Author: admin

  • Lord Crisp – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    Lord Crisp – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Crisp on 2016-01-20.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the importance of mental health research and its contribution to improved mental health nationally.

    Lord Prior of Brampton

    Mental health research is vital for better prevention of mental illness, development and evaluation of effective treatments, and to inform organisation and delivery of high quality care. Research funders are working together in this field to identify priorities and co-ordinate activity. In November 2015, the Department and Royal College of Psychiatrists held a joint meeting to identify key questions for mental health research. Following this meeting, funding organisations met on 6 January to discuss the strategic co-ordination of mental health research.

    In 2014/15, the Department’s National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) spent £27.7 million on mental health through its research programmes – expenditure higher than in any other disease area including cancer (£19.8 million). In all, the NIHR spent a total of £72.6 million on mental health research in that year, including research infrastructure and fellowships.

    Total NIHR investment in mental health research infrastructure (including that provided through NIHR biomedical research centres and the NIHR Clinical Research Network) has nearly doubled from £23.8 million in 2009/10 to £41.8 million in 2014/15.

    The NIHR has launched a new, open competition for biomedical research centre funding from April 2017 to March 2022. In this competition, a number of clinical areas of particular strategic importance to the health of patients are highlighted including mental health.

    The NIHR Clinical Research Network supports delivery in the National Health Service of studies funded by the NIHR itself and by eligible partners including the United Kingdom Research Councils and medical research charities. To date in 2015/16, the network has recruited 23,778 participants in 273 studies where mental health is recorded as the main specialty. The network will continue to monitor the study pipeline for mental health.

  • Lord Crisp – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills

    Lord Crisp – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Crisp on 2016-01-20.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they have taken to ensure parity between funding for physical health and mental health research following the 2014 Research Excellence Framework conducted by the Higher Education Funding Council for England.

    Baroness Evans of Bowes Park

    The Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) is allocated funding from the Department for Business Innovation and Skills (BIS) Science and Research budget to distribute to higher education institutions (HEIs) in England. Most of HEFCE’s funding is allocated as an unhypothecated research block grant to institutions, ensuring university leaders have flexibility to support their own research priorities. While this block grant is calculated using research quality and volume information from the 2014 Research Excellence Framework (REF2014) at a subject level, it is a matter for individual HEIs to determine how it is ultimately distributed to particular activities/subjects.

    In developing the REF, the attribution of different disciplines to particular units of assessment was agreed with the relevant professional bodies. Research relevant to clinical mental health was assessed in a unit including psychology, psychiatry and neuroscience. As this unit included a mix of research with higher costs (clinical psychology and psychiatry, and neuroscience) and lower costs (social psychology), the funding was allocated at an intermediate cost rate, reflecting the mix of disciplines.

    REF2014 demonstrated significantly improved research quality in all disciplines, including psychology, psychiatry and neuroscience. As a result, the funding allocated on the basis of performance to this group increased by 16.5 per cent.

    As announced in the Spending Review 2015, the Government is taking forward a review of the REF to ensure that future university research funding is allocated efficiently, offers greater rewards for excellent research and reduces the administrative burden on institutions. This review will be led by Lord Stern, and he is expected to deliver his review to the Government in summer 2016.

  • Lord Crisp – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    Lord Crisp – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Crisp on 2016-01-20.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the need for increased funding for the infrastructure costs associated with mental health research.

    Lord Prior of Brampton

    Mental health research is vital for better prevention of mental illness, development and evaluation of effective treatments, and to inform organisation and delivery of high quality care. Research funders are working together in this field to identify priorities and co-ordinate activity. In November 2015, the Department and Royal College of Psychiatrists held a joint meeting to identify key questions for mental health research. Following this meeting, funding organisations met on 6 January to discuss the strategic co-ordination of mental health research.

    In 2014/15, the Department’s National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) spent £27.7 million on mental health through its research programmes – expenditure higher than in any other disease area including cancer (£19.8 million). In all, the NIHR spent a total of £72.6 million on mental health research in that year, including research infrastructure and fellowships.

    Total NIHR investment in mental health research infrastructure (including that provided through NIHR biomedical research centres and the NIHR Clinical Research Network) has nearly doubled from £23.8 million in 2009/10 to £41.8 million in 2014/15.

    The NIHR has launched a new, open competition for biomedical research centre funding from April 2017 to March 2022. In this competition, a number of clinical areas of particular strategic importance to the health of patients are highlighted including mental health.

