The below Parliamentary question was asked by George Howarth on 2015-09-16.
To ask the Secretary of State for Health, what the cost to the NHS was of treating patients with diabetic retinopathy in (a) 2012, (b) 2013 and (c) 2014.
Jane Ellison
We do not hold this information in the format requested.
The below Parliamentary question was asked by George Howarth on 2015-09-17.
To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, what assessment he has made of the effect of changes to permitted development rights in 2013 on the roll-out of 4G mobile services; and what plans he has to assess whether further reforms of such rights would facilitate further roll-out of such services.
Brandon Lewis
On 10 July, the Government’s Productivity Plan set out its ambitions for mobile connectivity in England and launched the Review of ‘How the Planning System in England Can Support the Delivery of Mobile Connectivity’. We sought views on the ability of the planning system to deliver and support mobile connectivity, the effectiveness of the changes made in 2013, and evidence on technical and operational factors, which may be limiting deployment.
We received responses from mobile network operators and associated industry, local authorities, countryside groups and others. We are considering the evidence submitted and will announce the outcome of the planning review in due course.
The below Parliamentary question was asked by George Howarth on 2015-09-17.
To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, what representations he has received on future reform of the planning framework in order to facilitate the delivery of enhanced mobile services.
Brandon Lewis
On 10 July, the Government’s Productivity Plan set out its ambitions for mobile connectivity in England and launched the Review of ‘How the Planning System in England Can Support the Delivery of Mobile Connectivity’. We sought views on the ability of the planning system to deliver and support mobile connectivity, the effectiveness of the changes made in 2013, and evidence on technical and operational factors, which may be limiting deployment.
We received responses from mobile network operators and associated industry, local authorities, countryside groups and others. We are considering the evidence submitted and will announce the outcome of the planning review in due course.
The below Parliamentary question was asked by George Howarth on 2015-09-17.
To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, what assessment his Department has made of the effect on vulnerable consumers of the switching regime in the mobile sector.
Mr Edward Vaizey
The Government is committed to working with Ofcom to support quick and easy switching in communications markets. In its current consultation on mobile switching, Ofcom sets out considerations of how current switching processes may lead to consumer harm. Problems that may occur include consumer difficulty with switching processes, unnecessary costs, navigating different processes, breaks in continuity of service, lack of awareness of the implications of and any liabilities arising from switching, and erroneous transfers and ‘slamming’ (where consumers are switched without their consent). Ofcom’s evidence suggests that, although existing mobile switching processes perform relatively well against those measures, they are likely to generate a degree of consumer harm.
For those who have not switched, the perception of a difficult process can inhibit their engagement with the market and any decision to switch, which is likely to mean they are paying more. BIS research indicates that consumers who may be vulnerable by virtue of personal circumstances – for example, those who are elderly, not working and/or lack ‘self-efficacy’, confidence or trust – tend to be fairly disengaged from markets and the purchase process. Those consumers are much less likely than other groups to gather information, check whether they are on the best deal or switch supplier.
Ofcom is currently consulting on options to improve mobile switching, with the aim of simplifying and automating the process for all consumers.
The below Parliamentary question was asked by George Howarth on 2015-09-17.
To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, what representations his Department has received from Ofcom on that body’s powers to mandate a gaining provider-led switching regime in the mobile sector.
Mr Edward Vaizey
The Government is committed to working with Ofcom to support quick and easy switching in communications markets and we will do all we can to move towards a system of gaining provider-led (GPL) switching across the board. Ofcom is currently consulting on process reforms for switching mobile services, including proposals for a GPL model. Under its existing powers, it has already introduced GPL processes for customers switching broadband and fixed-line services. It is apparent from my officials’ ongoing discussions with Ofcom – and from its recent work and current proposals to improve switching processes – that Ofcom has powers to introduce a GPL switching regime for mobile services, should it determine following its consultation that such a reform would be proportionate.
The below Parliamentary question was asked by George Howarth on 2015-09-16.
To ask the Secretary of State for Health, what projections his Department has made for the number of people who will have diabetes by 2050.
Jane Ellison
The Department has made no such estimate.
The below Parliamentary question was asked by George Howarth on 2015-09-16.
To ask the Secretary of State for Health, what the cost to the NHS was of treating patients with glaucoma in (a) 2012, (b) 2013 and (c) 2014.
Alistair Burt
Cost information is shown in the following table from reference costs, which are the average unit cost to National Health Service trusts and foundation trusts of providing defined services in a given financial year. The table shows the costs of a surgical procedure covering one episode of care under one consultant in an admitted patient or outpatient setting and does not include other elements of the patient pathway such as general practitioner consultations or outpatient appointments. It is not possible to separately identify the costs of glaucoma in non-surgical appointments.
