UKPOL.CO.UK

Tag: 2016

  • Richard Fuller – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    Richard Fuller – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Richard Fuller on 2016-04-22.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Health, what assessment he has made of the potential effect on patient welfare of proposals made by some clinical commissioning groups to discontinue funding IVF treatment.

    Jane Ellison

    The level of provision of infertility treatment, as for all health services they commission, is decided by local clinical commissioning groups (CCGs) and will take into account the needs of the population overall. The CCG’s decisions are underpinned by clinical insight and knowledge of local healthcare needs. As such, provision of services will vary in response to local needs.

    The Government has made it clear that blanket restrictions on treatment are unacceptable and all decisions on treatment should be made by doctors based on a patient’s individual clinical needs and in line with the National Institute for health and Care Excellence guidelines.

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

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

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

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government, in the light of the fact that the Eastern Europe region remains the only region in the UN system yet to produce a Secretary-General, and the fact that seven of the declared candidates for the position are from Eastern Europe, whether, in accordance with United Nations General Assembly Resolution 60/286 of 9 October 2006 on Revitalisation of the work of the General Assembly, they are fully committed to giving due regard to regional rotation” in the selection of the UN Secretary-General.”

    Baroness Anelay of St Johns

    We have actively campaigned to reform the selection process for a UN Secretary-General. We want greater transparency, a structured process and a gender diverse field. These efforts are designed to ensure we get the best person for the job. We do not subscribe to the notion of regional rotation, but are looking for a candidate with integrity, a proven track record, first class communication skills, suitable and relevant experience and unimpeachable character. They should be committed to transparency and accountability, have strong leadership skills, a bold vision for an activist UN at the heart of the rules-based system, and be committed to cost-effective management and reform.

  • Lord Smith of Hindhead – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    Lord Smith of Hindhead – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Smith of Hindhead on 2016-07-20.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government how many women have been admitted to hospital in England and Wales as a result of female genital mutilation in each year between 2010 and 2015.

    Lord Prior of Brampton

    This information is not available in the format requested.

  • Steve Rotheram – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Work and Pensions

    Steve Rotheram – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Work and Pensions

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Steve Rotheram on 2016-10-11.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, what steps he is taking to safeguard the jobs of EU nationals living in the UK after the UK leaves the EU.

    Damian Hinds

    Our country remains open for business. Employment is at a record high with a almost a million new businesses in our country since 2010 and we will always welcome those with the skills, the drive and the expertise to make our nation better still. The Prime Minister has been clear that she wants to protect the status of EU nationals already living here, and the only circumstances in which that wouldn’t be possible is if British citizens’ rights in European member states were not protected.

  • Kevin Brennan – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills

    Kevin Brennan – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Kevin Brennan on 2016-01-04.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, if he will meet members of the Manufacturing Commission to discuss its report, entitled Industrial Evolution, published in October 2015.

    Anna Soubry

    The Government’s top priority is to continue creating a highly competitive business environment that makes the UK an attractive location for new manufacturing investment in sustainable processes. We are protecting spending on innovation and the cutting-edge smart manufacturing technologies that will encourage digital, virtual, resource-efficient factories in the future. The High Value Manufacturing Catapult has skills, expertise and equipment available to help partner companies improve the efficiency and sustainability of their processes. As part of Autumn Statement 2015, my Rt Hon Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced that funding to the nine existing Catapults would increase in real terms over the Spending Review period ensuring the UK remains a world leader in high-value manufacturing.

    In addition, we are taking into account UK business opportunities during negotiations on the EU Circular Economy proposals which include aims to improve business sustainability, resource and energy efficiency.

    At the Summer Budget 2015, the Chancellor announced a review of the business energy efficiency tax landscape and Government launched a consultation in September. The consultation set out proposals for delivering a simpler and more stable environment for business that will reduce administrative costs and improve incentives to invest in energy efficiency. This will help increase the productivity of UK businesses, save carbon emissions and ensure secure energy supplies. The Government is currently considering all consultation responses and is likely to publish its formal response at Budget 2016.

    I would be delighted to receive further representations from the Manufacturing Commission on their recent Industrial Evolution report.

  • Caroline Lucas – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Work and Pensions

    Caroline Lucas – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Work and Pensions

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Caroline Lucas on 2016-01-29.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, what information he holds on the average length of time allocated for face-to-face appointments for personal independence payment claimants attending the Queen’s Road assessment centre in Brighton; and if he will make a statement.

    Justin Tomlinson

    DWP does not set a time limit for face-to-face assessments. Consultations take as long as necessary in order to reach the evidence-based conclusions on individual cases. Atos Healthcare assumes for scheduling purposes an average length of 1.5 hours for the Health Professional to see the claimant and to write up the report.

