UKPOL.CO.UK

Category: Speeches

  • Nic Dakin – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Education

    Nic Dakin – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Education

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Nic Dakin on 2016-03-23.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Education, what steps she is taking to ensure that local authorities are required to take action on education and early years settings that intentionally exclude disabled children and do not meet their legal duties to such children under the Equality Act 2010.

    Edward Timpson

    Promoting equality in education settings is a priority for this Government. In combination with our guidance to schools on managing medical conditions, the Equality Act 2010 provides a broad basis for ensuring that disabled pupils are included and supported to achieve their full potential.

    The Equality Act requires all schools (whether maintained or academy) to produce an accessibility plan. These plans ensure that all aspects of school life are accessible to disabled pupils. The Act also requires Local Authorities to produce accessibility strategies with the same aims as the school-level plan, but with different coverage. There is no evidence of schools or early years settings systematically refusing to accept disabled children. However, we do take action where individual cases are brought to our attention.

    Our Early Implementer Package for the new extended childcare offer will include testing how we can improve access for children with SEN and disabilities. This will provide critical information before the national rollout.

    Any exclusions from school must be lawful, reasonable and fair. Schools have a legal duty not to discriminate against a pupil because of a protected characteristic. The statutory guidance on exclusion emphasises the importance of early intervention to address underlying causes of disruptive behaviour, including an assessment of whether suitable provision is in place to support any SEN or disability a pupil may have. It also states that headteachers should, as far as possible, avoid excluding permanently any pupil with a statement of SEN.

    In certain circumstances, governing bodies must review head teachers’ decisions to exclude and have the power to reinstate a pupil. Where a governing body upholds a permanent exclusion, parents can request that the decision is reviewed by an independent review panel. However, the governing body has the final say on whether the pupil can return to the school. Parents can request that a SEN expert provides impartial advice to the panel.

    Parents can also make a claim to the First-tier Tribunal (SEN and Disabilities) when it is alleged that an exclusion relates to disability discrimination. The Tribunal has the power to order the pupil’s reinstatement.

    When Ofsted inspect a school and look at the behaviour management policies they can also consider whether the school is disproportionately excluding pupils with disabilities and can use this to inform their assessment.

  • 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 2016-05-03.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government what mechanisms are in place to safeguard patients from delays to return hospital appointments beyond the clinically recommended time.

    Lord Prior of Brampton

    All follow up appointments (also known as planned, surveillance or recall appointments) should take place when clinically appropriate. It is for clinicians to make decisions on when they see patients, in line with their clinical priority, and patients should not experience undue delay at any stage of their referral, diagnosis or treatment. Moreover, the appropriate interval for follow up appointments will vary between different services or specialties, and between individual patients, depending on the severity of their condition.

    To ensure that patients are seen at the appropriate time, NHS England guidance is clear that when patients on planned lists are clinically ready for their care to commence and reach the date for their planned appointment, they should either receive that appointment or be transferred to an active waiting list. At that point, a waiting time clock will be started and their wait reported in the relevant statistical return, so that patients are not waiting on ‘hidden’ lists.

    Furthermore, the Care Quality Commission (CQC) also assesses providers against the new fundamental standards of safety and quality below which care should never fail. One of these standards requires that care and treatment must be appropriate and reflect service users’ needs and preferences. Another requires that care and treatment must be provided in a safe way. The CQC will require a provider to improve where it is not meeting these standards.

    No assessment has been made of the clinical risks to patients of follow-up appointments being scheduled beyond clinically recommended times, as the risks will also vary between services, specialties and patients. It is for clinicians to make these judgements.

    The information requested on delays to review outpatient appointments is not collected centrally.

  • Lord Patten – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

    Lord Patten – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Patten on 2016-06-20.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the Written Answer by Lord Gardiner of Kimble on 25 May (HL39), what discussions they have had with the National Trust about badger culls; what was the outcome of those discussions; and whether they will publish the results of those discussions.

    Lord Gardiner of Kimble

    Defra officials have regular conversations with the National Trust about the Government’s 25-year strategy to eradicate bovine tuberculosis (TB) in England. The National Trust has published its view on badgers and TB on its website.

  • Christopher Chope – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Communities and Local Government

    Christopher Chope – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Communities and Local Government

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Christopher Chope on 2016-09-05.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, what estimate the Government has made of the (a) amount and (b) proportion that net revenue expenditure by local authorities will increase in England in (i) 2017-18, (ii) 2018-19 and (iii) 2019-20.

    Mr Marcus Jones

    Government does not estimate local authority net revenue expenditure. Local authorities estimate how they intend to spend their money for the next financial year and submit this information in Revenue Account (RA) budget returns. The returns from all 443 local authorities in England are compiled by the Department for Communities and Local Government. Revenue Outturn statistics published by DCLG at the end of the financial year show how local authorities actually allocate their expenditure. The latest information on the amount of net revenue expenditure estimated by local authorities in England is for 2016/17. It is available here: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/532932/RA_Budget_2016-17_Statistical_Release.pdf

    Local authority core spending power provides an estimate of the amount of funding available to local authorities. Local authority core spending power figures setting out indicative figures for the potential income from core components for 2016/17-2019/20 are available here: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/core-spending-power-final-local-government-finance-settlement-2016-to-2017

  • 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 2016-10-20.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Health, how much of the £1.25 billion allocated to children and adolescent mental health services in the March 2015 Budget for the next five years has already been spent; on what that funding has been spent on; how much of the remainder of that sum is due to be allocated in each of the next four years; and on what he plans to spend that remaining budget in (a) Liverpool, Wavertree constituency, (b) Liverpool, (c) England and (d) each region.