Costs associated with glaucoma procedures, 2011/12 – 2013/14
|
Healthcare Resource Group (HRG) |
Activity |
National average unit cost £ |
Estimated total cost £million |
|
2011/12 |
|||
|
Major Glaucoma Procedures |
2,248 |
£1,440 |
£3.2m |
|
Intermediate Glaucoma Procedures |
33,842 |
£387 |
£13.1m |
|
Minor Glaucoma Procedures |
17,194 |
£293 |
£5.0m |
|
Total |
£21.3m |
||
|
2012/13 |
|||
|
Major Glaucoma Procedures, with CC Score 1+ |
1,206 |
£1,665 |
£2.0m |
|
Major Glaucoma Procedures, with CC Score 0 |
2,622 |
£885 |
£2.3m |
|
Intermediate Glaucoma Procedures, with CC Score 1+ |
3,167 |
£1,250 |
£4.0m |
|
Intermediate Glaucoma Procedures, with CC Score 0 |
17,410 |
£451 |
£7.9m |
|
Minor Glaucoma Procedures, with CC Score 1+ |
2,014 |
£773 |
£1.6m |
|
Minor Glaucoma Procedures, with CC Score 0 |
19,243 |
£198 |
£3.8m |
|
Total |
£21.6m |
||
|
2013/14 |
|||
|
Major Glaucoma Procedures with CC Score 1+ |
1,709 |
£1,689 |
£2.9m |
|
Major Glaucoma Procedures with CC Score 0 |
3,129 |
£884 |
£2.8m |
|
Intermediate Glaucoma Procedures with CC Score 1+ |
3,384 |
£1,236 |
£4.2m |
|
Intermediate Glaucoma Procedures with CC Score 0 |
9,297 |
£772 |
£7.2m |
|
Minor Glaucoma Procedures with CC Score 1+ |
2,142 |
£680 |
£1.5m |
|
Minor Glaucoma Procedures with CC Score 0 |
24,688 |
£181 |
£4.5m |
|
Total |
£23.1m |
Source: Reference costs, Department of Health
Notes:
The below Parliamentary question was asked by George Howarth on 2014-06-04.
To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, what support the Government is providing for community projects being conducted by UK zoos in collaboration with universities.
Mr David Willetts
Government funding to universities supports a range of collaborative activity. Information on specific work with zoos on community projects is not collected centrally.
The below Parliamentary question was asked by George Howarth on 2014-06-04.
To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, what steps he is taking to ensure that the forthcoming single pot funding and new round of European Regional Development Funding encourages economic development potential through science discovery collaborations planned between research-intensive universities and zoos.
Michael Fallon
The Local Growth Fund will be awarded to Local Enterprise Partnerships (LEPs) on a competitive basis, on the strength of the Strategic Economic Plans they submitted to Government at the end of March. It is for LEPs and other local partners to put forward the proposals that, based on their local knowledge, they consider will have the greatest impact on economic growth. Discussions between Government and LEPs are continuing, with the aim of announcing Growth Deals in the summer.
For the 2014-2020 EU funding period the Government has asked Local Enterprise Partnerships to work with local partners to determine the investment priorities in their areas. Support to strengthen research, technological development and innovation will be a key objective for the European Regional Development Fund. The next stage is for local partners to work together to help develop a pipeline of projects that will meet the local investment priorities. BIS will advise the national stakeholder group which oversees the European Regional Development Fund and European Social Fund on whether these investments are meeting local, national and EU innovation objectives.
The below Parliamentary question was asked by George Howarth on 2014-06-04.
To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, what reports he has received on allegations that some Turkish Cypriots were denied the right to vote in the recent European elections in the Republic of Cyprus.
Mr David Lidington
We are aware of difficulties experienced by some eligible Turkish Cypriots in the recent European elections in the Republic of Cyprus.
The enfranchisement of eligible Turkish Cypriots in those elections was a positive step towards building confidence between the two communities. It is unfortunate that some Turkish Cypriots then found that they could not vote on the day due to problems in the registration procedure.
Although these problems led to understandable frustrations on polling day, we do not believe that they were due to a deliberate obstruction by the Republic of Cyprus authorities. Indeed, some 58,000 Turkish Cypriots were registered and able to vote.
Ultimately, Turkish Cypriots’ access to the full rights of EU membership, including participation in European elections, will best be achieved through a comprehensive settlement. We continue to fully support the leaders of the Cypriot communities in their goal of achieving this.