Tag: 2016

  • Lord Clement-Jones – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    Lord Clement-Jones – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Clement-Jones on 2016-02-24.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government when they expect a reimbursement decision on each of the drugs launched since June 2015 that were affected by the pause in listing new drugs on the Cancer Drugs Fund list.

    Lord Prior of Brampton

    Since June 2015, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) has published final technology appraisal guidance on the cancer drugs/indications listed in the following table.

    Topic title

    Final guidance publication

    Melanoma (unresectable, metastatic) – pembrolizumab (after ipilimumab) [TA357]

    October 2015

    Melanoma (unresectable, metastatic, ipilimumab naive) – pembrolizumab [TA366]

    November 2015

    Multiple myeloma – panobinostat (post 1 prior therapy) [TA380]

    January 2016

    Melanoma (advanced, unresectable, metastatic) – nivolumab [TA384]

    February 2016

    NHS England has advised that it envisages, under the new arrangements for the Cancer Drugs Fund (CDF), that a greater number of cancer drugs will be funded from baseline commissioning. Under the new process, any drugs that receive either a draft recommendation for routine commissioning or, where uncertainty exists, a recommendation for use within the CDF, will receive interim funding from the CDF from the point of marketing authorisation.

    NICE has advised that it is unable to provide a forecast as to when this will occur for technology appraisals published during the first year of the new CDF as this will depend on a number of factors including the value proposition put forward by manufacturers.

  • David Anderson – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Energy and Climate Change

    David Anderson – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Energy and Climate Change

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by David Anderson on 2016-03-24.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, whether her Department holds data on the amount of heat a tonne of biomass gives off when burned compared to a tonne of coal; and if she will make a statement.

    Andrea Leadsom

    The Department annually publishes the Digest of United Kingdom Energy Statistics (DUKES). Appendix A of DUKES contains data on the calorific value of fuels:

    https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/447648/ DUKES_2015_Annex_A.pdf.

    The gross calorific value of dry biomass fuels, (the DUKES values have been corrected for moisture content), vary between 10 gigajoules per tonne (GJ/t) for poultry litter and 24 GJ/t for meat and bone meal. A typical dry wood based fuel has an energy content close to 19 GJ/t. Treatments such as torrefaction or charcoal production increase the energy density of biomass derived materials. However these manufactured biomass fuels are not commonly used for heating in the UK.

    A tonne of coal can also vary in heat content, depending on the rank of the coal, but lies between 24 GJ/t for bituminous coal as used in the pulp, paper and printing industries and 34 GJ/t of fuel for anthracite used in households. Typical bituminous house coal has a gross heat content of 30 GJ/t.

    These values represent the maximum heat available from a fuel in a laboratory test. The useful heat provided by combustion of that fuel to the business or home will depend on the efficiency of the combustor in which it is burnt and the design of the energy distribution system. The combustor efficiency can range from an open fire which may provide 20% of the energy in the fuel as useful heat, to modern condensing wood pellet boilers with gross efficiencies around 90%.

  • Alan Brown – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Work and Pensions

    Alan Brown – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Work and Pensions

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Alan Brown on 2016-04-29.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, pursuant to the Answer of 13 April 2016 to Question 32963, how many people who have personal independence payments with enhanced mobility payments have initial awards of (a) three years or less and (b) greater than three years before further re-assessment is required.

    Justin Tomlinson

    The review date is set at 12 months before the end of the award so there are no changes to the benefit paid before the re-assessment takes place.

    As at 31st January 2016, there were 218,270 claims in payment with enhanced mobility payments, of which;

    (a) 112,340 had an initial award that had a review date of three years or less

    (b) 105,960 had an initial award that had a review date of greater than three years.

    This is unpublished data and, as such, it does not meet the quality standard required for official statistics publication. It should be used with caution and it may be subject to future revision.

    Notes;

    1) The source of the data is the PIP computer system.

    2) Figures are correct as at 31st January 2016 and have been rounded to the nearest 10.

    3) Figures include both new claims and reassessment claims, and normal rules and special rules for the terminally ill claims.

    4) Figures are for Great Britain.

    5) We have provided data based on when the initial award’s review date was set to be, as this is the point at which the claimant would be invited to undertake an award review (i.e. further reassessment of their claim). The award review date occurs exactly 12 months before the initial claim end date.

  • Tulip Siddiq – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Transport

    Tulip Siddiq – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Transport

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Tulip Siddiq on 2016-06-07.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, if he will make an assessment of the potential environmental and safety benefits of using single rather than double-decker buses during off-peak times on journeys with small numbers of passengers.

