Author: admin

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

    Lord Mawson – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Mawson on 2016-02-25.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the impact of their planned pharmacy cuts on patients and health services in the London Borough of Tower Hamlets.

    Lord Prior of Brampton

    Community pharmacy is a vital part of the National Health Service and can play an even greater role. In the Spending Review, the Government re-affirmed the need for the NHS to deliver £22 billion in efficiency savings by 2020-21 as set out in the NHS’s own plan, the Five Year Forward View. Community pharmacy is a core part of NHS primary care and has an important contribution to make as the NHS rises to these challenges. The Government believes efficiencies can be made without compromising the quality of services or public access to them. Our aim is to ensure that those community pharmacies upon which people depend continue to thrive and so we are consulting on the introduction of a Pharmacy Access Scheme, which will provide more NHS funds to certain pharmacies compared to others, considering factors such as location and the health needs of the local population.

    The Government’s vision is for a more efficient, modern system that will free up pharmacists to spend more time delivering clinical and public health services to the benefit of patients and the public.

    We are consulting the Pharmaceutical Services Negotiating Committee, other pharmacy bodies and patient and public representatives on our proposals. An impact assessment will be completed to inform final decisions and published in due course.

    NHS England has a statutory duty to ensure the adequate provision of NHS pharmaceutical services across England and will ensure that duty continues to be met, including in respect of the London Borough of Tower Hamlets.

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

    Lord Mawson – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Mawson on 2016-02-25.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they or NHS England have made of the effectiveness of minor ailments services provided by community pharmacies in reducing pressure on GP practices and other parts of the NHS, and what assessment they have made of the impact of their planned pharmacy cuts on such services.

    Lord Prior of Brampton

    NHS England has taken account of the potential impact of a pharmacy minor ailments service on general practitioner services and other parts of the National Health Service. The findings of the Minor Ailment Study (MINA), conducted by the University of Aberdeen, in collaboration with NHS Grampian and the University of East Anglia, on behalf of Pharmacy Research UK in 2014, were considered. The study’s main conclusions were:

    – consultations for minor ailments continue to be a burden on high cost service providers but there needs to be consensus amongst healthcare professionals regarding what constitutes a minor ailment suitable for treatment in the community pharmacy setting;

    – the evidence considered suggests that community pharmacy-based minor ailment schemes are an effective and cost-effective strategy for managing patients;

    – health professionals and patients need to be confident in the ability of pharmacists and their staff to manage minor ailments; and

    – future initiatives to shift demand from high cost settings to community pharmacy should adopt an interdisciplinary approach to explore and address patient decision-making behaviour.

    In addition, evaluations of local minor ailments schemes have continued to inform decision-making about local commissioning of such schemes.

    Community pharmacy is a vital part of the NHS and can play an even greater role. In the Spending Review the Government re-affirmed the need for the NHS to deliver £22 billion in efficiency savings by 2020/21 as set out in the NHS’s own plan, the Five Year Forward View. Community pharmacy is a core part of NHS primary care and has an important contribution to make as the NHS rises to these challenges. The Government believes efficiencies can be made without compromising the quality of services or public access to them. Our aim is to ensure that those community pharmacies upon which people depend continue to thrive and so we are consulting on the introduction of a Pharmacy Access Scheme, which will provide more NHS funds to certain pharmacies compared to others, considering factors such as location and the health needs of the local population.

    The Government’s vision is for a more efficient, modern system that will free up pharmacists to spend more time delivering clinical and public health services to the benefit of patients and the public.

    We are consulting the Pharmaceutical Services Negotiating Committee, other pharmacy bodies and patient and public representatives on our proposals. An impact assessment will be completed to inform final decisions and published in due course.

    Local commissioning and funding of services from community pharmacies, such as minor ailment services, will be unaffected by these proposals.

  • Lord McColl of Dulwich – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    Lord McColl of Dulwich – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord McColl of Dulwich on 2016-02-25.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government how many EEA nationals with ongoing applications for discretionary leave to remain as victims of human trafficking have been issued with minded to remove” letters or administrative removal papers since 1 January 2014.”

