Tag: Jim Cunningham

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Jim Cunningham on 2014-05-02.

To ask the Secretary of State for Health, how many breast network site-specific groups existed in (a) 2010-11, (b) 2011-12 and (c) 2012-13; and how many times each such group met in each year.

Jane Ellison

The requirement for the provision of site-specific groups (SSGs), such as those for breast cancer, is written into national cancer peer review requirements. In consultation with strategic clinical networks (SCNs), NHS England has developed an SCN framework. The framework reiterates the role and importance of clinical networking groups as support for the commissioning process, but allows for local agreement to how those groups are supported.

There are 12 SCNs and we would expect all to have a breast network SSG. This will be evidenced by the annual report published for the SCN and relevant area team. The National Peer Review Programme “Manual for Cancer Services; Breast Cancer Measures” states that network groups should meet regularly.

The Review Programme further states that the network group should produce an annual work programme in discussion with the SCN and agreed with the director of the relevant Area Team. It should include details of any planned service developments and should specify the personnel responsible and the timescales for implantation. The SSGs also develop protocols for the treatment of patients within the SCN and agree audits and research projects that will be supported.

The Review Programme also states that network groups should meet regularly. It gives guidance on the roles that should be represented on the group but not numbers.

We do not hold information on how many breast network SSGs existed and how many times each group met prior to April 2013.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Jim Cunningham on 2014-06-16.

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what average time was left to be served on a sentence for prisoners serving (a) determinate, (b) indeterminate, (c) life and (d) all sentences moved from closed to open conditions within the prison estate in each year since 2010.

Jeremy Wright

We do not centrally hold data on the number of prisoners transferred from closed to open prisons for the time period requested – or the type of sentence which they were serving. Consequently, the information requested could be obtained only at disproportionate cost, as it would involve a manual trawl through the records of every prisoner who has formed part of the prison population since 2010, to identify if they had/have ever been held in open conditions during the time period requested.

Determinate sentence prisoners should not generally be moved to open prison if they have more than 2 years to serve to their earliest release date, unless assessment of a prisoner’s individual risks and needs support earlier categorisation to open conditions. Such cases must have the reasons for their categorisation fully documented and confirmed in writing by the Governing Governor.

Indeterminate sentence prisoners do not have fixed release dates, so even if the data on transfers was readily available, it would not be possible to identify a length of time left to be served in these cases.

Depending on the length of tariff and the risk they pose, indeterminate sentenced prisoners (ISPs – both those serving life and IPP sentences) move through their sentence via a series of progressive transfers into lower security establishments in the closed estate and then usually into open conditions. ISPs may be considered for transfer to open conditions up to 3 years before the expiry of their minimum tariff. The decision to transfer ISPs to open conditions is a categorisation decision which is a matter for the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State may take this decision after seeking advice from the Parole Board – or without seeking advice from the Board, where the prisoners demonstrate exceptional progress.

Placing a prisoner in open conditions serves two main purposes. Firstly, it facilitates the eventual resettlement of prisoners into the community, in conditions more similar to those that they will face in the community than closed conditions can provide. Secondly, it allows for risk to be assessed in order to inform release decisions and, should the prisoner secure release, to inform risk management plans for ongoing supervision in the community. Thus, for many prisoners who have spent a considerable amount of time in custody, this can assist in their successful reintegration in the community and help protect the public. To release these prisoners directly from a closed prison without the resettlement benefits of the open estate could lead to higher levels of post-release re-offending.

Keeping the public safe is our priority. That is why this Government has taken action on both releases on temporary licence (ROTL) and absconds from prison. We commissioned a fundamental review of ROTL policy and practice last year and, in March, announced a package of measures to ensure that the public was properly protected. We have brought forward some of those measures so that they begin to take effect immediately; particularly with more serious offenders, where the review concluded that an enhanced risk assessment approach should be taken.

The public have understandable concerns about the failure of some prisoners to return from temporary release from open prison. Keeping the public safe is our priority and we will not allow the actions of a small minority of offenders to undermine public confidence in the prison system. The number of temporary release failures remains very low; less that one failure in every 1,000 releases and about five in every 100,000 releases involving alleged offending, but we take each and every incident seriously. The Government has already ordered immediate changes to tighten up the system as a matter of urgency. With immediate effect, prisoners will no longer be transferred to open conditions if they have previously absconded from open prisons; or if they have failed to return or reoffended whilst released on temporary licence.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Jim Cunningham on 2014-05-02.

