Author: admin

  • Chris Leslie – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    Chris Leslie – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Chris Leslie on 2016-04-11.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Health, what the cost to the public purse has been of storing, maintaining and facilitating research access to the Corsellis Brain Collection in each of the last five years; and if he will make a statement.

    George Freeman

    The excess costs of maintaining the collection compared with the income from specimen preparation over a number of years have rendered the collection unsustainable as a research resource. West London Mental Health Trust has therefore decided – once it has responded to current requests for samples – to respectfully dispose of those tissue samples for which no scientific purpose can be envisaged. Some tissue has also been requested by the University of Hong Kong for training purposes for their neuropathology students, which the Trust is providing as a more appropriate use of such clinical material than respectful disposal. The Trust has obtained the appropriate Human Tissue Authority licenses for this work. We understand that the collection will close by the end of June 2016.

    The Trust has provided figures for each of the three years to 2014/15. In each case the cost has been borne by the Trust, offset (to a relatively small extent) by fees received for tissue sample requests and – in 2014/15 – by a donation. The figures are shown in the following table.

    Financial Year

    Cost

    Income

    Donation

    2012/13

    £101,126

    Nil

    Nil

    2013/14

    £84,561

    £7,016

    Nil

    2014/15

    £80,684

    £1,003

    £69,316

    The Medical Research Council supports a range of brain tissue banks which have been set-up around specific disorders and diseases generally to collect post-mortem brain tissue from consented donors.

  • Mike Kane – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    Mike Kane – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Mike Kane on 2016-04-11.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Health, what requirements NHS England has placed on Manchester Mental Health and Social Care Trust to provide alternative services to replace services which are to be closed.

    Alistair Burt

    We are advised that NHS England has placed no such requirements. These are matters for the Manchester Mental Health and Social Care NHS Trust and its commissioners.

    We expect all National Health Service trusts to use their resources wisely and within their statutory responsibilities, while delivering high quality, sustainable services to patients. It is for the local NHS to determine the provision of local health services.

  • Mike Kane – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    Mike Kane – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Mike Kane on 2016-04-11.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Health, whether NHS England has provided additional funds to cover redundancy costs associated with Manchester Mental Health and Social Care Trust service closures.

    Alistair Burt

    We are advised that NHS England has placed no such requirements. These are matters for the Manchester Mental Health and Social Care NHS Trust and its commissioners.

    We expect all National Health Service trusts to use their resources wisely and within their statutory responsibilities, while delivering high quality, sustainable services to patients. It is for the local NHS to determine the provision of local health services.

  • Peter Aldous – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    Peter Aldous – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Peter Aldous on 2016-04-11.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Health, what assessment his Department has made of the potential benefits of supported housing in helping people with acute mental illnesses recover and live independently.

    Alistair Burt

    The Department has made no formal assessment of the potential benefits of supported housing in helping older people with support needs and those living with acute mental illness to live independently. However, the Department’s work in this area is underpinned by a variety of evidence – including a report commissioned by the Homes and Communities Agency, Financial benefits of investment in specialist housing for vulnerable and older people (2010), which provides a useful overview. This is based on a review of literature, and is split by different client groups including older people and those living with a mental health condition.

  • Peter Aldous – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    Peter Aldous – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Peter Aldous on 2016-04-11.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Health, what assessment his Department has made of the potential benefits of supported housing in helping older people with support needs to live independently and stay out of hospital.

    Alistair Burt

    The Department has made no formal assessment of the potential benefits of supported housing in helping older people with support needs and those living with acute mental illness to live independently. However, the Department’s work in this area is underpinned by a variety of evidence – including a report commissioned by the Homes and Communities Agency, Financial benefits of investment in specialist housing for vulnerable and older people (2010), which provides a useful overview. This is based on a review of literature, and is split by different client groups including older people and those living with a mental health condition.

  • Alison Thewliss – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    Alison Thewliss – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Alison Thewliss on 2016-04-11.

    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, if she will review the financial requirements for tier 1 Entrepreneur visas.

    James Brokenshire

    In March 2015, the Government commissioned the Independent Migration Advisory Committee (MAC) to assess the economic benefit of the UK’s provisions for non-EEA entrepreneurs. The MAC made a number of recommendations for reform of the Tier 1 (Entrepreneur) route. On financial requirements they recommended that:

    • the Government consider setting the lower investment threshold in the range of £40,000 to £50,000; and

    • the higher investment threshold of £200,000 should apply to each applicant (currently, two applicants can share the funding i.e. £100,000 each), and that there may be a case for an inflationary uplift.

    The Government is currently considering the MAC’s advice, and will announce its response in due course.

  • John Mann – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    John Mann – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by John Mann on 2016-04-11.

    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, when those parts of the Psychoactive Substances Act 2016 which have not come into force are expected to come into force; and what the reason is for the time taken to bring all provisions of that Act into force.

    Karen Bradley

    We expect to commence the Psychoactive Substances Act in its entirety in the spring. In line with the advice of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, we are in the final stages of putting in place a programme of testing to demonstrate the psychoactivity of a substance prior to commencement of the Act. The timing of commencement has always been subject to consideration of all the activity necessary across the UK for the provisions to come into force

  • Roger Godsiff – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    Roger Godsiff – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Roger Godsiff on 2016-04-11.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Health, what discussions he has had with professional bodies on the provisions in the Investigatory Powers Bill relating to bulk personal datasets.

    George Freeman

    Whilst the Department has not conducted any specific engagement on these provisions, the Government has consulted extensively on the development of the Investigatory Powers Bill, including the provisions relating to the additional safeguards for the security and intelligence agencies’ retention and use of bulk personal datasets.

    The draft Bill, published last November, built on the three independent reviews on investigatory powers by David Anderson QC, the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament (ISC), and the Independent Surveillance Panel convened by the Royal United Services Institute. The draft Bill was then subject to Parliamentary scrutiny by a dedicated Joint Committee, the ISC and the Science and Technology Select Committee. The Government has had over 60 meetings and briefings with industry representatives, academics, civil liberties groups, and charities and victims groups since the draft Bill was published in November.

  • Roger Godsiff – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    Roger Godsiff – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Roger Godsiff on 2016-04-11.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Health, whether he plans to take questions from the (a) press and (b) public when he launches his Department’s public consultation following publication of the Caldicott review.

    George Freeman

    The Government is currently considering the findings and recommendations of the reviews undertaken by the Care Quality Commission and Dame Fiona Caldicott, ahead of these reports being published. The scope of any supporting consultation exercise is yet to be determined.

  • Jim Shannon – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    Jim Shannon – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Jim Shannon on 2016-04-11.

    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, what steps she is taking to prevent the emotional abuse of women.

    Karen Bradley

    The Government has introduced a new offence of coercive or controlling behaviour in an intimate or family relationship which came into force on 29 December 2015. The offence carries a maximum of 5 years imprisonment. Guidance for professionals on the new offence was issued on 5 December 2015.

    The new offence will mean victims who experience coercive and controlling behaviour that stops short of serious physical violence, but amounts to extreme psychological and emotional abuse, can see their perpetrators brought to justice. Criminalising domestic abuse demonstrates this Government’s commitment to tackling all forms of abuse and improving the protection available to victims.