HC Deb 18 December 1990 vol 183 cc155-6W
Mr. Michael Brown

To ask the Secretary of State for Health which district health authorities have underlying deficits in 1990–91; and which will not have cleared these by the start of 1991–92.

Mr. David Young

To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will indicate, on the basis of figures presently available to him, the district health authorities likely to run into deficit at the end of the present financial year; and if he will give in each case his estimate of that deficit.

Mr. Dorrell

[holding answer 17 December 1990]: An underlying deficit is a measure of the extent to which health authorities have been incurring recurrent expenditure in excess of their recurrent income. This represents bad financial management and has been criticised by the Public Accounts Committee of the House. In the planning guidance for 1990–91 issued in July 1989 health authorities were advised to eliminate such imbalances. As a result, the number of districts in deficit has fallen from 122 in 1989–90 to an end-of-September estimate of 51 for 1990–91. The districts forecasting deficits together with an estimate of the deficit at that date are set out in the table.

All of these are taking action in 1990–91 to tackle their problems. It is not yet possible to reach a definite view, but we believe that nearly all will have cleared deficits by the start of 1991–92. This is a major achievement and means that nearly all districts will enter 1991–92 on a sound financial basis which will enable them to take full advantage of the opportunities which the reforms to the NHS offer to improve the health of their residents.

DISTRICTS IN DEFICIT BY REGIONAL HEALTH AUTHORITY

Northern

  • Hartlepool (£0.6 million)
  • North Tees (£0.7 million)
  • Darlington (£0.3 million)

Yorkshire

  • Hull (£0.1 million)
  • Scunthorpe (£0.5 million)
  • Leeds Eastern (£0.7 million)
  • Leeds Western (£1.5 million)
  • Pontefract (£0.2 million)
  • Airedale (£0.4 million)

East Anglian

  • Peterborough (£0.1 million)
  • West Suffolk (£0.5 million)
  • East Suffolk (£0.6 million)
  • Norwich (£1.2 million)

North West Thames

  • North West Hertfordshire (£0.7 million)
  • Ealing (£0.2 million)
  • Parkside (£1.7 million)

North East Thames

  • Basildon and Thurrock (£1.3 million)
  • North East Essex (£0.6 million)
  • West Essex (£1.5 million)
  • Bloomsbury (£1.7 million)
  • City and Hackney (£1.2 million)
  • Waltham Forest (£0.8 million)

South East Thames

  • Brighton (£0.7 million)
  • South East Kent (£0.3 million)
  • Dartford (£0.1 million)
  • Maidstone (£0.7 million)
  • Medway (£0.8 million)
  • Tunbridge Wells (£1.0 million)
  • Bexley (£0.6 million)
  • Bromley (£0.1 million)
  • West Lambeth (£3.1 million)
  • Camberwell (£2.3 million)
  • Lewisham and North Southwark (£3.6 million)

South West Thames

  • West Surrey and North East Hants (£0.2 million)
  • East Surrey (£2.3 million)

Oxford

  • East Berkshire (£0.7 million)
  • West Berkshire (£0.3 million)
  • Aylesbury Vale (£0.6 million)
  • Wycombe (£0.1 million)
  • Oxfordshire (£0.6 million)

West Midlands

  • Worcester (£0.3 million)
  • Shropshire (£1.2 million)
  • Central Birmingham (£0.7 million)
  • South Birmingham (£1.1 million)
  • West Birmingham (£0.4 million)
  • Sandwell (£0.1 million)

Mersey

  • Chester (£0.2 million)
  • Halton (£0.1 million)
  • Liverpool (£0.7 million)

North Western

  • Burnley (£0.4 million)
  • Trafford (£0.1 million)