Tag: Andrew Gwynne

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Andrew Gwynne on 2016-05-18.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education, what response her Department has made to the findings of Ofsted in its report of the inspection of Audenshaw School Academy Trust which took place on 23 and 24 February 2016 that approximately £120,000 of pupil premium funding has not been spent on pupils for whom that funding was intended.

Mr Sam Gyimah

The conditions of grant for the pupil premium make clear that its purpose is to raise the attainment of disadvantaged pupils. School leaders are best placed to decide how to spend the pupil premium in line with this policy and the needs of their pupils. Schools are not prevented from using the pupil premium to fund capital projects or from carrying over funding between years.

The Department for Education supports schools to make evidence-based decisions through the work of the Education Endowment Foundation, established to identify and promote effective practice in raising the attainment of disadvantaged pupils. The Department does not monitor how Academies and maintained schools spend the pupil premium but instead holds them to account for the outcomes of eligible pupils through the publication of data in performance tables and Ofsted inspection.

Where concerns are raised about the performance of an academy then they are addressed by the Regional School Commissioner with responsibility for that area. The Department also takes seriously any concerns about the financial management of a school. We are aware of the findings of the Ofsted report on Audenshaw School relating to its use of the pupil premium, following an inspection in February 2016. We are also aware that the Hon. Member, Andrew Gwynne, has met the Regional Schools Commissioner for Lancashire and West Yorkshire, Vicky Beer, on a number of occasions to discuss his concerns about Audenshaw School Academy Trust. The Department has carefully reviewed all the information provided on this matter and has identified no grounds to take further action.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Andrew Gwynne on 2016-05-18.

To ask the Secretary of State for Health, what recent discussions (a) Ministers and (b) officials in his Department have had with NICE on changes to its current methodology for evaluating new drugs.

George Freeman

Departmental officials are in regular contact with officials in the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) about a range of issues, including NICE’s methodologies for the assessment of new drugs and other technologies.

The Accelerated Access Review is expected to make a series of recommendations which may include reforms to NICE’s processes and methods pathways and mechanisms in connection with innovative treatments.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Andrew Gwynne on 2016-05-24.

To ask the Secretary of State for Health, what the timetable is for implementing HPV vaccinations at sexual health clinics for men who have sex with men.

Jane Ellison

The Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI), the expert body that advises the Government on all immunisation matters, advised that a targeted human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination programme should be undertaken for men who have sex with men (MSM) up to 45 years of age who attend genitourinary medicine and HIV clinics. They noted that this should be subject to procurement of the vaccine and delivery of the programme at a cost-effective price. JCVI acknowledged that finding a way to implement its advice would be challenging and made clear that work was needed by the Department and others to consider commissioning and delivery routes for this programme.

The Department announced on 26 May 2016 that an HPV vaccination pilot for MSM would start in June.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Andrew Gwynne on 2016-06-08.

To ask the Secretary of State for Health, what estimate NHS England has made of the projected savings from the introduction of dose banding of chemotherapy drugs without affecting quality of care.

George Freeman

NHS England has advised that the dose banding initiative forms part of its Specialised Commissioning Improving Value programme and can be considered as an expansion of current practice and direction of travel. The dose banding scheme has been primarily designed to deliver improvements in safety and quality of care.

NHS England advises that the scheme does also have the potential to deliver efficiencies for hospitals and its initial estimate is that this could release up to £5 million of value to the health system.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Andrew Gwynne on 2016-07-19.

To ask the Secretary of State for Health, how long his Department estimates the Commissioning through Evaluation analysis phase will last for (a) selective dorsal rhizotomy, (b) patent foramen ovale closure, (c) left atrial appendage closure, (d) percutaneous mitral valve leaflet repair, (e) selective internal radiation therapy and (f) stereotactic ablative radiotherapy.

David Mowat

Commissioning through Evaluation (CtE) is an innovative £25 million programme introduced by NHS England in 2013. It specifically aims to generate valuable new evaluation data in promising areas of specialised care where the current evidence base of cost and clinical effectiveness is insufficient to support routine National Health Service commissioning, and where further formal research trials are thought to be less likely.

Each scheme – put forward by senior clinicians and other stakeholders – is funded on a time limited basis in a small number of selected centres, and then evaluated by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence.

Once the planned number of patients has been recruited across the participating centres, each scheme closes to new patients and analysis begins. This means that the funding identified for each scheme can then be reinvested into the evaluation of additional potentially life changing specialised treatments to maximise the value and impact of the overall evaluation fund for patients. As an example, routinely funding Selective Dorsal Rhizotomy contrary to the currently published clinical commissioning policy and in advance of a formal review of any new evidence would mean that between £2 million and £4 million per year (covering the surgical costs and immediate follow up only) would then be unavailable to support the evaluation of other promising treatments.

The analysis phase for each CtE scheme will typically take between one and two years depending on how long we need to follow up patients after their treatment to identify its effectiveness. The three cardiology based CtE schemes are currently scheduled for a 15 month analysis and reporting phase, after which the data can be used by NHS England to support policy review.

