Tag: Andrew Percy

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Andrew Percy on 2016-03-07.

To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, what discussions he has had with the Minister for the Cabinet Office on encouraging public procurement for British Steel.

Anna Soubry

BIS Ministers and officials have worked closely with my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office and Crown Commercial Service officials in developing the set of measures delivered through the Steel Procurement Working Group, including the issuing of steel-specific procurement guidance, the mapping of indicative quantities of steel for key projects and the updating of British standards for steel. This close working continues in the implementation of these measures, reporting to the Steel Council. On 3 April we announced we would extend the guidance to the wider public sector and we are setting up an approved list of steel suppliers.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Andrew Percy on 2016-03-24.

To ask the Secretary of State for Health, how much the NHS spent on treating people with inflammatory bowel disease in (a) the last 12 months and (b) each of the last five financial years.

Jane Ellison

The information is not available in the format requested.

Such information as is available on the cost to the National Health Service of treating inflammatory bowel disease is from reference costs, which are the average unit cost to NHS hospital trusts of providing defined services to patients in a given financial year. Reference costs for acute care are collected by Healthcare Resource Group (HRG), a secondary classification system which groups similar treatments that use similar resources. Reference costs are published annually, most recently for 2014-15.

The following table reflects the costs of treating patients who are admitted to hospital and does not include the treatment of inflammatory bowel disease in outpatient or other settings outside of hospital. The costs are not comparable between years because of changes to the HRG design and to the underlying primary classification system for diseases.

Estimated total costs (£millions) to NHS hospitals of treating inflammatory bowel disease, 2010-11 to 2014-15

	2010-11	2011-12	2012-13	2013-14	2014-15
Inflammatory bowel disease	207.3	147.1	73.0	78.8	82.9
Paediatric inflammatory bowel disease	12.1	8.4	9.7	10.6	10.9
Total	219.4	155.5	82.6	89.5	93.8

Source: Reference costs, Department of Health

Notes:

1. For each HRG or other currency in the reference cost collection, NHS hospital trusts submit a unit cost and amount of activity undertaken.
2. Costs are not comparable between years:
   1. changes to the HRG design in 2011-12 resulted in the removal of HRGs specific to procedures for inflammatory bowel disease. These costs are included in other HRGs and are no longer separately identifiable.
   2. revised clinical coding guidance introduced in 2012-13 with the International Classification of Diseases 10th revision (ICD-10), fourth edition, resulted in the transfer of significant activity (and therefore costs) associated with infectious gastroenteritis and colitis to other HRGs.
3. The following HRGs are included in the table:

2010-11

FZ37F Inflammatory Bowel Disease with length of stay 1 day or less

FZ37G Inflammatory Bowel Disease with length of stay 2 days or more with Major Complications and Comorbidities (CC) with Interventions

FZ37H Inflammatory Bowel Disease with length of stay 2 days or more with Major CC without Interventions

FZ37I Inflammatory Bowel Disease with length of stay 2 days or more without Major CC with Interventions

FZ37J Inflammatory Bowel Disease with length of stay 2 days or more without Major CC without Interventions

FZ14Z Complex Procedures for Inflammatory Bowel Disease

FZ15Z Major Procedures for Inflammatory Bowel Disease

FZ28A Endoscopic or Intermediate Procedures for Inflammatory Bowel Disease 19 years and over with CC

FZ28B Endoscopic or Intermediate Procedures for Inflammatory Bowel Disease 19 years and over without CC

FZ28C Endoscopic or Intermediate Procedures for Inflammatory Bowel Disease 18 years and under

PA27Z Inflammatory Bowel Disease

2011-12

FZ37F Inflammatory Bowel Disease with length of stay 1 day or less

FZ37G Inflammatory Bowel Disease with length of stay 2 days or more with Major CC with Interventions

FZ37H Inflammatory Bowel Disease with length of stay 2 days or more with Major CC without Interventions

FZ37I Inflammatory Bowel Disease with length of stay 2 days or more without Major CC with Interventions

