Blog

  • 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 2016-02-24.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Health, what steps his Department is taking to ensure children and families created via surrogacy are treated equally.

    Jane Ellison

    A search of the Department’s central correspondence system shows that the Department received 22 representations that made direct or indirect reference to the report `Surrogacy in the UK: Myth Busting and Reform’ since it was published in November 2015.

    The Government has no current plans to change the legislation in respect of surrogacy arrangements.

  • Jess Phillips – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for International Development

    Jess Phillips – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for International Development

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Jess Phillips on 2016-02-24.

    To ask the Secretary of State for International Development, for what reason her Department cancelled Round Six of the UK Aid Match Fund; for what reason that cancellation was not announced earlier; for what reason that cancellation was not announced earlier; and what assessment she has made of the effect of that cancellation on charities who were developing proposals.

    Mr Desmond Swayne

    The UKAid Match scheme has been a clear success in matching pound for pound public donations to charity appeals for projects changing lives in some of the poorest countries in the world. A sign of success is that some projects have substantially exceeded their fundraising targets. This has led to the programme’s full allocation of £120M being reached earlier than planned. DFID announced that there would not be a further funding round under the current programme as soon as it became clear that the budget had been fully allocated.

    The Government is committed to doubling UK Aid Match. This will provide further opportunities for charities who were developing proposals, including those intended for Round 6, to secure match funding for their appeals. Details of future funding opportunities will be set out in due course, including on the UK Government website.

  • Stephen Timms – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    Stephen Timms – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Stephen Timms on 2016-02-24.

    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, what financial savings she expects to result from the transfer of processing Bangladeshi visa applications to New Delhi.

    James Brokenshire

    Decision making on UK visa applications lodged in Bangladesh was transferred from Dhaka to New Delhi in September 2014. Logistical changes like this are made for operational reasons and to refine the longstanding hub and spoke structure of the visa network, where applications are decided at regional decision making centres. The hub and spoke structure increases resilience, improves security and enhances decision quality. The overall customer experience is unchanged as applications can be submitted at the same visa application centres and continue to be decided within the same global customer service standard. As result of this transfer of work we also estimate a saving of around £0.6m per year.

  • Angela Smith – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    Angela Smith – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Angela Smith on 2016-02-24.

    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, how many project licence applications under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 were (a) granted and (b) refused on the basis of the results of the harm-benefit analysis carried out on those applications by the Animals in Science Regulation Unit.

    Karen Bradley

    I refer the Hon. Member to the response I previously provided to her question on 4 February 2016 (24508). The Home Office does not keep records of applications that have been rejected / refused or withdrawn at the concept or at the drafting stage.

  • Christopher Chope – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    Christopher Chope – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Christopher Chope on 2016-02-24.

    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, when she plans to reply to the letters dated 11 December 2015, 14 January and 10 February 2016 from the Dorset Police and Crime Commissioner on port security and border controls; and if she will place a copy of her responses in the Library.

    James Brokenshire

    The Home Secretary sent a response to the letters dated 11th December 2015 and 14th January 2016 on 22nd February 2016. She has not received a third letter. Responses will not be added to the library, this is not usual practice for private correspondence.

  • Mark Durkan – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    Mark Durkan – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Mark Durkan on 2016-02-24.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Health, if his Department, NHS England and NICE will publish work undertaken to analyse variation between areas in treatment for patients during the transition from the current Cancer Drugs Fund (CDF) to proposed a new CDF scheme.

    George Freeman

    NHS England has advised that it plans to publish analyses of variation in use of Cancer Drug Fund (CDF) drug indications according to geographical areas in the spring of 2016 and then routinely in the future for the new CDF.

  • Mark Durkan – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    Mark Durkan – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Mark Durkan on 2016-02-24.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Health, what steps his Department is taking to encourage routine use of NHS medicines throughout the NHS.

    George Freeman

    The Government is committed to ensuring that patients have access to new and effective treatments on terms that represent value to the National Health Service and the taxpayer.

    The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) is the independent body responsible for providing advice to the NHS on the clinical and cost-effectiveness of health technologies. NHS commissioners are legally required to fund treatments recommended by NICE technology appraisal guidance, ensuring consistent access to clinically and cost effective drugs across England.

    The Accelerated Access Review, chaired by Sir Hugh Taylor, will make recommendations to government later this spring on reforms to accelerate access for NHS patients to innovative medicines, medical technologies, diagnostics and digital products.

  • Mark Durkan – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    Mark Durkan – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Mark Durkan on 2016-02-24.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Health, what discussions his Department is having with NHS England on ensuring patients continuing access established precision treatments for colorectal cancer.

    George Freeman

    We are not aware of any discussions with NHS England on this matter.

  • Mark Durkan – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    Mark Durkan – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Mark Durkan on 2016-02-24.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Health, what steps his Department is taking to ensure that approved personalised medicines are available to patients with colorectal cancer.

    George Freeman

    On 24 September, the NHS England Board agreed the development of a Personalised Medicine Strategy for the National Health Service. Personalised medicine is a move away from a ‘one size fits all’ approach to the treatment and care of patients with a particular condition. It uses emergent approaches in areas such as diagnostic tests, functional genomic technologies, molecular pathways, data analytics and real time monitoring of conditions to better manage patients’ health and to target therapies to achieve the best outcomes in the management of a patient’s disease or predisposition to disease. The high-level vision and strategy is to create a Personalised Medicine service in the NHS embracing four overarching principles: the prediction and prevention of disease; more precise diagnoses; targeted and personalised interventions; and a more participatory role for patients.

    The independent Cancer Taskforce’s five-year strategy for cancer, Achieving World-Class Outcomes (July 2015), recommends improvements across the cancer pathway, with the aim of improving survival rates.

    NHS England is currently working with partners across the health system to determine how best to take forward the recommendations of the Cancer Taskforce. NHS England has appointed Cally Palmer as National Cancer Director to lead on implementation, as well as new cancer vanguards to redesign care and patient experience. She has set up a new Cancer Transformation Board to implement the strategy, and this met for the first time on Monday 25 January. There will also be a Cancer Advisory Group, chaired by Sir Harpal Kumar, to oversee and scrutinise the work of the Transformation Board.

    The Accelerated Access Review, chaired by Sir Hugh Taylor, will make recommendations to government on reforms to accelerate access for NHS patients to transformative new medicines and technologies making our country the best place in the world to design, develop and deploy these products. The terms of the reference for the review focus on faster access to innovations, which may include personalised medicines for the treatment of colorectal cancer.

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

    Andrew Gwynne – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Andrew Gwynne on 2016-02-24.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Health, if he will place in the Library a copy of the full impact assessment of the infected blood scheme reform consultation containing the assessment of the potential financial effects of proposed reforms on recipients; and if he will make a statement.

    Jane Ellison

    The impact assessment we have prepared is an analysis of the proposals and not the final outcome. We will publish the final full impact assessment when we announce the outcomes of the consultation.

    On page 32 – 34 of the consultation document itself the Department gives some indication of the impact of the proposed changes on individuals.

    All respondents to the consultation have been encouraged to say how the proposals will affect them in order that full consideration can be given to this and other issues before any final decisions are made on the reformed scheme.