    The NIHR Clinical Research Network supports delivery in the National Health Service of studies funded by the NIHR itself and by eligible partners including the United Kingdom Research Councils and medical research charities. To date in 2015/16, the network has recruited 23,778 participants in 273 studies where mental health is recorded as the main specialty. The network will continue to monitor the study pipeline for mental health.

  • Lord Crisp – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills

    Lord Crisp – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Crisp on 2016-01-20.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government why clinical research in mental health is scheduled to receive a tariff 32 per cent lower than for other clinical medicine subjects, including dentistry and nursing, for the same type of research, in the light of the overall increase in funding following the 2014 Research Excellence Framework conducted by the Higher Education Funding Council for England.

    Baroness Evans of Bowes Park

    The Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) is allocated funding from the Department for Business Innovation and Skills (BIS) Science and Research budget to distribute to higher education institutions (HEIs) in England. Most of HEFCE’s funding is allocated as an unhypothecated research block grant to institutions, ensuring university leaders have flexibility to support their own research priorities. While this block grant is calculated using research quality and volume information from the 2014 Research Excellence Framework (REF2014) at a subject level, it is a matter for individual HEIs to determine how it is ultimately distributed to particular activities/subjects.

    In developing the REF, the attribution of different disciplines to particular units of assessment was agreed with the relevant professional bodies. Research relevant to clinical mental health was assessed in a unit including psychology, psychiatry and neuroscience. As this unit included a mix of research with higher costs (clinical psychology and psychiatry, and neuroscience) and lower costs (social psychology), the funding was allocated at an intermediate cost rate, reflecting the mix of disciplines.

    REF2014 demonstrated significantly improved research quality in all disciplines, including psychology, psychiatry and neuroscience. As a result, the funding allocated on the basis of performance to this group increased by 16.5 per cent.

    As announced in the Spending Review 2015, the Government is taking forward a review of the REF to ensure that future university research funding is allocated efficiently, offers greater rewards for excellent research and reduces the administrative burden on institutions. This review will be led by Lord Stern, and he is expected to deliver his review to the Government in summer 2016.

  • Baroness Gould of Potternewton – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    Baroness Gould of Potternewton – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Baroness Gould of Potternewton on 2016-01-20.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government what commitment they have made to supporting HIV support services to enable people with HIV to cope with their new diagnosis and prevent onward transmission.

    Lord Prior of Brampton

    The Care Act 2014 sets out the legal framework for social care in England, and this applies to all adults with support needs including those whose living with HIV. Our Framework for Sexual Health Improvement (2013) a copy of which is attached, highlights the importance of early testing and diagnosis of HIV so that people can receive effective HIV treatment and help prevent new transmissions. In 2014 Public Health England published Making it work, a copy of which attached, setting out guidance to support collaborative local commissioning across all sexual health services.

  • Baroness Gould of Potternewton – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    Baroness Gould of Potternewton – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Baroness Gould of Potternewton on 2016-01-20.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether there has been an increase in the rate of abortions among women over the age of 24 since 2010, and if so, what assessment they have made of the cause.

    Lord Prior of Brampton

    We have made no such assessment.

    Rates of abortions for women aged 25 and over, England, 2010-2014

    Year

    Rate per thousand women

    2014

    13.72

    2013

    13.43

    2012

    12.97

    2011

    13.30

    2010

    12.82

    Source: Office for National Statistics

  • Baroness Gould of Potternewton – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    Baroness Gould of Potternewton – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Baroness Gould of Potternewton on 2016-01-20.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government further to the Written Answer by Lord Prior of Brampton on 8 December 2015 (HL3838), how they define reasonable access to all methods of contraception in the context of open access sexual health services; what steps they have taken to ensure that local authorities are commissioning open-access sexual health services as mandated by legislation; and whether reasonable access to all methods of contraception includes access to long-acting reversible contraception as recommended by NICE guideline CG30.

    Lord Prior of Brampton

    The Department issued guidance to local authorities in March 2013 Commissioning Sexual Health services and interventions (a copy of which is attached) to help local authorities (LAs) to fulfil their legal requirements in relation to open access sexual health services. The guidance sets out that in relation to contraception “reasonable access” is for local determination, but also highlights “there is evidence that it may ultimately be better for patient outcomes, and more cost effective, to offer unrestricted access to all methods for all age groups. This supports women controlling their fertility and ensures contraceptive needs are met using the most effective methods”. The guidance also highlights key findings from the National Institute Clinical Excellence on long-acting reversible contraception.

