hutton: Where appointments are necessary the normal national health service practices, based on fair and open competition, will be used.

Health Spending

Derek Twigg: To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will estimate health spending per head of population by health authority in (a) 2000–01 and (b) 2001–02. [29318]

Mr. Hutton [holding answer 22 January 2002]: The expenditure by weighted head of population for each English health authority area for 2000–01 is shown in the table. Expenditure estimates for 2001–02 are not yet available.

Expenditure by health authorities and primary care trusts

Health authorityExpenditure by weighted head (£)
Avon HA856.75
Barking and Havering HA773.42
Barnet HA959.87
Barnsley HA766.50
Bedfordshire HA779.74
Berkshire HA804.46
Bexley and Greenwich HA886.09
Birmingham HA823.71
Bradford HA769.58
Brent and Harrow HA823.29
Bromley HA971.74
Buckinghamshire HA755.09
Bury and Rochdale HA771.15
Calderdale and Kirklees HA763.88
Cambridgeshire HA786.94
Camden and Islington HA1,067.88
Cornwall and Isles of Scilly HA796.09
County Durham and Darlington HA738.32
Coventry HA802.56
Croydon HA925.44
Doncaster HA861.88
Dorset HA1,023.69
Dudley HA828.09
Ealing, Hammersmith and Hounslow HA826.21
East and North Hertfordshire HA803.66
East Kent HA810.16
East Lancashire HA740.66
East London and The City HA869.91
East Riding and Hull HA787.13
East Surrey HA958.66
East Sussex, Brighton and Hove HA827.74
Enfield and Haringey HA817.53
Gateshead and South Tyneside HA784.29
Gloucestershire HA799.79
Herefordshire HA761.71
Hillingdon HA753.76
Isle of Wight HA867.61
Kensington, Chelsea and Westminster HA1,011.24
Kingston and Richmond HA829.50
Lambeth, Southwark and Lewisham HA886.88
Leeds HA869.94
Leicestershire HA779.71
Lincolnshire HA808.95
Liverpool HA887.35
Manchester HA869.02
Merton, Sutton and Wandsworth HA882.91
Morecambe Bay HA1,346.04
Newcastle and North Tyneside HA811.10
Norfolk HA815.11
North and East Devon HA800.95
North and Mid Hampshire HA835.93
North Cheshire HA811.75
North Cumbria HA793.52
North Derbyshire HA744.33
North Essex HA839.97
North Nottinghamshire HA761.33
North Staffordshire HA760.11
North West Lancashire HA770.48
North Yorkshire HA814.07
Northamptonshire HA830.95
Northumberland HA871.50
Nottingham HA842.50
Oxfordshire HA823.14
Portsmouth and South East Hampshire HA762.50
Redbridge and Waltham Forest HA901.60
Rotherham HA773.29
Salford and Trafford HA839.62
Sandwell HA777.76
Sefton HA1,040.25
Sheffield HA956.59
Shropshire HA763.29
Solihull HA756.17
Somerset HA825.30
South and West Devon HA800.84
South Cheshire HA801.87
South Essex HA806.50
South Humber HA802.29
South Lancashire HA779.41
South Staffordshire HA792.06
Southampton and South West Hampshire HA781.00
Southern Derbyshire HA759.33
St. Helens and Knowsley HA749.06
Stockport HA759.28
Suffolk HA778.56
Sunderland HA781.94
Tees HA824.19
Wakefield HA854.72
Walsall HA776.48
Warwickshire HA798.29
West Hertfordshire HA800.40
West Kent HA786.21
West Pennine HA746.22
West Surrey HA840.34
West Sussex HA784.64
Wigan and Bolton HA732.65
Wiltshire HA828.57
Wirral HA798.81
Wolverhampton HA763.81
Worcestershire HA827.41

Notes:

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

(i) the health authority acting in a lead capacity to commission health care or fund training on behalf of other health bodies;

(ii) asset revaluations in NHS trusts being funded through health authorities; and

(iii) some double counting of expenditure between health authorities and primary care trusts within the health authority area.

2. Expenditure per head cannot therefore be reliably compared between health authorities.

3. Allocations per weighted head of population provide a much more reliable measure to identify differences between funding of health authorities.

4. Expenditure is taken from health authority and primary care trust summarisation forms which are prepared on a resource basis and therefore differ from cash allocations in the year. The expenditure is the total spent by the health authority and by the primary care trusts within each health authority area. The majority of General Dental Services expenditure is not included in the health authority or primary care trust accounts and is separately accounted for by the Dental Practice Board.

5. Health authorities and primary care trusts should account for their expenditure on a gross basis. This results in an element of double counting where one body acts as the main commissioner and is then reimbursed by other bodies. The effect of this double counting within the answer cannot be identified.

Sources:

Health authority audited summarisation forms 2000–01

Primary care trust audited summarisation schedules 2000–01

Weighted population estimates for 2000–2001


25 Jan 2002 : Column 1125W

Napp Pharmaceuticals

Peter Bradley: To ask the Secretary of State for Health following the Competition Commission Appeal Tribunal's upholding of the Office of Fair Trading's findings against Napp Pharmaceuticals, what assessment he has made of the extent of similar abuses and their cost to the NHS; and if he will make a statement. [28705]

Ms Blears [holding answer 21 January 2002]: I will write to my hon. Friend with the information requested.

SCOTLAND

Departmental Staffing

Mr. Peter Duncan: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if she will make a statement on the change in the number of civil servants working within the Scotland Office in the last 12 months. [30311]

Mr. Foulkes: At 31 March 2001 the Department had 107 staff in post. It currently has 114. Both of these figures are within the staffing levels planned for the Scotland Office in July 1999.

ADVOCATE-GENERAL

Devolution

David Cairns: To ask the Advocate-General what criteria she takes into account in deciding to intervene in devolution issues; and what consideration she gives to the cost to public funds. [30556]

The Advocate-General: The vast majority of cases to date have involved human rights issues. The reasons for intervention will vary according to the circumstances and the criteria are not rigid. In considering intervention I always have very much in mind the need to avoid unnecessary delay in criminal proceedings and the cost of intervention to the public purse. I have taken the view that intervention should not be a routine matter. I might for instance intervene where the case raises human rights issues of serious concern to the Government and I am satisfied that these are more likely to be resolved satisfactorily with my intervention. Experience has shown that the vast majority of devolution issues are disposed of satisfactorily by the courts, without any need for my intervention and consequent public expense. Where cases reach the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, intervention is particularly apt because that is the final authority. But even in these cases my intervention may not be necessary. My role as Advocate-General is not to

25 Jan 2002 : Column 1126W

intervene in cases at any level, at significant public expense, merely because there is an interesting legal point being debated.

Mr. Carmichael: To ask the Advocate-General on how many occasions she has raised proceedings in the Scottish courts on a devolution issue since the creation of her office. [29335]

The Advocate-General: I have not been responsible for the raising of any devolution issue proceedings in the Scottish courts. All issues concerning the competence of the actings of the Scottish Parliament, or the Scottish Ministers, have been resolved without any need for me to instigate court actions.


Next Section Index Home Page