Category: Speeches

  • Christopher Chope – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    Christopher Chope – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Christopher Chope on 2016-10-11.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Health, how many NHS prescription charge penalty charge notices were issued in the last year for which figures are available; and how much was recovered in (a) prescription income and (b) penalty charges and surcharges in the last year for which information is available.

    David Mowat

    The number of National Health Service prescription charge penalty charge notices issued between September 2015 and August 2016, which is the most recent 12-month period for which we have complete data, was 780,953. Where no response was received to the initial penalty charge notice a follow up surcharge letter was issued to the patient. For the same period a total of 333,508 surcharge letters were issued.

    The value of the recovered prescription income in this period was £2,556,941, and the value of the income from penalty charges and surcharges was £8,678,911 and £745,830, respectively.

    Since taking over the administration of the Prescription Exemption Checking Service in September 2014, the NHS Business Services Authority has not issued any court proceedings for debt recovery in relation to NHS prescription charges and penalties.

  • Lord Rooker – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

    Lord Rooker – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Rooker on 2015-10-28.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the Written Answer by Lord Gardiner of Kimble on 22 July (HL1237), whether any proposed change to the Bread and Flour Regulations 1998 will be forwarded to the relevant scientific committee for consideration.

    Lord Gardiner of Kimble

    In June this year the Government held an informal consultation in order to seek views on possible additions to the exemptions currently allowed under the Bread and Flour Regulations 1998 from the requirement to fortify flour with calcium, iron, niacin, and thiamine. The exemptions that were envisaged would allow more efficient and streamlined manufacturing operations for foods produced for export as well as for the home market, without compromising the public health benefits which accrue from fortification. A range of interested parties were consulted including millers, flour users, retailers, fortificant manufacturers and health professionals.

    The options proposed in the consultation would allow millers to produce unfortified flour in England when used as a secondary ingredient which undergoes further processing, or is used in relatively small quantities in products. This approach was welcomed by most consultees and the Government is now considering how to take this forward.

    The Department of Health and Public Health England has considered the proposals and concluded that it is unlikely that an exemption from fortification for flour used in such products will have a nutritionally significant impact on the intakes of calcium, iron, thiamine or niacin.

    The changes proposed would apply to England only since food legislation is a devolved matter. The devolved administrations are aware of these proposals but have not yet made any decisions on whether to introduce similar changes.

    Respondents to the consultation also asked for some additional flexibility around the point at which the fortificants are added to flour. At the moment flour must be fortified at the mill and the four fortificants are added as a premix at the end of the milling process. Many businesses which manufacture foods both for the home market and for export requested the flexibility to be able to add the fortificants at the bakery stage. They highlighted that the requirement for separate storage and handling for, both fortified and unfortified flour (which is used for exported products) was creating significant manufacturing complexities. That resulted in a more restricted product range and is having an adverse effect on their export potential and their ability to diversify into new global markets. The Government is currently considering this.

  • Grahame Morris – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    Grahame Morris – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Grahame Morris on 2015-11-24.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to the Answers of 16 November 2015 to Questions 15277 and 15193, what the outputs are from the NHS England expert forum which were originally initiated in the Cardiovascular Disease Outcomes Strategy; and what plans the NHS England expert group has for future work on familial hypercholesterolemia.

    Jane Ellison

    The expert forum – the Cardiovascular Disease (CVD) Collaborative Strategy Group – has representation from key CVD stakeholders including NHS England, Public Health England, Department of Health and third sector organisations such as the British Heart Foundation, Diabetes UK and the National Kidney Federation. It provides leadership to the National Health Service in developing approaches to improve the prevention, early diagnosis and management of CVD as highlighted in the CVD outcomes strategy.

    As part of its work, the group is exploring approaches to support the earlier diagnosis of atrial fibrillation, high blood pressure, heart failure and valve disease and to improve outcomes from out of hospital cardiac arrest. It is also considering how it can support wider strategic developments arising from the Five Year Forward View, such as the development of seven day services.

    In addition, NHS England’s National Clinical Director for Heart Disease continues towork with partners on familial hypercholesterolemia (FH). Working with Public Health England, they aim to identify more families with FH and address the importance of cholesterol on general as a risk factor for CVD. The National Clinical Director alsochairs an FH Steering Group, which brings together relevant stakeholders, and supportsStrategic Clinical Networks around the country so that good practice can be shared more widely.

  • Tulip Siddiq – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    Tulip Siddiq – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Tulip Siddiq on 2016-01-05.

    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, how many (a) requests were made for and (b) individuals passed Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) adult first checks in each year since 2012; what the average time taken was for that check to be carried out; and how many of those passed subsequently failed their DBS check, and were therefore not issued with a DBS certificate.

    Karen Bradley

    The Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) Adult First is a service provided by the Disclosure and Barring Service that can be used in cases where, exceptionally, and in accordance with the terms of Department of Health guidance, a person is permitted to start work with adults before a DBS Certificate has been obtained.

    An individual neither passes nor fails an Adult First check and a certificate is not withheld if a person is on the Adults barred list. If a person is on the list, that fact will be disclosed on the completed DBS certificate.

