Tag: 2016

  • 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 2016-10-11.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Health, what recent assessment he has made of the cost to the NHS of (a) foetal alcohol syndrome and (b) foetal alcohol syndrome disorders.

    Nicola Blackwood

    The Department has made no estimate of costs to the National Health Service for Fetal Alcohol Syndrome (FAS) and Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorders (FASD).

    The diagnosis for babies born with FAS may not be made easily at birth, and problems may present only later in childhood, for example at school. Estimates for the incidence of FASD are still more uncertain and relate to the lack of consensus on diagnostic criteria for these conditions.

  • Jeremy Lefroy – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    Jeremy Lefroy – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Jeremy Lefroy on 2016-01-05.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Health, what steps his Department is taking to recover costs from overseas patients and their insurers for NHS treatment.

    Alistair Burt

    National Health Service hospitals have a legal duty to make representations and recover funds from those overseas visitors who are not exempt from charge for their hospital treatment; this should be from the patient directly or via their insurance company.

    The Department’s Visitor and Migrant National Health Service Cost Recovery Programme aims to ensure that the NHS receives a fair contribution for the cost of healthcare it provides to non-United Kingdom residents and improve the amount of costs recovered from them or their home countries, to ensure the NHS is sustainable.

    Since the launch of its implementation plan in July 2014 the Cost Recovery Programme has achieved much progress including:

    – the launch of the European Health Insurance Card reporting incentive scheme in October 2014 to improve the reporting of EHIC details of visitors and students from the European Economic Area (EEA) who access NHS care, for which the UK is entitled to reimbursement;

    – updated Charging Regulations from April 2015, reducing the number of exemption from charge categories for non-residents and realigning the Regulations to the principle that the NHS is a residency-based healthcare system;

    – requiring chargeable patients from outside the EEA to be charged at 150% of national tariff, in tandem with the launch of a risk sharing arrangement with commissioners, thereby encouraging providers to both identify and recover costs from these patients to access the extra funding available; and

    – the introduction of the health surcharge in April 2015 which now means nearly all individuals who require a visa to remain in the UK for more than six month’s pay an annual surcharge as a contribution towards their healthcare costs.

    Furthermore, those with outstanding debts to the NHS of £1,000 or more and who are subject to immigration control can, since 2011, have applications for new visas or extensions of stay refused because of that debt, to encourage them to pay it.

  • Gordon Marsden – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills

    Gordon Marsden – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Gordon Marsden on 2016-01-29.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, what assessment he has made of the potential effect of the UK voting to leave the EU on UK students’ participation in the Erasmus scheme.

    Joseph Johnson

    The Government is fighting hard to fix the aspects of EU membership that cause so much frustration in the United Kingdom – so we get a better deal for our country and secure our future. We are confident that the right agreement can be reached.

  • Tristram Hunt – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Education

    Tristram Hunt – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Education

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Tristram Hunt on 2016-02-24.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Education, what criteria her Department uses to assess whether a local authority should be subject to a Sure Start claw-back.

    Mr Sam Gyimah

    Where local authorities dispose of or change the use of buildings or other assets funded wholly or partly through Sure Start capital grants, they must repay the money through the claw-back process.

    The Department for Education has a thorough set of monitoring arrangements in place regarding claw-back rules. Local authorities are required to notify the department of each and every proposed change of services and provide details about the level of early years services that are to continue. The department then considers if the local authority has continued to offer a sufficient level of early years services for children and their families from the building in question to meet the original aims of the grant.

    If the department is satisfied that the funding for the asset will continue to be used for purposes consistent with the grant, the department may defer claw-back. Deferring claw-back means that we accept the change of usage at that time, however, the department retains its interest in the asset and if in the future the asset has its usage changed, is transferred or otherwise disposed of, and does not continue to meet the purposes of the grant the local authority must inform the department and we will claw-back the funding. The department’s interest in an asset funded by Sure Start capital grants is 25 years from designation of the building. If the grant was used to purchase capital items or re-furbish an existing asset, the length of time and value of any claw-back depends on the depreciation value of the items, according to local authority depreciation rules.