FZ37J Inflammatory Bowel Disease with length of stay 2 days or more without Major CC without Interventions

PA27Z Inflammatory Bowel Disease

2012-13

FZ37K Inflammatory Bowel Disease with Multiple Interventions, with CC Score 3+

FZ37L Inflammatory Bowel Disease with Multiple Interventions, with CC Score 0-2

FZ37M Inflammatory Bowel Disease with Single Intervention, with CC Score 4+

FZ37N Inflammatory Bowel Disease with Single Intervention, with CC Score 0-3

FZ37P Inflammatory Bowel Disease without Interventions, with CC Score 5+

FZ37Q Inflammatory Bowel Disease without Interventions, with CC Score 3-4

FZ37R Inflammatory Bowel Disease without Interventions, with CC Score 1-2

FZ37S Inflammatory Bowel Disease without Interventions, with CC Score 0

PA27Z Inflammatory Bowel Disease

2013-14 and 2014-15

FZ37K Inflammatory Bowel Disease with Multiple Interventions, with CC Score 3+

FZ37L Inflammatory Bowel Disease with Multiple Interventions, with CC Score 0-2

FZ37M Inflammatory Bowel Disease with Single Intervention, with CC Score 4+

FZ37N Inflammatory Bowel Disease with Single Intervention, with CC Score 0-3

FZ37P Inflammatory Bowel Disease without Interventions, with CC Score 5+

FZ37Q Inflammatory Bowel Disease without Interventions, with CC Score 3-4

FZ37R Inflammatory Bowel Disease without Interventions, with CC Score 1-2

FZ37S Inflammatory Bowel Disease without Interventions, with CC Score 0

PF27A Paediatric Inflammatory Bowel Disease with CC Score 1+

PF27B Paediatric Inflammatory Bowel Disease with CC Score 0

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Andrew Percy on 2016-05-23.

To ask the Secretary of State for Health, if he will take steps to reduce the financial burden on people with cancer which arises from their condition and affects their ability to recover.

Jane Ellison

In its report Achieving World Class Cancer Outcomes: A Strategy for England 2015-2020 (July 2015), the independent Cancer Taskforce called for an acceleration of the commissioning and provision of services to support people affected by cancer to live as healthy and as happy lives as possible. Over the last few years, NHS England has been working with Macmillan Cancer Support to roll out the Recovery Package, which describes a set of actions that ensure that the individual needs of all people going through cancer treatment and beyond are met by tailored support and services. By working through a Recovery Package, patients and clinicians assess patients’ holistic needs and plan appropriately for their care and support. They ensure that a treatment summary is sent between a patient’s hospital and their general practitioner (GP), that they are appropriately followed up by their GP, and can attend health and wellbeing events for patients and carers.

In September 2015, we announced that by 2020, the 280,000 people diagnosed with cancer every year will benefit from a tailored recovery package. In April 2016, NHS England published guidance on the commissioning of these services to support people living with and beyond cancer, and will continue to support both Sustainability and Transformation Plan footprints and clinical commissioning groups to put this guidance into action. Support for patients living with and beyond cancer should be tailored specifically to the needs of every patient, including to access the financial support they need.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Andrew Percy on 2016-07-06.

To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, what steps he has taken to engage with (a) coal generators and (b) the biomass sector on whether a future biomass auction will take place.

Jesse Norman

We plan to hold the next Contracts for Difference allocation round in due course We will announce further details about the allocation round and engage with stakeholders in good time.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Andrew Percy on 2015-11-05.

To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, what assessment his Department has made of Ofcom’s programme to monitor and enforce the cancellation and termination arrangements of different providers; and what steps he is taking to ensure that consumers can easily leave their communications contracts in future.

Mr Edward Vaizey

In June 2015, Ofcom launched a monitoring and enforcement programme to assess the cancellation and termination arrangements of communications providers, and the impact these have on consumers’ ability to exit their communications service contract quickly, conveniently and without error. We will discuss with Ofcom any findings from its programme that show consumers have difficulty ending contracts, and work with them to identify whether action needs to be taken.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Andrew Percy on 2015-12-07.

