Tag: Andrew Gwynne

  • 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 2016-05-18.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Health, what estimate his Department has made of the prevalence of smoking among pregnant women.

    Jane Ellison

    In 2015, figures showed smoking prevalence rates in adults and 15 year olds in England to be at 18% and 8% respectively. The most recent quarterly information on prevalence of smoking among pregnant women, published in March, show this to be 10.6%.

    Smoking prevalence is at its lowest ever level with official figures showing that the Government met each of the targets set out in its Tobacco Control Plan – Healthy Lives, Healthy People. A new Tobacco Control Plan is currently being developed.

  • 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 2016-05-26.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Health, whether the Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Public Health has seen the complaint by the Nordic Cochrane Centre to the European Medicines Agency regarding maladministration at that organisation; and if he will make a statement.

    Jane Ellison

    I am aware of the document from the Nordic Cochrane Centre. Whilst the issues raised are a matter for the European Medicines Agency (EMA), we are satisfied that the EMA has adequate processes in place to manage any potential conflicts of interest of its scientific experts and to uphold the integrity and impartiality of its decision-making. There was consensus agreement amongst EU Member States on the conclusions of the recent human papilloma virus (HPV) vaccine safety review, and we have confidence in the outcome of this review.

    Aside from the EMA review, the World Health Organization’s Global Advisory Committee on Vaccine Safety advised in December 2015 that it had not found any safety issues to date that would alter its recommendation to use the vaccine. It concluded that there is no evidence that postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome and complex regional pain syndrome are associated with HPV vaccination. Thorough reviews undertaken by the US Centre for Disease Control and Prevention and Health Canada have also concluded that available evidence does not support a link between HPV vaccine and development of serious and chronic illnesses.

  • 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 2016-06-08.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Health, what assessment NHS England has made of the capacity in the NHS to meet the demand for aseptic services.

    Jane Ellison

    NHS England Specialist Pharmacy Services have to date not undertaken a comprehensive assessment of aseptic capacity to meet the future demands for chemotherapy provision in England. They are currently working closely with colleagues at the Department and NHS Improvement to support a number of regionally based reviews of aseptic capacity and to help trusts develop local and regional Hospital Pharmacy Transformation plans, as recommended by Lord Carter in February 2016.

    The Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) is an executive agency of the Department and is responsible for regulating unlicensed medicines under a Manufacturer’s ‘Specials’ Licence. The General Pharmaceutical Council (GPhC) and Care Quality Commission (CQC) are responsible for regulating medicine prepared extemporaneously in a register pharmacy or hospital pharmacy respectively under the professional exemption.

    MHRA will collaborate with the NHS, GPhC and CQC though inspections of MHRA licensed aseptic facilities or joint investigations of aseptic facilities in hospitals where there are patient safety concerns.

  • 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 2016-07-19.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Health, if he will make it his policy to ensure that (a) clinicians and (b) patients participate in the decision making process for the routine commissioning of procedures under the Commissioning through Evaluation Programme.

    David Mowat

    The policy development process for specialised commissioning is subject to both informal stakeholder testing and formal public consultation, including the opportunity for patients, clinicians and industry representatives to review and comment on the evidence base considered and the assessed impact on patients, existing services and cost.

    In addition, clinical commissioning policies are already primarily developed through Clinical Reference Groups which comprise of a range of stakeholders including patients, carers and clinicians.

  • 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 2016-09-14.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Health, when NICE last approved a breast cancer medicine for routine use on the NHS through the technology appraisal process.

    Nicola Blackwood

    The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) has confirmed that the last piece of technology appraisal guidance recommending a breast cancer drug was on gemcitabine for the treatment of metastatic breast cancer (TA116), published in January 2007.

    A number of drugs for the treatment of breast cancer have been made available through the Cancer Drugs Fund since it was established in 2010. The Fund has now helped 95,000 people in accessing life-extending cancer drugs that would not otherwise have been available to them.

  • Andrew Gwynne – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Justice

    Andrew Gwynne – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Justice

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Andrew Gwynne on 2016-10-11.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many young offenders under the age of 18 have been admitted to a children’s mental health ward in each month since January 2014.

