Category: Speeches

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

    Lord Freyberg – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Freyberg on 2016-01-13.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment the National Institute for Health Research Horizon Scanning Research and Intelligence Centre and Genomic England have made of the potential of precision oncology for less common cancers.

    Lord Prior of Brampton

    Genomics England undertook a comprehensive assessment of the technological and scientific challenges faced by molecular pathology in the context of the 100,000 Genomes Project. As part of the Project there has been extensive experimental work to identify best practice for molecular pathology (and more specifically genomics). In particular, the sequencing of whole tumour genomes at scale poses a significant scientific and clinical challenge. The Project is pushing these boundaries, driving new scientific knowledge and transformational change. Like all transformative projects there are barriers but the Project is providing the impetus to address those challenges.

    Genomics England is working in partnership with NHS England, Health Education England and the newly inaugurated NHS Genomic Medicine Centres to facilitate the translation of scientific developments into practice, and to support the development of the molecular pathology workforce.

    The Project will involve in-depth analysis of tumour genomics, creating new scientific discoveries which will in turn inform precision oncology. The Project includes both common and rare tumours to spread the transformative impact of the project across a range of cancer types.

    In 2014, theNational Institute for Health Research Horizon Scanning Research and Intelligence Centreadvised the NHS England Molecular Testing Group (cancer) on the potential for horizon scanning in the use of genomic tests for cancer.

  • Sue Hayman – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Energy and Climate Change

    Sue Hayman – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Energy and Climate Change

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Sue Hayman on 2016-02-08.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, whether her Department plans to begin a procurement process for a technology to reuse plutonium stored at Sellafield before 2020.

    Andrea Leadsom

    Safely and securely managing plutonium remains a government priority. My Department is working across government, with the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (NDA) and industry to develop a solution.

    NDA submitted advice to support DECC in its considerations on the policy options for separated plutonium held in the UK, in December 2015. The report gives a view on the balance of attractiveness and risk of each reuse option (reuse as MOX and assessment of the credible alternatives PRISM and Candu); as well as immobilisation and continued storage. This, together with other sources of information and evidence, is informing DECC’s consideration of the options for the way forward.

    Only when Government is confident that an option could be implemented safely and securely, in way that is affordable, deliverable, and offers value for money, will it be in a position to proceed.

  • 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 2016-02-29.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Health, how much of Public Health England’s social marketing budget for 2015-16 has been allocated to mental health.

    Jane Ellison

    Mental health and wellbeing is integrated into many Public Health England campaigns.

    In 2015-16 an estimated £380,000 has been allocated to the development and promotion of mental health content for 11-16 year olds via the Rise Above campaign.

    In addition, the Information Service for Parents (ISP) programme delivers information on mental and physical health topics to support parents and parents-to-be. There are a wide range of topics relating to mental health covered including ante-natal and post-natal depression, and the importance of seeking professional help to address mental health issues in both parents and young children. The annual cost of delivering the ISP is £250,000, but we cannot ascribe a precise value to mental health given the breadth of issues it covers.

  • Andrew Percy – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    Andrew Percy – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Andrew Percy on 2016-03-24.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Health, whether his Department plans to use the inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) registry to get an accurate number of people living with IBD.

    Jane Ellison

    The IBD (inflammatory bowel disease) Registry provides a United Kingdom-wide repository of anonymised IBD adult and paediatric patient data for prospective audit and research purposes. Patients must consent for their data to be added to the registry. The Healthcare Quality Improvement Partnership (HQIP) has allocated transitional funding this year to incorporate IBD audit data collection into the IBD Registry, providing an enhanced system for data capture and quality improvement that will be available to every hospital in the UK. This will allow the entry of data locally and support service improvement. Initially the focus will be for IBD patients receiving biologic treatments, but the system will address other key aspects of IBD care in the future.

    The second step of data collection will be to focus on new patients with IBD to begin to understand the incidence of IBD in the UK. This picture will build up over a number of years and be dependent on the engagement of clinicians.

    No specific assessment of the potential effects on healthcare due to the introduction of a registry of patients with IBD in England has been made. However, the data provided through the register can support National Health Service services in areas such as the assessment of local IBD populations as well as in measuring incidence and outcomes with services in other parts of the UK.

    Although there is no direct Department funding, HQIP have given £290,000 for a year’s transition funding to join the audit data with the registry.

    The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) recommends faecal calprotectin testing as an option to help doctors distinguish between inflammatory bowel diseases, such as Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis, and non-inflammatory bowel diseases, such as irritable bowel syndrome.

    The NICE IBD Quality Standard states that general practitioners (GP) and GP practices should ensure that testing is offered and clinical commissioning groups should ensure the diagnostic services are in place to support this.

  • Stephen Timms – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    Stephen Timms – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Stephen Timms on 2016-05-04.

    To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, what checks his Department makes on PAYE real time information data before it is forwarded to the Department for Work and Pensions to calculate universal credit.

    Mr David Gauke

    Data validation rules are built in to stop obvious errors at the point of filing. In addition, there are matching rules built within the system to ensure that the information matches to the correct customer. HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) and the Department for Work and Pensions continually monitor the quality of Real Time Information to understand errors. HMRC uses this information to support customer education and if appropriate develop system enhancements to prevent errors occurring.

