Author: admin

  • Kevin Barron – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    Kevin Barron – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Kevin Barron on 2015-09-17.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Health, what assessment he has made of the role of community pharmacies in keeping people healthy.

    Alistair Burt

    We have long recognised that community pharmacy teams play a vital role in improving people’s health, preventing ill-health and helping to reduce health inequalities. Informed by a growing evidence base, we have enabled community pharmacy to deliver a wide range of public health services. We have actively supported the implementation of Healthy Living Pharmacies, with qualified health champions on site reaching out to, and improving the health of, people in their communities.

    Public Health England (PHE) keeps under review the progress that pharmacy is making on keeping people healthy and is providing system leadership for pharmacy’s public health role and strategic leadership for the acceleration and spread of Healthy Living Pharmacies across the country. PHE’s vision for pharmacy is one in which community pharmacy teams are fully integrated into the local primary care networks, playing an appropriate and pivotal role in improving the health of people in England. PHE has built a strong relationship with the sector, seeking to utilise its unique offering of access, location and an informal environment, with trusted staff that reflect the background of the communities that they serve. PHE is embedding pharmacy in its priority public health programmes such as prevention, early detection and management of blood pressure, NHS Health Checks and smoking cessation.

  • Jim Cunningham – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    Jim Cunningham – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Jim Cunningham on 2015-09-17.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Health, what assessment he has made of the report produced by the Review Body on Doctors’ and Dentists’ Remuneration entitled Contract reform for consultants and doctors and dentists in training – supporting heathcare services seven days a week, published on 16 July 2015; and if he will make a statement.

    Alistair Burt

    After the British Medical Association (BMA) left negotiations in October 2014, the Government asked the independent Doctors and Dentists Review Body (DDRB) to make recommendations on a new contract for junior doctors. The DDRB report published on 16 July considered evidence from employers, Government, the British Medical Association (BMA) and other interested parties and made recommendations on a new pay structure for doctors and dentists in training.

    The Secretary of State accepted the recommendations of the DDRB as the basis for implementing a new contract and invited the BMA to re-enter negotiations to take forward the recommendations with NHS Employers. Although the DDRB accepted the principles of the reforms there remained significant work to finalise and agree the details of the contract and it was expected that these would be agreed between the parties on the basis of a negotiation. It is disappointing that on 13 August the BMA announced that it would not re-engage in negotiations based on the independent report and absented itself from participating in making important design decisions on the new contract.

    The Government cannot accept that a Trade Union should have a veto on making changes to an outdated employment contract that the BMA agreed urgently needed reform. The Department has therefore asked NHS Employers to take forward the work of developing a new employment contract without the BMA. NHS Employers are arranging to consult with junior doctors and other interested stakeholders directly and will shortly launch a series of roadshows across the country. The Government would still welcome the BMA re-entering the negotiation.

    The new contract will prioritise safe care by strengthening safeguards on doctors’ working hours and reward junior doctors more fairly for the work they do. No financial savings will be made from implementing the new contract. It will be finalised in the new year and is due to be implemented from August 2016.

  • Guto Bebb – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    Guto Bebb – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Guto Bebb on 2015-09-17.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to the Answer of 14 September 2015 to Question 8491, whether interim commissioning arrangements are being considered for nivolumab lung cancer.

    George Freeman

    NHS England is aware that the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence is reviewing the use of nivolumab in lung cancer, and is likely to report shortly. NHS England has therefore advised that it intends to await the NICE recommendation rather than develop interim arrangements.

  • Guto Bebb – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    Guto Bebb – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Guto Bebb on 2015-09-17.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Health, what estimate he has made of the number of lung cancer patients who would benefit from the immunotherapy nivolumab; and if he will make a statement.

    George Freeman

    NHS England has advised that it is not currently possible to estimate the numbers of patients in England who will be suitable for treatment, as the licence for nivolumab has been split into two distinct sub-groups (squamous and non-squamous non-small cell lung cancer) and the latter has yet to receive a marketing authorisation.

  • Jim Cunningham – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    Jim Cunningham – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Jim Cunningham on 2015-09-17.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Health, what progress has been made on the consultation on the revised junior doctors’ contract; and if he will make a statement.