  • Holly Lynch – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Work and Pensions

    Holly Lynch – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Work and Pensions

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Holly Lynch on 2016-02-24.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, what assessment he has made of the effect of changes to employment and support allowance for new claimants in the work-related activity group on the mental health of those affected.

    Priti Patel

    We have fully assessed the impacts on equality of the welfare measures in the Bill and the wider budget, meeting our obligations as set out in the Public Sector Equality Duty. An impact assessment was published on 20 July last year.

  • 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 2016-03-17.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government when they plan to publish a response to their consultation on accredited safe havens, Protecting personal health and care data: a consultation on proposals to introduce new regulations, which closed on 8 August 2014.

    Lord Prior of Brampton

    The Department received 278 responses to the 2014 consultation Protecting personal health and care data, but was unable to publish the Coalition Government’s response to that consultation before the 2015 election.

    The consultation set the clear ambition to move as quickly as possible to a future state where:

    – the Health and Social Care Information Centre (HSCIC) is the place for holding identifiable health and care information at the national level;

    – access to data is more automated so that routine functions, including many commissioning functions, do not require access to identifiable data; and

    – consent is used more widely as the means for sharing identifiable information.

    Analysis of consultation responses demonstrated no obvious consensus about the function, purpose, number and controls required for Accredited Safe Havens (ASHs) to operate. Since the 2014 consultation, HSCIC, working with NHS England, local government, Public Health England and other key stakeholders has committed to the delivery of the future state within two years, without the need for interim ASHs. Delivery of these functions by HSCIC has the added benefits of:

    – increasing the likelihood of the public that there are robust protections and safeguards in place for their health and care data and information and;

    – reducing the need for the health and care system to use identifiable data as a basis for delivering their functions.

    The Government has concluded that the focus should be on supporting the HSCIC and NHS England in taking forward the future state as soon as possible. This will address the need to support integration and, in the longer term, to ensure flexibility is built in to reflect future priorities and also developments in technology and data.

    In September 2015, The Secretary of State for Health commissioned the Care Quality Commission to undertake a review of data security in the National Health Service, and in parallel commissioned Dame Fiona Caldicott, the National Data Guardian, to undertake an independent review of data security and consent, to:

    – Develop new data security standards;

    – Devise a method of testing compliance with the new standards, and;

    – Propose a new consent/opt-out model for data sharing.

    The National Data Guardian’s independent review will report shortly and the government will consult on the recommendations and respond to them in due course.


  • Liz McInnes – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    Liz McInnes – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Liz McInnes on 2016-04-22.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Health, what steps his Department is taking to help reduce the number of hospitals which do not have a multi-disciplinary diabetes foot care team as advised in NICE guidance.

    Jane Ellison

    The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) has published clinical guidance and quality standards on the treatment of diabetes and its complications. The NICE Diabetes Quality Standard is clear that people with diabetes who are at risk of foot ulceration should receive regular reviews by a foot protection team in accordance with its clinical guidance. The Health and Social Care Act (2012) places a duty on NHS England to have regard to the NICE Quality Standards. Clinical commissioning groups should also have regard to them in planning and delivering services, as part of a general duty to secure a continuous improvement in quality.

    Our mandate to NHS England for next year includes an objective for NHS England “to lead a step change in the NHS in preventing ill health and supporting people to live healthier lives”.

    There has been an increase in the provision of access to a Multidisciplinary Diabetes Foot care Teams and an indicator measuring performance is included within the National Diabetes Audit to enable progress to be tracked. The focus to date has been on improving access to assessment and treatment by a specialist team. In terms of the proportion of hospitals with a Multidisciplinary Diabetes Foot Care Team, this was 60% in 2011, 72% in 2013, and the figure for 2015 will be published soon as part of the National Diabetes Inpatient Audit 2015 report.

  • Carol Monaghan – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills

    Carol Monaghan – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Carol Monaghan on 2016-06-06.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, what mechanism exists to ensure that research proposals which have been judged to cross the boundary between the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council and the UK Space Agency proceed to peer review.

    Joseph Johnson

    Staff in the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC), the other research councils and the UK Space Agency (UKSA) discuss research proposals on a case-by-case basis where there is cross-disciplinarity between organisational boundaries. The EPSRC operates a remit query service to assist applicants in establishing the best council for their submission. Where a proposal is received by EPSRC without using this remit service, EPSRC identify and discuss the proposal with the most relevant organisation to ensure that, where applicable, co-funding can be secured and that appropriate reviewers can be requested to cover the breadth of research disciplines covered in the proposal. Following supportive peer review the proposal would then, in the case of EPSRC, be tabled at an appropriate funding panel for authorisation or rejection in open competition with other proposals.