    Dr Phillip Lee

    We are committed to improving mental health treatment for young people in contact with the youth justice system. We are currently working with NHS England to develop a specific £24 million programme to address gaps in mental health provision for children and young people in contact with the justice system.

    The information requested is as follows:

    (1) Young offenders under the age of 18 (including those on remand) admitted to an adult mental health unit since January 2014

    There was one such admission in November 2014.

    (2) Young offenders under the age of 18 (including those on remand) admitted to a children’s or adolescent mental health unit since January 2014

    The number of such admissions is set out in the table below:

    Month of Admission

    Number Admitted

    January 2014

    nil

    February 2014

    5

    March 2014

    5

    April 2014

    3

    May 2014

    1

    June 2014

    nil

    July 2014

    1

    August 2014

    nil

    September 2014

    2

    October 2014

    3

    November 2014

    1

    December 2014

    4

    Month of Admission

    Number Admitted

    January 2015

    2

    February 2015

    1

    March 2015

    1

    April 2015

    nil

    May 2015

    3

    June 2015

    4

    July 2015

    2

    August 2015

    1

    September 2015

    4

    October 2015

    2

    November 2015

    nil

    December 2015

    2

    Month of Admission

    Number Admitted

    January 2016

    nil

    February 2016

    nil

    March 2016

    1

    April 2016

    3

    May 2016

    3

    June 2016

    1

    July 2016

    2

    August 2016

    nil

    Note 1 – the figures may represent individual offenders admitted more than once since January 2014.

    Note 2 – these figures represent restricted patients only.

  • Andrew Gwynne – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Communities and Local Government

    Andrew Gwynne – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Communities and Local Government

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Andrew Gwynne on 2016-10-19.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, what assessment he has made of the implications for his Department’s policies of the recent National Evaluation of the Troubled Families Programme report.

    Mr Marcus Jones

    The National Institute of Economic and Social Research Impact Study was just one of 6 reports comprising the independent evaluation of the first Troubled Families Programme. The evaluation found that the programme had many positive achievements. These include:

    • Families feeling more confident and optimistic about being able to cope in the future
    • Joining up local services for families by encouraging a single keyworker approach to work with the whole family on all of its problems
    • Raising the quality and capacity of local data systems
    • Better joint working with partners such as Jobcentre Plus

    The data shows that nearly 120,000 of the families on this programme saw their lives improve – more children attending school, youth crime and anti-social behaviour significantly cut and, in more than 18,000 families, an adult holding down a job. The evaluation does not dispute this fact.

    Unsurprisingly, the ambitious and innovative impact study which used national administrative datasets to track changes in families circumstances over comparatively short time periods, was unable to specifically attribute positive outcomes achieved in employment, youth crime or school attendance to the Troubled Families Programme.

    This was because at that time the level of change achieved was not significantly different from that seen in a group of families not on the programme with whom comparisons were made. This is not the same, however, as saying that the evaluation shows family outcomes did not improve, as some have wrongly inferred.

    Of course, we will continue to review all evidence of how the programme is working, to learn from it and see if there’s more we can do to help families facing such multiple problems. In fact, we have already adapted the new programme in a number of ways, including extending the length of time over which family outcomes will be tracked – from 12 months to 5 years.

  • Andrew Gwynne – 2022 Speech on World AIDS Day

    Andrew Gwynne – 2022 Speech on World AIDS Day

    The speech made by Andrew Gwynne, the Labour MP for Denton and Reddish, in the House of Commons on 1 December 2022.

    I, too, congratulate both my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Lloyd Russell-Moyle) on securing this debate, and the Backbench Business Committee on granting it. In thanking my hon. Friend, I want to say that we listened intently to his opening contribution. It was full of wisdom, insight and personal advocacy and showed the commitment that he brings to the issue in this place. The House of Commons is a better place when we speak openly and challenge those in power about the issues that still prevail, not just in this country but across the world when it comes to HIV/AIDS.