    Alistair Burt

    After the British Medical Association (BMA) left negotiations in October 2014, the Government asked the independent Doctors and Dentists Review Body (DDRB) to make recommendations on a new contract for junior doctors. The DDRB report published on 16 July considered evidence from employers, Government, the British Medical Association (BMA) and other interested parties and made recommendations on a new pay structure for doctors and dentists in training.

    The Secretary of State accepted the recommendations of the DDRB as the basis for implementing a new contract and invited the BMA to re-enter negotiations to take forward the recommendations with NHS Employers. Although the DDRB accepted the principles of the reforms there remained significant work to finalise and agree the details of the contract and it was expected that these would be agreed between the parties on the basis of a negotiation. It is disappointing that on 13 August the BMA announced that it would not re-engage in negotiations based on the independent report and absented itself from participating in making important design decisions on the new contract.

    The Government cannot accept that a Trade Union should have a veto on making changes to an outdated employment contract that the BMA agreed urgently needed reform. The Department has therefore asked NHS Employers to take forward the work of developing a new employment contract without the BMA. NHS Employers are arranging to consult with junior doctors and other interested stakeholders directly and will shortly launch a series of roadshows across the country. The Government would still welcome the BMA re-entering the negotiation.

    The new contract will prioritise safe care by strengthening safeguards on doctors’ working hours and reward junior doctors more fairly for the work they do. No financial savings will be made from implementing the new contract. It will be finalised in the new year and is due to be implemented from August 2016.

  • Gavin Newlands – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    Gavin Newlands – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Gavin Newlands on 2015-09-17.

    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, how many refused asylum seekers have been forcibly removed from the country over the last five years.

    Mr John Hayes

    The attached tableshows the number of enforced removals from the United Kingdom for the last five years of people who had claimed asylum at some point.

    The Home Office publishes quarterly and annual statistics on the number of enforced removals from the United Kingdom, within the Immigration Statistics release. Data relating to enforced removals are available in tables rv_01 and rv_01_q in Immigration Statistics: April – June 2015 on the GOV.UK website: https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/home-office/series/immigration-statistics-quarterly-release.

  • Gavin Newlands – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    Gavin Newlands – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Gavin Newlands on 2015-09-17.

    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, if she will make an assessment of the contribution of refugees to the UK economy.

    Richard Harrington

    There are no current plans to undertake an assessment of the contribution of refugees to the UK economy. In September 2014, the Home Office published a report on the labour market characteristics of UK residents born abroad, which highlighted that the employment rate at that time was lowest among those who came originally as a refugee (47% for non-EEA).

  • Gerald Kaufman – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    Gerald Kaufman – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Gerald Kaufman on 2015-09-17.

    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, when she will answer the letter from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton to the Immigration Minister dated 10 August 2015 with regard to Mr Mohammed Ali.

    James Brokenshire

    I apologise for the delay in responding to the letter sent by the Rt Hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton in respect of Mr Mohammed Ali. A response was sent on 21 September 2015 providing a full account of the information requested.

  • Mike Kane – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    Mike Kane – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Mike Kane on 2015-09-17.

    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, what assessment her Department has made of the adequacy of funding within police budgets to deal with non-crime demands, such as cases involving missing persons.

    Mr John Hayes

    Police and Crime Commissioners, working with their Chief Officers, are responsible for allocating funding according to local priorities. This includes providing resources for cases involving missing persons. The Government is clear that the way that funding is allocated is currently opaque and out of date and have consulted on a new model to ensure fairness and transparency. The consultation closed on 15 September and responses are being analysed. The consultation drew on the recently published College of Policing report “Estimating demand on the police service” which included analysis of non crime demand. The report is available on the College of Policing website.

  • Gavin Newlands – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    Gavin Newlands – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Gavin Newlands on 2015-09-17.

    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, what assessment her Department has made of why those asylum seekers detained at the Dungavel facility had their applications refused in the last year; and what reasons were given in each case for that refusal.

    Mr John Hayes

    There were 222 asylum claimants who received a refusal decision on their asylum claim whilst held in detention at Dungavel Removal Centre over the past 12 months. Each asylum claim is considered on its individual merits and where an individual is found to be in genuine need of our protection, asylum is granted.