    Andrew Jones

    Whether to use single- or double-decker buses must be an operational decision for local bus operators. They are in the best position to understand and appreciate which type of vehicle to use on their bus routes, at which times during the day.

    The Government is committed to helping local bus operators to operate more environmentally friendly buses. Measures such as the Green Bus Fund, awarded £89m from 2009-2014 for over 1200 low emission buses, including both single and double-decker buses. The £30m Low Emission Bus Scheme, announced last year, is available to fund both single- and double-decker low emission buses and supporting infrastructure.

  • Kevin Foster – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Work and Pensions

    Kevin Foster – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Work and Pensions

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Kevin Foster on 2016-09-02.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, what forms of medical evidence his Department accepts for personal independence payments claims from a person suffering from (a) myalgic encephalopathy and (b) other illnesses with variable symptoms that permit part-time work.

    Penny Mordaunt

    Personal Independence Payment (PIP) is a non-means-tested, non-taxable cash benefit that is paid regardless of the employment status of the claimant. It has been designed to take full account of fluctuating and variable conditions.

    The Department encourages claimants to provide as much relevant evidence as necessary to support their claim. The “How your disability affects you” form and accompanying guidance sets out the range of information that can help the Department reach a decision. The guidance for Health Professionals also sets out sources of further evidence which could help inform their advice to the Department (Section 2.3 Further Evidence); this includes family members, carers or anyone else who supports them.

    This guidance can be accessed on the gov.uk website:

    https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/547146/pip-assessment-guide.pdf

    “

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

    Lord Blencathra – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Blencathra on 2016-10-19.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the Written Answer by Lord Prior of Brampton on 18 July (HL1279) and in the light of the recent report by NHS Digital concerning social media pressure and mental health, whether they will now conduct that research.

    Lord Prior of Brampton

    The National Institute for Health Research and the Department’s Policy Research Programme have no current plans to commission research into the possible mental and psychological impact on children of using Twitter and Facebook.

    In their report, the Mental Health Taskforce recommended that the United Kingdom should aspire to be a world leader in the development and application of new mental health research. The Taskforce asked specifically that the Department, working with relevant partners, should publish a report by February 2017 setting out a ten year strategy for mental health research. The final ten-year strategy is planned for publication in February 2017 and will identify future needs in mental health research. This will include a specific focus on the mental health of children and young people.

  • Lord Alton of Liverpool – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office

    Lord Alton of Liverpool – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Alton of Liverpool on 2016-01-11.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they have any plans to meet the United Nations Special Advisor on the Prevention of Genocide to discuss the situation of Christians and Yazidis in Syria and Iraq.

    Baroness Anelay of St Johns

    The British Government has received a number of recent representations on these issues from Parliament and members of the public and is responding in writing.

    We condemn in the strongest possible terms the atrocities committed by Daesh against all civilians, including Christians, Mandeans, Yazidis, and other minorities, as well as the majority Muslim population who continue to bear the brunt of Daesh’s brutality. The UK has led efforts within the UN to tackle and condemn Daesh and on the protection of civilians more widely. For example, we co-sponsored the UN Human Rights Council Resolution mandating the UN to investigate and report on Daesh abuses.

    It is a long-standing Government policy that any judgements on whether genocide has occurred are a matter for the international judicial system rather than governments or other non-judicial bodies.

    Ultimately, the only way to protect Christians, Yazidis and other minorities in the region from Daesh is by defeating this terrible organisation, which in turn requires, amongst other things, ending the conflict in Syria. The Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr Cameron), set out the UK’s comprehensive strategy for defeating Daesh and finding a political settlement to the Syria conflict in his response to the Foreign Affairs Committee on 26 November 2015.

    The joint Office of the United Nations Special Adviser on the Prevention of Genocide and the Special Adviser on the Responsibility to Protect (the Office) are engaged with these issues and publish much of their activity online, including statements in relation to the situation of Christians and other minorities in Syria and Iraq. Our officials maintain regular contact with officials from the Office to discuss issues related to the prevention of genocide and mass atrocities. The Government provides funding for the Office, including for their work with religious leaders and faith based organisations in the Middle East and North Africa region, aimed at the prevention of incitement to violence that could lead to atrocity crimes.

  • Andy Slaughter – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Justice

    Andy Slaughter – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Justice

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Andy Slaughter on 2016-02-03.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many (a) drugs of each type and (b) other items were confiscated from visitors to each prison in each year since 2010.

    Andrew Selous

    We have a range of security measures and searching techniques to prevent smuggling into prisons and to detect items of contraband including drugs. We have legislated to make smuggling New Psychoactive Substances (NPS) into prison illegal, use specially trained dogs to detect illicit drugs and will evaluate the use of Body Scanners to reveal drugs concealed within the body.