    On this day, we remember the 40 million people who have lost their lives to the worldwide AIDS pandemic and related illnesses since the disease was first found in the 1980s. In this debate, Members from across the House, in a small, but perfectly formed manner, have raised some important issues. I particularly thank the right hon. Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes) for the way in which she always challenges inequalities around the world, especially inequalities facing women and girls, and, of course, this is an issue that affects women and girls around the globe. It is an equalities issue, and I thank her for her contribution. I also thank the hon. Members for West Bromwich East (Nicola Richards), for Heywood and Middleton (Chris Clarkson), and for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and even the SNP spokesman, the hon. Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill (Steven Bonnar), for their contributions. The great thing about this issue is that it brings us together in unity on World AIDS Day. This is not a party political issue. As with covid, if we are to defeat the first pandemic, we must work together across party lines, and this has been a good debate because of that.

    We all recognise the extraordinary work of those who have fought to eradicate the virus. As has already been said, we have come a long way since the first World AIDS Day in 1988. Here in the UK, we have seen unprecedented scientific advancement. We understand more about HIV, and we have legislated against discrimination to better protect those living with HIV. We have seen some long-overdue justice delivered to victims of the contaminated blood scandal, with interim payments being granted for some—but not all—of those impacted. This victory is a testament to the unstinting work of campaigners and, indeed, colleagues from both sides of the House. However, as has been made clear in the Chamber today, there is still much more work to do with regards to this injustice. I hope that, in his response, the Minister will provide an update to the House on when the Government will respond in full to the 19 recommendations laid out in Sir Robert Francis’s framework for compensation.

    This World AIDS Day is not just about recognising and celebrating how far we have come, but about issuing a call to action. There can be no room for complacency in the late stages of this campaign. Today, we stand on the brink of achieving something extraordinary: ending all new HIV transmissions in England by 2030. That goal is ambitious, but achievable, and it is one that Labour is proud to support and to push the Government on to achieving. None the less, too many opportunities are still being missed, and sexual health services are struggling to keep up with demand. A total of 46% of people diagnosed with HIV are still diagnosed too late, and 38% of people attending sexual health services were not offered an HIV test last year. That is not good enough. Some 20% fewer people were tested for HIV in 2021 than in 2019, and research shows that 57% of people have waited more than 12 weeks for PrEP.

    Shockingly, in 2021, no local authority in England—not one—reported more than five women accessing PrEP, and there are still stark racial disparities in treatment and in support that must be addressed. I wish to use this debate to press the Minister on what steps the Government are taking to tackle unequal access to sexual health services and, in particular, to PrEP.

    In a recent study, 40% of people surveyed reported difficulty in booking a sexual health appointment online; 23% of people were turned away due to a lack of available appointments. With that in mind, what assessment have the Government made of sexual health accessibility levels, and what consideration has the Minister made of making PrEP available beyond sexual health services—for example in GPs, gender clinics, pharmacies and abortion clinics? I assume that that work would be included in the promised PrEP action plan, but that has yet to materialise. Will the Minister commit to an implementation date for this plan today, and if not, why not? Furthermore, what recent assessment has the Minister made of the eligibility criteria for PrEP, and are there any plans to expand it?

    PrEP is one side of the coin, but we do not often talk about the other side anymore—partly because of the success of PrEP—and that is access to post-exposure prophylaxis. The publicity has fallen for that, but it is still an important tool in the box for people who are fearing that they may have been inadvertently exposed to the HIV virus. There is a small window for those people who fear that they may have been exposed, or who have been exposed to HIV, to get access to PrEP for it to be successful. What are the Government doing to ensure that there is adequate advice and information on the availability of post-exposure prophylaxis?

    Sexual health services are under unprecedented pressure due to mpox. Service displacement means that appointments for PrEP, STI testing and long-active, reversible contraceptives have been cut. That has also led to reported hesitancy by clinics to deliver mpox vaccines. What action will the Minister take to ensure that all those who need the mpox vaccine can access one, and not to the detriment of other vital sexual health services?

    Moving to testing, the Minister will no doubt be aware that yesterday, NHS England released its report on HIV and hepatitis opt-out testing in areas of very high prevalence. Labour has been proud to support that for several years. The report shows that because of the tests, more than 800 people living with undiagnosed HIV and hepatitis have been identified in these areas. We have saved an estimated £6 million to £8 million on treatment costs. Put simply, opt-out testing has been a huge success. With that in mind, can the Minister set out whether there are any plans to change the current scope of HIV opt-out testing to include all areas of high prevalence?