    Lord Bates

    Since 01 January 2014, no EEA Nationals with ongoing applications for Discretionary Leave to Remain in the United Kingdom as victims of human trafficking have been served with ‘minded to remove’ letters or administrative removal papers whilst their applications were being considered.

    In the same time period,fewer than five applicants were served with papers before they made an application for Discretionary Leave to Remain.

  • Lord McColl of Dulwich – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    Lord McColl of Dulwich – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord McColl of Dulwich on 2016-02-25.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government what processes are in place, and what action they have taken, to ensure that EEA nationals who have made applications for discretionary leave to remain (DLR) as confirmed victims of human trafficking are not considered for administrative removal until a decision has been made about their application for DLR.

    Lord Bates

    The processes and guidance in place relating to the factors to take into account in deciding whether to remove a person from the United Kingdom, including EEA nationals and potential victims of trafficking, are found within “Chapter 50: (EEA) EEA administrative removals” of the Enforcement Instructions and Guidance published on gov.uk.

    The Home Office will consider exceptional and compassionate individual circumstances that may justify leave on a discretionary basis. The “Discretionary leave” Asylum Instruction on gov.uk gives guidance to Home Office staff on considering whether to grant discretionary leave (DL).

    No action is taken to enforce the administrative removal of an EEA national identified as a potential victim of trafficking where their case is still being considered in accordance with the “Discretionary leave” Asylum Instruction. However, DL is not normally granted to EEA nationals (or their family members) where they have free movement rights under EU law and are exercising those treaty rights.

    Guidance to immigration enforcement staff on how to identify and manage victims of trafficking is provided in “Chapter 9: identifying victims of trafficking” of Enforcement Instructions and Guidance. “Chapter 53: extenuating circumstances” gives guidance to immigration enforcement staff how to consider any extenuating circumstances. Section 4 of “Chapter 50: (EEA) EEA administrative removals” sets out the criteria that apply in considering whether it is right and reasonable to remove an EEA national and whether it is proportionate given all the circumstances of the case.

  • Lord McColl of Dulwich – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    Lord McColl of Dulwich – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord McColl of Dulwich on 2016-02-25.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government what guidance regarding the rights and treatment of victims of human trafficking has been issued to Home Office staff responsible for making decisions about the administrative removal of EEA nationals, and what specific guidance has been given to caseworkers about the criteria for determining whether or not the administrative removal of a confirmed victim of human trafficking who is an EEA national is proportionate.

    Lord Bates

    The processes and guidance in place relating to the factors to take into account in deciding whether to remove a person from the United Kingdom, including EEA nationals and potential victims of trafficking, are found within “Chapter 50: (EEA) EEA administrative removals” of the Enforcement Instructions and Guidance published on gov.uk.

    The Home Office will consider exceptional and compassionate individual circumstances that may justify leave on a discretionary basis. The “Discretionary leave” Asylum Instruction on gov.uk gives guidance to Home Office staff on considering whether to grant discretionary leave (DL).

    No action is taken to enforce the administrative removal of an EEA national identified as a potential victim of trafficking where their case is still being considered in accordance with the “Discretionary leave” Asylum Instruction. However, DL is not normally granted to EEA nationals (or their family members) where they have free movement rights under EU law and are exercising those treaty rights.

    Guidance to immigration enforcement staff on how to identify and manage victims of trafficking is provided in “Chapter 9: identifying victims of trafficking” of Enforcement Instructions and Guidance. “Chapter 53: extenuating circumstances” gives guidance to immigration enforcement staff how to consider any extenuating circumstances. Section 4 of “Chapter 50: (EEA) EEA administrative removals” sets out the criteria that apply in considering whether it is right and reasonable to remove an EEA national and whether it is proportionate given all the circumstances of the case.

  • Lord McColl of Dulwich – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    Lord McColl of Dulwich – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord McColl of Dulwich on 2016-02-25.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government what action they are taking to prevent homelessness among victims of modern slavery who are EEA nationals with positive Conclusive Grounds National Referral Mechanism decisions on their departure from the government-funded victim care contract.