  • David Lammy – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    David Lammy – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by David Lammy on 2016-06-09.

    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, how many asylum seekers who were granted refugee status were not provided with a (a) biometric residence permit and (b) National Insurance number by her Department before their 28-day asylum support ceased in the latest period for which figures are available.

    James Brokenshire

    If an asylum seeker is granted refugee status written confirmation that there are no longer any restrictions on them living and working in the UK is posted to them. A Biometric Residence Permit and National Insurance number is also sent, which can then be used as evidence of their immigration status and in support of any application for benefits.

    Statistics on the number of such cases are not recorded on centrally collated statistical databases and could only be obtained at disproportionate cost by examination of individual case records.

  • Baroness Helic – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office

    Baroness Helic – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Baroness Helic on 2016-09-06.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government, ahead of the referendum in the entity of Republika Srpska on 25 September, what support they have given High Representative Valentin Inzko to enable him to exercise his mandate under the Dayton Peace Accord to uphold the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Bosnia and Herzegovina.

    Baroness Anelay of St Johns

    As members of the Peace Implementation Council, the UK issued a statement on 30 August 2016 urging the Republika Srpska authorities not to hold the proposed referendum and making clear our support for the High Representative. The Government is in close contact with the High Representative and international partners about the proposed referendum and is committed to upholding the territorial integrity and structure of Bosnia and Herzegovina (BiH) as a single, sovereign state comprising two entities.

  • Justin Madders – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    Justin Madders – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Justin Madders on 2016-10-18.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Health, what level of funding has been (a) requested by and (b) allocated to NHS England for (i) 2017-18, (ii) 2018-19 and (iii) 2019-20.

    Mr Philip Dunne

    The Spending Review settled the level of funding that the National Health Service in England will receive over the course of this Parliament, with the NHS England Chief Executive a full party to the discussions with HM Treasury. As the Chief Executive said at the time the Spending Review was announced, “our case for the NHS has been heard and actively supported’’. Regular discussions around the finances of the NHS continue to take place between my Rt. hon. Friend the Secretary of State and the Chief Executive of NHS England.

    The NHS will be receiving £10 billion more per year in real terms by 2020-21 compared to 2014-15. The following table sets out the financial settlement allocated to the NHS.

    NHS budget for Spending Review period

    Revenue and capital combined

    2015-16

    2016-17

    2017-18

    2018-19

    2019-20

    2020-21

    Total (£ million)

    100,500

    105,975

    109,337

    111,824

    114,929

    119,035

    Real terms increase on previous year (%)

    3.7%

    1.3%

    0.3%

    0.7%

    1.3%

    Real terms increase on 2015-16 baseline (£ billion)

    3.8

    5.3

    5.8

    6.7

    8.4

    Real terms increase on 2014-15 baseline (£ billion)

    2.0

    6.0

    7.0

    8.0

    9.0

    10.0

    Note:

    These figures differ from the NHS Total Departmental Expenditure Limit (TDEL) figures announced at the Spending Review due to a number of technical adjustments, including transfers of functions. The main transfer of function is the move of 0-5 public health services from NHS England to local government. There are a small number of other transfers including the move of the Leadership Academy to Health Education England. To ensure comparability of numbers, in this table £500 million has been removed from the 2015-16 baseline, representing 6 months of funding for 0-5 public health services between 1 April and 30 September 2015 and these other planned transfers.

  • Clive Lewis – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Energy and Climate Change

    Clive Lewis – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Energy and Climate Change

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Clive Lewis on 2015-11-05.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, with reference to chart 4.2 of the Annual Fuel Poverty Statistics Report 2015, published by her Department on 28 May 2015, what proportion of the (a) local authority, (b) owner-occupied, (c) private rented and (d) housing association households are in fuel poverty.

    Andrea Leadsom

    The number and proportion of fuel poor households in England by tenure are shown below:

    Tenure

    Local Authority

    Owner occupied

    Private Rented

    Housing Association

    2003 – Number of fuel poor households (000s)

    496

    1,220

    483

    215

    2003 – Proportion of households (%)

    21

    8

    25

    14

    2013 – Number of fuel poor households (000s)

    193

    1,104

    816

    234

    2013 – Proportion of households (%)

    12

    8

    19

    10

  • The Countess of Mar – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Transport

    The Countess of Mar – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Transport

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by The Countess of Mar on 2015-12-02.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government further to the Written Answer by Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon on 22 July (HL1265), how they reconcile their claim that 95 per cent of the cabin air samples taken in the Cranfield air quality study showed no detectable amounts of tri-cresyl phosphate (TCP) or tri-ortho-cresyl phosphate (TOCP) when Part 2 of the final report shows that TCP and TOCP were detected in 25 per cent of the 100 samples.

    Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon

    The study itself concludes that “It is notable that no detectable amount of TOCP or other TCPs were found in over 95% of the cabin air samples.” The Government has taken this peer-reviewed finding at face value and sees no reason to dispute the conclusions of the report.

    The study was published in two parts, Part 1 containing the conclusions and Part 2 setting out the raw data. During analysis some of the data samples in Part 2 were discounted from the study due to various reasons such as fault with the equipment.