    Nicola Blackwood

    To date, £393 million has been invested to drive an ambitious five year transformation programme to improve children and young people’s mental health. This has been invested as follows:

    2015-16

    – £75 million for clinical commissioning groups (CCGs) to transform local services through development and implementation of Local Sustainability and Transformation Plans; and

    – £68 million to fund further roll out and expansion of the Children and Young People’s Improving Access to Psychological Therapies Programme (CYP IAPT), improvements to perinatal mental health care, investment in inpatient services for children and young people, build workforce capability, and support innovation and development of online support.

    2016-17:

    – £119 million has been allocated to CCGs to transform local services through delivery of their Local Transformation Plans; and

    – £131 million is for workforce and system development to support local transformation plans, a proportion of this will be allocated to commissioners for CYP IAPT and perinatal mental healthcare.

    £4 million was retained by the Department to fund central projects.

    A breakdown of funding at local levels is not available centrally and has not been published.

  • Poulter – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    Poulter – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Poulter on 2015-11-09.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Health, what estimate he has made of the proportion of junior doctors not rostered on at evenings and weekends as a result of the terms of the current junior doctor contract.

    Ben Gummer

    NHS Employers’ evidence to the Review Body on Doctors’ and Dentists’ Remuneration – “Reform of national contracts for consultant doctors and doctors and dentists in training”1 – published in December 2014 during the hon. Member’s tenure as a Minister, included a profile of how the hours worked by doctors in training were spread across the week.

    We have evidence that hospital leaders consider the junior doctors’ contract to be a significant barrier to delivering more seven-day services. NHS Providers’ written evidence to the Review Body on Doctors’ and Dentists’ Remuneration on contract reform for consultants and doctors and dentists in training2 stated that the junior doctor contract is still a significant source of barriers to seven day working and reform of the junior doctor contract is also required to support trusts to deliver more seven-day services. In particular, the pay banding system for junior doctors needs to be reviewed. There were concerns from employers that the banding system is too complicated, can create “perverse incentives” for junior doctors and hospital management, and means that providing more seven-day services is unfeasible, since more junior doctors would be working outside core hours and receive premiums under the current banding system. NHS Providers also believe that more hours in a day and more days of the week need to be defined as core hours, as the current arrangement does not support the delivery of more seven-day services or reflect the needs and expectations of today’s patients.

    Future working patterns are for individual employers to determine. The evidence on doctors’ working patterns has not altered since the hon. Member was a Minister for Health.

    1 http://www.nhsemployers.org/your-workforce/pay-and-reward/pay/medical-pay/ddrb-evidence—in-detail/consultants-and-junior-doctors-contract-reform-submission-of-evidence-to-the-ddrb

    2 http://www.nhsproviders.org/resource-library/written-evidence-ddrb-special-remit/

    “

  • Carolyn Harris – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport

    Carolyn Harris – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Carolyn Harris on 2015-12-08.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, when the next Triennial Review of Gaming Machine Stake and Prize Limits will begin.

    Tracey Crouch

    The government, along with Gambling Commission colleagues, are in the process of evaluating the regulations which came into force in April this year which required customers in bookmakers to interact either over the counter or via account based play in order to stake over £50. The last triennial review of stakes and prizes was in 2013, and the findings of the evaluation will inform the timing of the start of the next review.

  • Julie Cooper – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Work and Pensions

    Julie Cooper – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Work and Pensions

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Julie Cooper on 2016-01-13.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, how many universal credit switch centres there are in (a) Burnley, (b) Lancashire and (c) the North West.

    Priti Patel

    There are two Universal Credit service centres in the North West – Bolton and Makerfield.

  • Lord Alton of Liverpool – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    Lord Alton of Liverpool – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Alton of Liverpool on 2016-02-04.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the Written Answer by Lord Prior of Brampton on 27 January (HL5039), whether the recently approved application by the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority to perform genome editing in human embryos by means of CRISPR-Cas9 will be performed on embryos specifically created for research or only on those considered to be surplus to infertility treatments; whether that research application included any application for the creation of embryos; and if not, why the person responsible requested that reference to surplus embryos should be removed from the research project title.

    Lord Prior of Brampton

    The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority has advised that this research project will make use of donated embryos that were originally created for treatment purposes. An application was not made to create embryos for the purposes of this research project.

    The removal of ‘surplus’ from the title does not reflect a change in the way embryos will be donated to the research.

  • Julian Knight – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    Julian Knight – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Julian Knight on 2016-03-02.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Health, how many legacy continuing health care cases are more than two years old and have payments outstanding (a) in England, (b) in the West Midlands and (c) at Birmingham Cross City Clinical Commissioning Group.

    Alistair Burt

    At the end of March 2013, the National Health Service had received approximately 59,000 requests to assess previously unassessed periods of care for NHS Continuing Healthcare eligibility.

    NHS England collects information on the number of these cases which are awaiting a decision on eligibility.

    As at 31 January 2016:

    (a) There were 15,716 requests to assess previously unassessed periods of care in England;

    (b) there were 848 requests to assess previously unassessed periods of care in the West Midlands; and

    (c) there were 260 requests to assess previously unassessed periods of care in Birmingham Cross City Clinical Commissioning Group.

    It is not possible to assess how many of these individuals may be entitled to redress payments until a full assessment of eligibility for NHS Continuing Healthcare is undertaken, in line with the principles and processes set out in the National Framework for NHS Continuing Healthcare and NHS-funded Nursing Care (November 2012) (revised).