    Lord Bates

    During the recovery and reflection period, support providers work with the victim of modern slavery to produce a detailed and tailored ‘move on plan’. Following a positive Conclusion Grounds decision, victims are entitled to a further 14 days of support, at which time the ‘move on plan’ assists the victim in their transition from the specialist service. The victim either returns to their home country or if they wish to stay and are eligible to do so move on to access mainstream support services in the UK. In addition, the Home Office considers extension requests for victims who need longer than 14 days to make the transition from the specialist service on a case-by-case basis.

    On leaving the Government-funded service that is provided under the victim care contract, victims who are EEA nationals may be able to exercise Treaty rights and remain lawfully in the UK on that basis but those who are not exercising such rights are encouraged to return home unless they are entitled to remain on other grounds. The Home Office also considers whether to grant Discretionary Leave to victims who are unable to exercise free movement rights where there are particularly compelling circumstances, they need to stay in the UK to pursue a compensation claim or to assist with police inquiries/investigations.

  • Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office

    Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer on 2016-02-25.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government which of the permanent members of the UN Security Council support the UK’s proposal to the Conference on Disarmament, as set out by the UK Permanent Representative to that Conference in his letter of 19 February (CD/2055).

    Baroness Anelay of St Johns

    Discussions on this are still at an early stage and it would be inappropriate for the UK to comment on other States’ positions before they are made public. However, we hope that all members of the UN Conference on Disarmament can support the UK proposal to establish a working group and an associated programme of work.

  • Lord Morris of Aberavon – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    Lord Morris of Aberavon – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Morris of Aberavon on 2016-02-25.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government which particular EU directive or regulation has led to banks, credit companies and stores reviewing their loyalty schemes in order to differentiate between points earned from transactions inside and outside an institution, and how the UK voted when that matter was decided in the Council of Ministers.

    Lord O’Neill of Gatley

    The Government has been determined to tackle the unfair fees being charged to UK businesses for processing card transactions through the Interchange Fee Regulation, which came into force in December 2015. In order to make sure that consumers as well as businesses benefit as a result of the Interchange Fee Regulation, the UK negotiated through the revised Payment Services Directive capping or, in some cases banning completely, the charges that some businesses ask of customers who pay by debit or credit card.

    We are aware that some banks and other companies are cutting back on their customer rewards packages to recoup costs they face as a result of the interchange fee caps. However, this is a commercial decision on the part of these companies – not all firms have followed suit.

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

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

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Pendry on 2016-02-25.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to address investigations by Which? and 5 Live that found that secondary ticket sites are carrying ticket listings that are in breach of the Consumer Rights Act 2015.

    Baroness Neville-Rolfe

    Trading Standards Services are responsible for enforcing the secondary ticketing provisions of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 and other relevant consumer protection legislation. Suspected or actual breaches of such legislation should first be reported via the Citizens Advice consumer helpline, following which Citizens Advice may refer cases to Trading Standards Services for appropriate action.

    Since the ticketing provisions contained in the Consumer Rights Act 2015 came into force on 27 May 2015, an independent Review has been established (as required by the Act) to consider consumer protection measures in relation to online ticket re-sales. The Review is looking at the available evidence and will report by 26 May 2016.

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

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

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Pendry on 2016-02-25.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government what action they are taking to ensure that online secondary ticket companies are properly monitoring and countering potential ticket touting, in compliance with the Consumer Rights Act 2015.

    Baroness Neville-Rolfe

    Her Majesty’s Government issued guidance to business when the new ticketing provisions, contained in the Consumer Rights Act 2015, came into force.

    Trading Standards Services are responsible for enforcing the secondary ticketing provisions of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 and other relevant consumer protection legislation. Suspected or actual breaches of such legislation should first be reported via the Citizens Advice consumer helpline, following which Citizens Advice may refer cases to Trading Standards Services for appropriate action.

    Since the ticketing provisions contained in the Consumer Rights Act 2015 came into force on 27 May 2015, an independent Review has been established (as required by the Act) to consider consumer protection measures in relation to online ticket re-sales. The Review is looking at the available evidence and will report by 26 May 2016.