To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, pursuant to the Answer of 20 July 2015 to Question 6371, whether he plans to reform the planning process to improve the ability of mobile network operators to deploy taller infrastructure in areas where connectivity is needed; and if he will make a statement.

Mr Edward Vaizey

Yes. Extensive and reliable mobile connectivity is vital for our modern economy, particularly in rural areas. The Government has undertaken a review of the planning system to assess what improvements should be made to support the deployment of mobile infrastructure. The outcome of that review will be announced shortly, I hope.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Andrew Percy on 2015-12-15.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, what the average response time was for a 101 call in each year since that service’s launch; and what the average response time was for 101 calls made to the Humberside Police from (a) North Lincolnshire and (b) East Yorkshire in the last 12 months.

Mike Penning

The Home Office does not hold data centrally on the average response times for 999 calls. Information on average 101 call waiting times since April 2014, provided by forces, including Humberside Police, can be found at: www.Police.uk

The Home Office does not hold information on call waiting times for individual forces which pre-dates April 2014 or about calls made to forces from local areas. This information is held by forces.

“

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Andrew Percy on 2016-01-14.

To ask the Attorney General, how many defibrillators are provided in each building the Law Officers’ Departments manage.

Robert Buckland

Staff in the Government Legal Department (GLD) and HM Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate who are based at One Kemble Street, have access to two defibrillators which are held by the landlord in their reception areas. GLD client based staff have access to whatever provision is made by those who manage the buildings occupied by their host Department.

The Attorney General’s Office does not currently have access to a defibrillator in its 20 Victoria Street office.

The Serious Fraud Office has access to two automated external defibrillators at their offices in Cockspur Street.

The Crown Prosecution Service does not provide defibrillators in any of its buildings. However, some staff may have access to defibrillators provided by other tenants or the buildings managing agent in buildings that they occupy.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Andrew Percy on 2016-02-09.

To ask the Secretary of State for Health, what steps he plans to take to ensure that all mental health practitioners and providers receive training on the revised Code of Practice relating to the Mental Health Act 1983 in all 57 mental health NHS trusts as recommended by the Care Quality Commission’s sixth annual report, HC483, published on 14 October 2015.

Alistair Burt

The Mental Health Act 1983: Code of Practice, which came into force in April 2015, provides statutory guidance on how functions under the Mental Health Act 1983 (the Act) should be carried out. All providers of mental health services under the Act have a duty to abide by both the provisions of the Act and the detailed guidance on how implement those provisions contained in the Code of Practice. That includes the duty of all such mental health providers to ensure their staff know and understand their responsibilities under the Act.

Empowerment and the involvement of patients are key principles underpinning the Act, and the Code of Practice is clear that detained patients must be informed of their rights; that it is the responsibility of those treating them to ensure that patients understand their rights; and that patients are aware that they are entitled to ask for the assistance of an Independent Mental Health Advocate (IMHA) to help them understand this information.

The Care Quality Commission’s (CQC) annual report Monitoring the Mental Health Act 2014/15 indicates that CQC have already taken action where providers are failing to effectively monitor the Act, train staff and support patients and recommends that services use the findings of that report to make sure staff have the right skills and knowledge and decide what action needs to be taken to improve the care and support available for patients.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Andrew Percy on 2016-02-24.

To ask the Secretary of State for Health, what assessment he has made of the effects of proposed changes to the way in which drugs are assessed for inclusion in the Cancer Drugs Fund on cancer drug patients.

George Freeman

NHS England has advised that it envisages, under the new arrangements for the Cancer Drugs Fund, that a greater number of cancer drugs will be funded from baseline commissioning. This will be as a consequence of more appropriate pricing arrangements proposed by pharmaceutical manufacturers and better evidence being available through the Fund as to longer term patient outcomes.