  • Nick Clegg – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    Nick Clegg – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Nick Clegg on 2016-03-17.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Health, what estimate he has made of the difference in cost to the public purse of people using medicinal cannabis rather than prescription drugs in each of the last three years; and if he will make a statement.

    George Freeman

    We have made no such estimates.

    Herbal cannabis is not licensed as a medicine and, under section 7(4) of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, a pharmacist would need to obtain a licence from the Home Office if they were to dispense cannabis.

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

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

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Baroness Tonge on 2016-04-25.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government what representations they have made to the government of Israel concerning its possession of nuclear weapons and the admission of inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency.

    Baroness Anelay of St Johns

    We have regular discussions with the Government of Israel on a wide range of nuclear-related issues. Israel has not declared a nuclear weapons programme.

    Israel does have a facility-specific safeguards agreement in place with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). The agreement applies to a single facility in Israel, which is the Soreq Nuclear Research Reactor. The facility is inspected by the IAEA to ensure that it is not used for weapons purposes. We continue to call on Israel to upgrade this arrangement to a full scope Comprehensive Safeguards agreement with the IAEA.

  • Earl Baldwin of Bewdley – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    Earl Baldwin of Bewdley – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Earl Baldwin of Bewdley on 2016-06-06.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the Written Answer by Lord Prior of Brampton on 12 October 2015 (HL1940), what assessment they have made of the reasons why systematic scientific reviews, such as Cochrane reviews, adopt specific and relatively narrow criteria”.”

    Lord Prior of Brampton

    The 2015 Cochrane review Water fluoridation for the prevention of dental caries was an update of a Cochrane review first completed in 2000. A panel of experts agreed the search criteria in the original review, and the update kept these largely unchanged.

    The National Institute for Health Research is currently funding an evaluation of a water fluoridation scheme in Cumbria. This started in 2013 and the final report is expected to be published in 2021. Findings from the evaluation will be available for consideration in any subsequent systematic reviews relating to water fluoridation.

  • Jonathan Ashworth – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy

    Jonathan Ashworth – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Jonathan Ashworth on 2016-07-20.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, which Minister in his Department has responsibility for tacking corruption.

    Margot James

    I am the Minister for Small Business, Consumers and Corporate Responsibility and I lead on competition law. I have a particular focus on ensuring that companies including directors, shareholders and employees achieve high standards of corporate behaviour to ensure that the public has trust in business and recognises their value to society.

    I have specific responsibility for the UK’s register of People with Significant Control. I lead on the Department’s interests in transposing the Fourth Anti Money Laundering Directive. I am also the lead Minister for the Department on taking forward the UK’s commitments agreed at the May anticorruption summit in London.

  • Christopher Chope – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    Christopher Chope – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Christopher Chope on 2016-10-11.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Health, how many proceedings for debt recovery the NHS has issued in the county court for NHS prescription charges and penalties in the last year for which information is available; how many such proceedings resulted in recovery of the outstanding money.

    David Mowat

    The number of National Health Service prescription charge penalty charge notices issued between September 2015 and August 2016, which is the most recent 12-month period for which we have complete data, was 780,953. Where no response was received to the initial penalty charge notice a follow up surcharge letter was issued to the patient. For the same period a total of 333,508 surcharge letters were issued.

    The value of the recovered prescription income in this period was £2,556,941, and the value of the income from penalty charges and surcharges was £8,678,911 and £745,830, respectively.

    Since taking over the administration of the Prescription Exemption Checking Service in September 2014, the NHS Business Services Authority has not issued any court proceedings for debt recovery in relation to NHS prescription charges and penalties.

  • Tulip Siddiq – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    Tulip Siddiq – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Tulip Siddiq on 2016-01-05.

    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, what progress has been made on implementing the recommendations of her Department’s Review of the National Referral Mechanism for victims of human trafficking, published in November 2014; and if she will make a statement.

    Karen Bradley

    Ensuring that the National Referral Mechanism (NRM) is identifying and supporting potential victims of modern slavery continues to be a top priority. The Government is running pilots in the West Yorkshire police force area and the South West region to test the recommendations made in the NRM review. These pilots are due to conclude in summer 2016, after which the Government will reflect on lessons learned and announce next steps.