To ask the Secretary of State for Health, what guidance is provided to breast network site-specific groups on (a) the frequency with which they should meet each year, (b) the number of members each group should have and (c) the roles that should be represented in the group’s membership.

Jane Ellison

The requirement for the provision of site-specific groups (SSGs), such as those for breast cancer, is written into national cancer peer review requirements. In consultation with strategic clinical networks (SCNs), NHS England has developed an SCN framework. The framework reiterates the role and importance of clinical networking groups as support for the commissioning process, but allows for local agreement to how those groups are supported.

There are 12 SCNs and we would expect all to have a breast network SSG. This will be evidenced by the annual report published for the SCN and relevant area team. The National Peer Review Programme “Manual for Cancer Services; Breast Cancer Measures” states that network groups should meet regularly.

The Review Programme further states that the network group should produce an annual work programme in discussion with the SCN and agreed with the director of the relevant Area Team. It should include details of any planned service developments and should specify the personnel responsible and the timescales for implantation. The SSGs also develop protocols for the treatment of patients within the SCN and agree audits and research projects that will be supported.

The Review Programme also states that network groups should meet regularly. It gives guidance on the roles that should be represented on the group but not numbers.

We do not hold information on how many breast network SSGs existed and how many times each group met prior to April 2013.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Jim Cunningham on 2014-06-16.

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many prisoners serving sentences in open conditions have previously absconded for their current or previous establishments (a) once, (b) twice, (c) three times and (d) four or more times.

Jeremy Wright

Keeping the public safe is our priority. Absconds and escapes have reached record lows under this Government but each incident is taken seriously. Immediate changes have already been ordered to tighten up the system as a matter of urgency. Prisoners will no longer be transferred to open conditions or allowed out on temporary release if they have previously absconded, escaped, or attempted to do either.

My officials are currently working to provide the information requested. I will write to you in due course.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Jim Cunningham on 2014-04-30.

To ask the Secretary of State for Health, what mechanisms his Department has in place to monitor standards in care homes for the elderly.

Norman Lamb

The Care Quality Commission (CQC) is the independent regulator of health and adult social care in England. Under the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (the 2008 Act) all providers of regulated activities, including National Health Service and independent providers, have to register with the CQC and meet a set of requirements of safety and quality.

The CQC is currently introducing a new system of inspection of social care providers. This new system of inspection will be structured around five key questions that matter most to people – are the services safe, caring, effective, well-led and responsive to people’s needs. The new inspections will make more use of people’s views and will use expert inspection teams involving people who have personal experience of care. The CQC has been piloting this new approach in 252 of social care providers since April 2014.

The Department is also working with the CQC to develop fundamental standards, which will set out the line below which care should never fall – they will be requirements that all providers of health and social care registered with the CQC must meet. The CQC will be able to take action including prosecution where providers are not meeting these standards. These fundamental standards will apply to all registered providers across health and adult social care.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Jim Cunningham on 2014-06-13.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, for what reason Sri Lanka has not been included as a priority country for the Preventing Sexual Violence Initiative.

Mr Hugo Swire

The Foreign Secretary’s Preventing Sexual Violence Initiative (PSVI) is global in reach. It aims to address impunity for crimes of conflict related sexual violence wherever these occur. We remain concerned at reports of a culture of impunity for rape and sexual violence and a lack of support for victims in Sri Lanka, as well as reports of the use of sexual violence as a means of torture in custody. We have engaged significantly with Sri Lanka on this issue. When the Foreign Secretary visited Sri Lanka in November 2013 to attend the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting (CHOGM), he hosted an event to highlight concerns about allegations of sexual violence in Sri Lanka during and after the conflict, and urged Sri Lanka to sign up to the UN Declaration of Commitment to End Sexual Violence in Conflict. The UK is also supporting projects to ensure a zero tolerance approach to rape and sexual violence in Sri Lanka. Our presence at CHOGM also ensured that the final communiqué at the Commonwealth Heads of Government in Colombo in November 2013 contained the first ever commitment by member states to take action to prevent and respond to sexual violence.