Previous Section Index Home Page

Health Expenditure

Dr. Evan Harris: To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list for (a) Great Britain and (b) each health authority area, the expenditure on health by weighted head of population, expressed in real terms, for each year since 1997 for which figures are available. [39544]

Mr. Hutton: Information relating to Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland is a matter for the devolved Administrations.

The expenditure on health by weighted head of population in real terms for each health authority area in England for each year since 1997 is shown in the table.

Expenditure by health authorities and primary care trusts.


Health authority area1997–981998–991999–20002000–01
Barking and Havering625.42640.62700.84748.55
Bexley and Greenwich647.29683.24793.77828.82
Brent and Harrow676.69718.59823.35804.74
Bury and Rochdale625.40616.49707.36740.61
Calderdale and Kirklees585.69597.34691.84742.27
Cambridge and Huntingdon628.29682.69N/AN/A
Camden and Islington670.94745.05834.92974.71
Cornwall and Isles of Scilly621.90638.13751.33766.48
County Durham588.54608.76675.16707.44
Ealing, Hammersmith and Hounslow660.69676.78747.62801.92
East and North Hertfordshire660.28704.91707.99755.61
East Kent 593.74637.27703.87766.12
East Lancashire625.16631.03720.19706.83
East London and The City642.21637.79789.78812.98
East Norfolk639.37665.87N/AN/A
East Riding620.29637.16716.52770.24
East Surrey716.22770.47837.92872.74
East Sussex, Brighton and Hove605.10622.72780.63778.73
Enfield and Haringey596.63626.60717.28791.72
Gateshead and South Tyneside614.85613.17677.22727.09
Isle of Wight680.61708.73773.74836.61
Kensington, Chelsea and Westminster691.53706.81795.92878.86
Kingston and Richmond700.65739.04769.12795.64
Lambeth, Southwark and Lewisham640.25668.31804.71852.49
Merton, Sutton and Wandsworth660.03699.38839.01796.03
Morecambe Bay680.79701.70786.62794.67
Newcastle and North Tyneside634.64664.58787.25787.58
North and East Devon650.65664.15724.43769.90
North and Mid Hampshire653.09686.32735.98813.99
North Cheshire625.46641.18721.36756.15
North Cumbria625.51654.38704.01757.42
North Derbyshire638.91665.18684.19719.00
North Essex623.82647.87740.78777.34
North Nottinghamshire604.53612.79715.05679.24
North Staffordshire606.03610.27687.60725.72
North West Anglia607.39629.74N/AN/A
North West Lancashire599.01601.87721.61746.26
North Yorkshire657.16703.80722.87763.24
Portsmouth and South East Hampshire567.61631.87682.05733.14
Redbridge and Waltham Forest651.23699.27748.03812.97
Salford and Trafford608.17630.56740.20784.35
South and West Devon619.25634.98726.34735.69
South Cheshire632.95673.90709.08743.64
South Derbyshire643.24648.31688.78717.08
South Essex591.61614.43673.43721.20
South Humber675.04713.20784.66765.98
South Lancashire644.54683.94748.52735.88
South Staffordshire622.63632.70699.52758.07
Southampton and South West Hampshire632.49674.77738.44706.49
St. Helens and Knowsley605.61620.49670.55722.31
West Hertfordshire659.88686.68725.94765.17
West Kent624.15656.07771.41744.60
West Pennine567.85578.28674.21712.85
West Surrey663.18698.46781.74809.35
West Sussex605.96653.17694.99742.11
Wigan and Bolton571.93587.38660.84717.35


1. 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.

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

3. The expenditure is the total spent on commissioning health care 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. The majority of drugs expenditure in 1997–98 and 1998–99 and a smaller element in 1999–2000 and 2000–01 is accounted for by the Prescription Pricing Authority and not by health authorities.

4. Health authorities and primary care trusts should account for their expenditure on a gross basis. This results in an element of double counting in 2000–01 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.

5. Some health authorities act as lead commissioners for particular specialties which inflates their figures when compared with others and also causes differences between years. Other factors may also distort the figures so the results are therefore not all directly comparable with each other and with answers to similar questions for previous years.


Health authority audited accounts 1997–98 and 1998–99

Health authority audited summarisation forms 1999–2000 and 2000–01

Primary care trust audited summarisation schedules 2000–01

Weighted population estimates for 1997–98 to 2000–01

GDP deflator at market prices with 2000–01 as the base year

5 Mar 2002 : Column 295W

European Health Care Integration

Mr. Rosindell: To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on his policy towards the impact of European integration on member states' health care systems with reference to paragraph 30 of the Laeken conclusions. [39634]

Jacqui Smith: The organisation, funding and delivery of care should be a matter for member states to reflect the specific care needs of our population. However, we have much to learn from each other and it is important that we share common experience and best practice to promote a high level of health care and care for all EU citizens in view of the challenges presented by an aging population. This is best achieved by co-operation on a bilateral and multi-lateral level.

The EU Social Protection Committee and the Economic Policy Committee will present an initial report on orientations in the field of health care for the elderly to Heads of Government at the Barcelona Council on 14–15 March.


Mr. Borrow: To ask the Secretary of State for Health if stakeholders were (a) contacted by the SACN and (b) asked to submit evidence to the review on salt. [40301]

Yvette Cooper: Interested parties were alerted to the review through information placed on the SACN website, which included a call for submissions on evidence. Four key stakeholders—the Food and Drink Federation, the British Retail Consortium, the Salt Manufacturers Association and Consensus Action on Salt and Health—were alerted to the intended review so that they could submit evidence if they so wished.

Mr. Borrow: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the remit is of the Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition's review of the evidence on salt since 1994. [40300]

Yvette Cooper: At the first meeting of the Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition (SACN) sub-group on salt (25 January 2002), the group agreed that its purpose was to review the Committee on Medical Aspects of Food and Nutrition Policy's 1994 recommendation (for a "reduction in the average intake of sodium by reducing salt intake by a third, from 9g to 6g per day") in the light of any new evidence, taking into account the submissions that had been received from interested parties; and to consider making recommendations for children.

5 Mar 2002 : Column 296W

Mr. Borrow: To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether the Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition will publish the evidence received from the stakeholders (a) during and (b) after the outcome of the dietary sodium review. [40302]

Yvette Cooper: The minutes of the sub group's first meeting will be placed on the SACN website——once they have been agreed by the Chair and members. The agenda of the meeting and a list of papers and submissions submitted to SACN have already been placed on the website. Interested parties can request copies of papers through the SACN secretariat.

Next Section Index Home Page