    Finally, I want to touch on stigma. A study recently published by the Terrence Higgins Trust found that just 38% of people knew that those living with HIV and on effective treatment cannot pass the virus on to partners. Only 30% of people said that they would be comfortable dating somebody with HIV. The HIV epidemic is exacerbated by stigma, ignorance and misinformation. If we want equitable access to HIV treatment, we must proactively tackle the myths and bigotry that still permeate discussions around HIV. I am sure that the Minister will agree wholeheartedly with me about that.

    I would be interested to hear the Minister’s assessment of current legislative barriers affecting those living with HIV. A clear example is the fact that LGBT+ people with HIV are still not allowed to access fertility treatment, despite the fact that heterosexual people with HIV are able to do so. That is an out-of-date barrier and it needs scrapping. I am proud that the next Labour Government will equalise access to fertility treatment for LGBT+ people living with HIV. Will the Minister join us in committing to that, and pledge to introduce legislation now—before the general election—to end the restrictions that prevent people with HIV from starting a family?

    Labour is committed to the HIV 2030 pledge. It is more than prepared to work on a cross-party basis to make this ambition a reality. But we must address some incredibly concerning trends in HIV treatment and access, and not become complacent because of the progress that has come before us. No new transmissions of HIV by 2030 is still possible. We want to succeed, but there is no time to waste. As my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown said, let us all, together, sprint to that finish line.

  • Andrew Gwynne – 2022 Parliamentary Question on Rail Cancellations

    Andrew Gwynne – 2022 Parliamentary Question on Rail Cancellations

    The parliamentary question asked by Andrew Gwynne, the Labour MP for Denton and Reddish, in the House of Commons on 1 December 2022.

    Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)

    I accept the sincerity of the Minister, but “disappointment” from the Government frankly does not cut it. These issues have long been known for at least the past six years or more. They are not new or particular to Avanti and the TransPennine Express, which are just manifestations of the problem right now. Last month we had more than 4,000 cancelled services, on top of 17,800 fewer services that had been pulled from the timetable. Why are Ministers not demanding a binding remedial plan urgently to restore the services that are desperately needed in communities, not just in the north of England but all over the country?

    Huw Merriman

    I agree with the hon. Gentleman. For too long we have worked in a manner that does not allow us to plan ahead and give certainty to the passenger or the workforce. TransPennine Express had too much reliance on the rest-day agreement. It seemed to operate because it was at 1.75 wage, which is the highest. Two other train operators operate at 1.5, and the others are much lower or have just normal rates. That was a high rate, and we could not get ASLEF to continue to operate it, which exacerbated the issue. There is too much reliance on rest-day working. When it operates, it works well, because train operators do not have as many drivers in place, but the train drivers earn overtime from that. When industrial action comes in, that breaks down. We want to move, and our modernisation plans and reforms, which we are trying to get an agreement to put in place, would deliver a seven-day railway where we are not reliant on rest-day working. That is the kind of certainty we want brought in, and that is the only way we will ever be able to avoid such issues in the years to come.

  • Andrew Gwynne – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Energy and Climate Change

    Andrew Gwynne – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Energy and Climate Change

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Andrew Gwynne on 2015-10-23.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, how much was paid in (a) year end and (b) in-year bonuses to officials of her Department in each of the last three years.

    Andrea Leadsom

    The Department uses performance related pay to help drive high performance and to recognise exceptional contributions and achievements over and above what is expected of people in fulfilling their employment contracts.

    These payments, which are in-line with HMT Pay Guidance, are cost effective as they are not consolidated into basic pay and have to be re-earned every year.

    Since 2010-11 the Government has restricted awards for senior civil servants to the top 25% of performers.

    In-year performance related awards are used to recognise and incentivise corporate behaviours and values which might not be fully reflected in annual performance appraisal reports. These are also used to reward staff for exceptional pieces of work or for taking on additional responsibilities.

    End-year non-consolidated performance awards are used to reward the department’s highest performers as assessed in their end of year appraisal reports.

    A breakdown of the In-Year and the End-Year awards is given in the table below:

    Table 1

    Financial Year

    In-Year Performance Awards

    End-Year Performance Awards

    2014-2015

    £247,606

    £996,901

    2013-2014

    £377,617

    £882,521

    2012-2013

    £372,315

    £869,665