However, CtE is only one form of data that might be put forward in considering a new (or revision to an existing) policy and clinicians do not need to await the final report from CtE schemes if they feel that other new substantive data becomes available more quickly.

NHS England’s published clinical commissioning policies (which set out eligibility for NHS funded specialised care on the basis of the available evidence) can be reviewed at any time where there is thought to be substantive new evidence available, and around 100 such proposals were developed and considered by NHS England during 2016/17.

The policy development process 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.

Where a new service is routinely commissioned as a result of a policy review, NHS England works with commissioned providers to ensure that sufficient clinical expertise and supporting infrastructure is in place to provide a safe service to patients in line with nationally set requirements.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Andrew Gwynne on 2016-09-14.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, with reference to article 3 of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea’s classification for the breadth of the territorial seas not exceeding 12 nautical miles, for what reason Gibraltar has a three nautical mile limit on its territorial waters.

Sir Alan Duncan

​The 1987 Territorial Sea Act extended UK waters up to the 12 nautical miles maximum permitted by Article 3 of the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Laws of the Sea (UNCLOS). However, the provisions of this Act were not extended to the British Overseas Territories, so the United Kingdom’s claim to territorial waters remains up to 3 nautical miles from Gibraltar. Where the extent of territorial waters is less than 3 nautical miles, this is due to the proximity of the Spanish coastline and a determined median line. We retain the option to extend the reach of British Gibraltar Territorial Waters to the maximum extent of 12 nautical miles permitted under UNCLOS and keep this option under review. The United Kingdom is the only State entitled to a territorial claim over the 3-12 nautical mile zone in respect of Gibraltar.

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

To ask the Secretary of State for Health, how many instances were recorded in which a young person was restrained physically by placing their face on the floor in a children’s mental health ward in each year from 2012.

Nicola Blackwood

Prone restraint data for years since 2012 is not available. NHS Digital began collecting the number of incidents of prone restraint on mental health wards for adults and for children and young people in January 2016. In line with the UK Statistics Authority’s Code of Practice, this data is undergoing evaluation.

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

To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, how many families in (a) England, (b) Greater Manchester, (c) Tameside and (d) Stockport have been identified as challenging and are subject to persistent visits under the Troubled Families programme.

Mr Marcus Jones

In Stockport, the local authority achieved outcomes with 565 families in the first Troubled Families Programme; in Tameside with 620 families; in Greater Manchester with 8,090 families. Across England local authorities achieved outcomes overall with 116,654 families. We expected that local authorities would work with more families than they claimed results for in order to achieve their targets.

In the new programme, Greater Manchester, including Stockport and Tameside, is delivering the programme as a whole. Greater Manchester has engaged 13,228 families in the new programme so far; across England, 164,481 families have been engaged.

The programme promoted but did not mandate a whole family intervention approach. It was not appropriate to do so: all local authorities are different, and the problems faced by each local authority and each family are different. The intensity of the intervention, and the number of visits made by key workers to each family, was dependent on the particular needs of each family and the approach agreed by the family and the key worker.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Andrew Gwynne on 2015-11-02.

To ask the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, what estimate she has made of the value of stationery that has been (a) lost and (b) stolen from her Department in each of the last five fiscal years; and what the cost was of replacing such stationery.

Andrea Leadsom

The Department has made no estimate on the value of any stationery (a) lost or (b) stolen in any of the last five fiscal years.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Andrew Gwynne on 2015-11-23.

To ask the Secretary of State for Health, how the findings of its Innovation, Health and Wealth report, published in December 2011, were taken into account in the terms of reference of the Accelerated Access Review.

George Freeman

The Accelerated Access Review (AAR), chaired by Sir Hugh Taylor, will make recommendations to government on reforms to accelerate access for National Health Service patients to innovative medicines and medical 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 certain off-patent repurposed drugs, as opposed to the routine availability of medicines or medical technologies.

Prior to establishing the terms of reference for the AAR, the Department reviewed evaluation reports and met with officials from previous initiatives on the uptake of innovation in the NHS including the Innovation, Health and Wealth report. As a result, building upon the lessons of previous reviews is explicit with the terms of reference of the AAR.

The AAR has regular meetings with senior officials from NHS England via a steering group as recommendations are being developed. In addition, some staff from NHS England have been assigned to support the review team.

Sir Hugh is still in the process of developing final recommendations which will be published in spring 2016. In his Interim Report published in October, Sir Hugh sets out a proposition on “galvanising the NHS”. This involves supporting the NHS to adopt innovation, more rapidly through better practical support, stronger incentives and the potential streamlining of local structures.

The Department reviewed evaluation reports and met with officials from previous initiatives on the uptake of innovation in the NHS prior to establishing the terms of reference for the AAR. It was clear that whilst progress has been made on the uptake of innovation in the NHS there is still much to do. Sir Hugh and the head of the External Advisory Group, Professor Sir John Bell, set out the case for uptake of innovation in the recently published AAR Interim Report.

The AAR has senior level contact with officials working on Lord Carter’s review of NHS efficiency to ensure that information is shared between the two teams.