    Departmental officials meet regularly with sexual health organisations to consider the commissioning of sexual health services by LAs. Public Health England is undertaking a survey of local commissioning arrangements for sexual health and developing a tool that will improve monitoring of contraception use at LA level.

  • Lord Hunt of Kings Heath – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    Lord Hunt of Kings Heath – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Hunt of Kings Heath on 2016-01-20.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government which stakeholders were invited to the first meeting of the new Strategic Oversight Board.

    Lord Prior of Brampton

    The invitee list for the first Strategic Oversight Board meeting which took place on 18 November 2015 is below:

    Name

    Organisation

    Professor the Lord Ara Darzi of Denham (Chair)

    Imperial College London

    Andrew Morris

    Farr Institute

    Anna Beckett

    Care Quality Commission

    Arvind Madan

    Primary Care

    Bethan George

    Tower Hamlets Clinical Commissioning Group

    Cynthia Clark

    Patients 4 Data

    Dame Sally Davies

    Department of Health

    Dawn Monaghan

    Information Commissioner’s Office

    Dr Aisling Burnand

    Association of Medical Research Charities

    Dr Ben Goldacre

    Bad Science

    Dr Grant Ingrams

    British Medical Association

    Dr Janet Valentine

    Clinical Practice Research Datalink

    Dr Mike Knapton

    British Heart Foundation

    Eve Roodhouse

    Health and Social Care Information Centre

    Gary Leeming

    Greater Manchester Academic Health Science Network

    Gerard Crofton-Martin

    Healthwatch England

    Jeremy Taylor

    National Voices

    John Newton

    Public Health England

    Katherine Rake

    Healthwatch England

    Katie Farrington

    Office of National Data Guardian

    Lisa Harrod-Rothwell

    NHS England

    Louise Wood

    Association of Medical Research Charities

    Neil Stutchbury

    Monitor

    Nicola Perrin

    Wellcome Trust

    Paul Bate

    Care Quality Commission

    Prof John Appleby

    The Kings Fund

    Prof Nigel Mathers

    Royal College of General Practitioners

    Prof Simon Wessley

    Royal College of Psychiatrists

    Prof Sue Bailey

    Royal College of Psychiatrists

    Ronan O’Connor

    NHS England

    Ros Roughton

    NHS England

    Sarah Schofield

    West Hampshire Clinical Commissioning Group

    Sir Bruce Keogh

    NHS England

    Sir Cyril Chantler

    UCL Partners

    Steven Black

    Monitor

  • Lord Hylton – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for International Development

    Lord Hylton – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for International Development

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Hylton on 2016-01-20.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is their assessment of the report of the European Parliament Budgetary Control Committee on EU external aid and development programmes.

    Baroness Verma

    The report concerned is based on internal Commission reports from EU delegations in non-EU countries, many of which are fragile or conflict-affected. These reports identify potential problems during implementation, so that things can be put right in time. We have not seen the actual reports, as these are internal Commission management documents. The report highlights the implementation challenges and the steps taken by the Commission to manage these risks, including the withholding of funds where fraud is thought to be to an issue. If it is proven that money has been wasted we expect the EU and its audit institutions to take swift and decisive action to recoup funds and to carry out a thorough review of all its programmes to provide a clear set of actions to stop this happening again.

  • Lord Hylton – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for International Development

    Lord Hylton – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for International Development

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Hylton on 2016-01-20.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government what expertise in the design and supervision of aid and development projects, if any, is available within EU diplomatic posts outside the EU; and if none, whether they will call for a halt to further projects.

    Baroness Verma

    The EU Commission’s Directorate-General for International Cooperation and Development (DG DEVCO) is responsible for designing European international cooperation and development policy and delivering aid throughout the world.

    As of 1 January 2015 DG DEVCO had approximately 3600 Staff (officials, contractual agents, local agents and other categories of external staff) both in Headquarters (35%) and in EU Delegations (65%). DG DEVCO has the greatest number of Commission staff in EU Delegations (2350 – approximately 44%). The Commission also draws on Member State contributions to complement and supplement its own expertise. For example, as well drawing on expertise in policy technical experts meetings and management committees, there are a significant number of specialists drawn from Member States under the Seconded National Experts arrangements.