HC Deb 03 November 1995 vol 265 cc488-9W
Ms Harman

To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the change in administration costs in the NHS since 1989–90; and how he intends to achieve the 5 per cent. cut in health authority spending on administration he announced on 11 October. [41516]

Mr. Malone

The table sets out health authority administration expenditure from 1989–90 to 1993–94, the latest year available. I expect the national health service executive regional offices to agree with individual authorities figures for the cost of running the authority for 1996–97 which will, in aggregate, deliver the 5 per cent. cash savings my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced on 11 October 1995.

Health authority administration expenditure 1989–90 to 1993–94
£ million
1989–90 691
1990–91 871
1991–92 786
1992–93 900
1993–94 1,069

Source:

Summarised annual accounts of regional health authorities, district health authorities, special health authorities for the London postgraduate hospitals and family health services authorities/family practitioner committees.

Notes:

1. The figures represent the total revenue expenditure on pay and accommodation costs of staff of all disciplines and their support staff employed at headquarters levels.

2. RHA, DHA and SHA costs are reported in the accounts as "Authority administration and purchasing expenses". This includes capital charges from 1991–92. FHSA/FPC administration costs are those reported in the accounts as revenue administration costs and represent that part of the total expenditure which is not medical, dental, ophthalmic or pharmaceutical.

3. Changes in the years in the roles and responsibilities of family practitioner committees, which became family health services authorities in 1990, RHAs and DHAs, which started to transfer provider functions to NHS trusts in 1991–92, together with changes in accounting policies, particularly the inclusion of capital charges in health authorities' administration and purchasing expenditure, mean that the figures are not comparable.