Live near one of these hospitals? Try not to get ill soon.

Almost 60 hospitals could close due to PFI-related debts

View PCTs in Trouble in a larger map

South London Hospital Trust has been effectively declared bust, and the Department of Health has laid the blame at the feet of the "unaffordable" private finance initiatives started by Major's Conservative government but massively expanded by New Labour.

Once the last scheme Labour started is fully paid off, in 2049, more than £70bn will have been paid back. For the NHS as a whole, the repayments are relatively low – just £1-2bn a year from an annual budget of £100+bn. But for some individual trusts, they can reach 10 to 20 per cent of their entire annual turnover.

Now that the Department of Health seems to have moved to a policy of not bailing out these hospitals, they are all at risk of following South London Heathcare.

In September last year, the Department released a list of the 22 trusts "on the brink of financial collapse" because of PFI deals they can't afford:

St Helens and Knowsley

South London Healthcare

University Hospitals Coventry and Warwickshire

Wye Valley

Barking, Havering and Redbridge

Worcester

Oxford Radcliffe/Nuffield Orthopaedic Centre

Barts and the London

University Hospitals of North Staffordshire

Dartford and Gravesham

North Cumbria

Portsmouth

Buckinghamshire

West Middlesex

Mid Yorkshire

Walsall

North Middlesex

Mid Essex

Maidstone and Tunbridge Wells

Sandwell and West Birmingham (not fully signed off as of September 2011)

The Royal National Orthopaedic Hospital (not fully signed off as of September 2011)

The 22nd trust on the Department's list, North Bristol NHS Trust, has repeatedly expressed puzzlement about their inclusion. A spokesman assured me that their PFI deals are financially sound, and that repayments account for 8 per cent of their budget. They are represented in a different colour on the map to highlight the disagreement.

Additional research by Helen Robb. Updated 14:50 to acknowledge North Bristol NHS Trust's objections.

Some of the hospitals at risk of closure

Alex Hern is a technology reporter for the Guardian. He was formerly staff writer at the New Statesman. You should follow Alex on Twitter.

@Simon_Cullen via Twitter
Show Hide image

All 27 things wrong with today’s Daily Mail front cover

Where do I even start?

Hello. Have you seen today’s Daily Mail cover? It is wrong. Very wrong. So wrong that if you have seen today’s Daily Mail cover, you no doubt immediately turned to the person nearest to you to ask: “Have you seen today’s Daily Mail cover? It is wrong.”

But just how wrong is the wrong Mail cover? Let me count the ways.

  1. Why does it say “web” and not “the web”?
  2. Perhaps they were looking on a spider’s web and to be honest that makes more sense because
  3. How does it take TWO MINUTES to use a search engine to find out that cars can kill people?
  4. Are the Mail team like your Year 8 Geography teacher, stuck in an infinite loop of typing G o o g l e . c o m into the Google search bar, the search bar that they could’ve just used to search for the thing they want?
  5. And then when they finally typed G o o g l e . c o m, did they laboriously fill in their search term and drag the cursor to click “Search” instead of just pressing Enter?
  6. The Daily Mail just won Newspaper of the Year at the Press Awards
  7. Are the Daily Mail – Newspaper of the Year – saying that Google should be banned?
  8. If so, do they think we should ban libraries, primary education, and the written word?
  9. Sadly, we know the answer to this
  10. Google – the greatest source of information in the history of human civilisation – is not a friend to terrorists; it is a friend to teachers, doctors, students, journalists, and teenage girls who aren’t quite sure how to put a tampon in for the first time
  11. Upon first look, this cover seemed so obviously, very clearly fake
  12. Yet it’s not fake
  13. It’s real
  14. More than Google, the Mail are aiding terrorists by pointing out how to find “manuals” online
  15. While subsets of Google (most notably AdSense) can be legitimately criticised for profiting from terrorism, the Mail is specifically going at Google dot com
  16. Again, do they want to ban Google dot com?
  17. Do they want to ban cars?
  18. Do they want to ban search results about cars?
  19. Because if so, where will that one guy from primary school get his latest profile picture from?
  20. Are they suggesting we use Bing?
  21. Why are they, once again, focusing on the perpetrator instead of the victims?
  22. The Mail is 65p
  23. It is hard to believe that there is a single person alive, Mail reader or not, that can agree with this headline
  24. Three people wrote this article
  25. Three people took two minutes to find out cars can drive into people
  26. Trees had to die for this to be printed
  27. It is the front cover of the Mail

Amelia Tait is a technology and digital culture writer at the New Statesman.