    There are two outcomes to an Adult First check and the Registered Body is either advised that no match exists for this person on the current Adults barred list, or they must wait for the full disclosure as a match against the Adults barred list cannot be ruled out at this stage. Further investigation is then carried out through the normal disclosure checking process and if a match against the Adults barred list is confirmed, it will be disclosed on the certificate.

    The table below shows the number of requests that were made for DBS Adult First checks, the average time taken to complete Adult First checks and the number of times the Registered Body received a ‘wait for the full disclosure’ or ‘no match found’ response between December 2012 and November 2015.

    Period

    Number of Adult First Requests

    Average Number of Days to Conduct Adult First Check

    Number of “No Match Found” responses

    Number of “wait for full Disclosure” responses

    Dec-12 to Mar-13

    50,175

    1.07

    39,200

    10,975

    Apr-13 to Mar-14

    166,287

    1.08

    130,333

    35,954

    Apr-14 to Mar-15

    173,503

    1.19

    135,792

    37,711

    Apr-15 to Nov-15

    116,602

    1.06

    91,782

    24,820
  • Jim McMahon – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    Jim McMahon – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Jim McMahon on 2016-01-29.

    To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, if he will publish the legal advice he received prior to the tax settlement with Google.

    Mr David Gauke

    HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) is responsible for the conduct of tax enquiries. Ministers are not informed of the progress of enquiries and play no part in agreeing the amount of tax to be paid by any taxpayer.

  • Sadiq Khan – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    Sadiq Khan – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Sadiq Khan on 2016-02-24.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Health, on how many occasions a Mental Health Act 1983 assessment requested on someone in custody in London took longer than 24 hours in each of the last five years.

    Alistair Burt

    The information requested is not held centrally.

    The Policing and Crime Bill, currently before Parliament, will seek to reduce the maximum length of time a person can be detained under section 135 or 136 of the Mental Health Act 1983 from 72 to 24 hours, to make clear that people should be assessed as quickly as possible.

  • Luciana Berger – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    Luciana Berger – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Luciana Berger on 2016-03-17.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Health, if he will estimate the return on each pound invested in mental health research.

    George Freeman

    The estimated return on each pound invested by government and charities in mental health research is between 22 pence and 25 pence per annum. This consists of an estimate of the net value to the United Kingdom of the health benefit arising from the research of seven pence per annum, and the most recent estimate of the general economic benefit that arises from research of between 15 pence and 18 pence per annum for each pound invested.

  • 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 2016-04-25.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they will establish a public inquiry into care failings in the Liverpool Community NHS Trust in the light of findings that executive directors of the trust downgraded serious risks or incidents and kept information from non-executive board members.

    Lord Prior of Brampton

    We are assured by NHS Improvement that it continues to work closely with the Trust following the support provided by the NHS Trust Development Authority (NTDA). Following the Care Quality Commission’s report of 2014, the NTDA took immediate steps to improve the skill set within the executive team, commissioned a board capability review and provided clinical and quality support in developing and delivering a quality improvement plan. As further issues came to light, the non-executive and the executive teams at the time of the failings were replaced.

    A recent independent review made clear that the drive of the board to achieve foundation trust (FT) status was a dominant factor which contributed towards the failures of the trust. The report suggests that the board was managed in the way it was to ensure the FT application remained on track and that this led to downplaying of risks. A copy of this review, Quality, safety and management assurance review at Liverpool Community Health NHS Trust, is attached.

    The Trust withdrew its application for FT status in January 2015. It is now actively working towards a transaction that is likely to see the trust’s services being delivered by alternative providers

    In addition to a new leadership team in place, a number of other measures are being progressed. There is an ongoing improvement plan, the continued support of NHS Improvement, implementation of the independent review’s recommendations and a well-advanced transaction proposal that is likely to lead to the eventual disestablishment of the Trust. However we will consider the possibility of a further review with the leadership of NHS Improvement.

    NHS Improvement is currently developing a new approach to authorising FTs. It will allow National Health Service trusts to demonstrate they meet the standards expected of FT status without the process becoming a serious distraction for them.

  • Baroness Burt of Solihull – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Work and Pensions

    Baroness Burt of Solihull – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Work and Pensions

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Baroness Burt of Solihull on 2016-06-06.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government how many companies required to pay levies to the Pension Protection Fund had put in place a contingent asset that replaced the Pension Protection Fund’s Failure Score for the company with that of a different company in each of the three years to 2012–13; and what are the names of those companies.

    Baroness Altmann

    We are unable to supply the information requested as to do so would incur disproportionate cost. Furthermore, the names of the companies concerned are classed as ‘Restricted Information’ under the Pensions Act 2004.

  • Stephen Timms – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

    Stephen Timms – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Stephen Timms on 2016-07-20.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, what plans she has to review the tariffs imposed on cane sugar imports in the course of negotiations on exiting the EU; and if she will make a statement.

    George Eustice

    We are preparing for negotiations to exit the EU. As part of these preparations, we will consider future trading relationships with both the EU and internationally. Tariffs on agricultural commodities, such as the level of sugar tariffs, will be one element of this work.