    We refer all visitors to prisons found in possession of drugs to the police. We also use closed visits, where the prisoner and visitor are prevented from physical contact, to deal with visitors and prisoners who smuggle or are suspected of conveying drugs through visits.

    The table below shows the number and type of drugs confiscated from visitors in each prison for the period 01 October 2015 to 31 December 2015. Prior to 01 October 2015 the Incident Reporting System (IRS) did not specifically record who possessed the drugs found.

    Number of incidents where drugs were found in visitor’s possession, October to December 2015, by establishment and drug type

    Establishment

    Drug type

    Number of incidents12

    Aylesbury

    Cannabis

    3

    Birmingham

    NPS: Black Mamba

    1

    Brinsford

    Cannabis

    1

    Unknown

    1

    Bristol

    Other

    1

    Bullingdon

    NPS: Spice

    1

    Cardiff

    Amphetamines

    1

    Buprenorphine/Subutex

    1

    Heroin

    1

    NPS: Spice

    1

    Other

    1

    Unknown

    1

    Channings Wood

    Heroin

    1

    Chelmsford

    Cannabis

    2

    NPS: Spice

    2

    Coldingley

    Unknown

    1

    Doncaster

    Amphetamines

    1

    NPS: Other

    1

    Other

    2

    Unknown

    3

    Dovegate

    Other

    1

    Unknown

    1

    Elmley

    Cocaine

    1

    Featherstone

    Unknown

    1

    Feltham

    NPS: Other

    1

    NPS: Spice

    1

    Forest Bank

    NPS: Black Mamba

    1

    Unknown

    1

    Guys Marsh

    Unknown

    1

    Haverigg

    Unknown

    3

    High Down

    Unknown

    1

    Highpoint

    NPS: Other

    1

    NPS: Spice

    2

    Hewell

    Cannabis

    3

    NPS: Other

    1

    NPS: Spice

    2

    Other

    1

    Steroids

    1

    Holme House

    NPS: Spice

    1

    Humber

    Amphetamines

    1

    Lancaster Farms

    Unknown

    1

    Leeds

    Amphetamines

    1

    Cocaine

    1

    NPS: Other

    1

    Lindholme

    Cannabis

    1

    NPS: Spice

    1

    Unknown

    1

    Lowdham Grange

    Cannabis Plant

    1

    Manchester

    Cannabis

    1

    NPS: Spice

    1

    Moorland

    NPS: Spice

    3

    Other

    1

    Unknown

    1

    Morton Hall

    NPS: Spice

    1

    New Hall

    Unknown

    1

    Northumberland

    Unknown

    2

    Norwich

    Heroin

    1

    Oakwood

    Heroin

    1

    Other

    1

    Unknown

    1

    Onley

    NPS: Spice

    1

    Steroids

    1

    Unknown

    1

    Parc

    Unknown

    1

    Peterborough Male

    Other

    1

    Peterborough Female

    Crack

    1

    Heroin

    1

    Ranby

    NPS: Other

    1

    Risley

    Cannabis

    1

    NPS: Spice

    2

    Unknown

    2

    Rochester

    Cannabis

    1

    Crack

    1

    Unknown

    2

    Stoke Heath

    NPS: Other

    1

    The Mount

    Cannabis

    1

    Heroin

    1

    NPS: Other

    1

    NPS: Spice

    2

    Verne

    NPS: Other

    1

    Wayland

    NPS: Spice

    2

    Wymott

    NPS: Other

    1

    (1) Number of incidents where each drug type were found.

    (2) Where establishment is not listed, no confiscations were reported in the period

    Data Sources and Quality
    These figures have been drawn from the NOMS Incident Reporting System. Care is taken when processing and analysing the returns but the detail collected is subject to the inaccuracies inherent in any large scale recording system.

  • Phil Boswell – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills

    Phil Boswell – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Phil Boswell on 2016-02-24.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, what representations his Department received on the requirements to be set for businesses in the retail and commercial enterprise sector to qualify for funding under the apprenticeship programme before those requirements were determined.

    Nick Boles

    In England, to qualify for apprenticeships funding, an apprenticeship offered in any sector must comply with the Skills Funding Agency’s funding rules: https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/sfa-funding-rules-2016-to-2017.

    “

  • Stuart C. McDonald – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    Stuart C. McDonald – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Stuart C. McDonald on 2016-03-24.

    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, what independent scrutiny her Department commissioned of reports of invalid and questionable results in English Language tests conducted by ETS.

    James Brokenshire

    We are disappointed by the decision of the recent Upper Tribunal. Once we have the full determination we will carefully consider next steps, including appealing the decision.