| 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have been made in two other cases, but neither of these were subject to court proceedings. 24 cases have either been withdrawn or are unlikely to proceed.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.
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 |