Tag: Lord Crisp

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Crisp on 2015-11-30.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they plan to review their current immigration policies so that international students, qualified researchers, and experts across the health and science sectors can more easily enter the UK and participate in training, run courses, and attend meetings and conferences.

Lord Bates

We keep all categories of entry and the application process under regular review. The Home Office recently concluded a wide ranging review and consultation that led to the changes to the Immigration Rules for visitors in April this year. The changes included consolidation and simplification of all visitor categories from fifteen into four routes to provide flexibility on the activities a visitor can do, as well as some expansion of the permitted activities. These included business related activities such as participating in or running training courses, meetings and conferences.

Under the Immigration Rules, visitors are allowed to teach one-off classroom sessions in the UK without pay and their sponsors are welcome to provide funding for flights and accommodation.

More details on what people can do when visiting the UK and how to apply can be found at the following link: https://www.gov.uk/standard-visitor-visa and the detailed Immigration Rules for Visitors can be found at this link: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/immigration-rules/immigration-rules-appendix-v-visitor-rules

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Crisp on 2015-11-30.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they plan to revise current visa categories to allow non-EU professionals and experts, in particular those in the health and science sectors, to teach one-off classroom sessions in the UK without pay, but receiving funding for their flights and accommodation, without the need for a work permit.

Lord Bates

We keep all categories of entry and the application process under regular review. The Home Office recently concluded a wide ranging review and consultation that led to the changes to the Immigration Rules for visitors in April this year. The changes included consolidation and simplification of all visitor categories from fifteen into four routes to provide flexibility on the activities a visitor can do, as well as some expansion of the permitted activities. These included business related activities such as participating in or running training courses, meetings and conferences.

Under the Immigration Rules visitors are allowed to teach one-off classroom sessions in the UK without pay and their sponsors are welcome to provide funding for flights and accommodation.

More details on what people can do when visiting the UK and how to apply can be found at the following link: https://www.gov.uk/standard-visitor-visa and the detailed Immigration Rules for Visitors can be found at this link: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/immigration-rules/immigration-rules-appendix-v-visitor-rules

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Crisp on 2016-01-20.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the importance of mental health research and its contribution to improved mental health nationally.

Lord Prior of Brampton

Mental health research is vital for better prevention of mental illness, development and evaluation of effective treatments, and to inform organisation and delivery of high quality care. Research funders are working together in this field to identify priorities and co-ordinate activity. In November 2015, the Department and Royal College of Psychiatrists held a joint meeting to identify key questions for mental health research. Following this meeting, funding organisations met on 6 January to discuss the strategic co-ordination of mental health research.

In 2014/15, the Department’s National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) spent £27.7 million on mental health through its research programmes – expenditure higher than in any other disease area including cancer (£19.8 million). In all, the NIHR spent a total of £72.6 million on mental health research in that year, including research infrastructure and fellowships.

Total NIHR investment in mental health research infrastructure (including that provided through NIHR biomedical research centres and the NIHR Clinical Research Network) has nearly doubled from £23.8 million in 2009/10 to £41.8 million in 2014/15.

The NIHR has launched a new, open competition for biomedical research centre funding from April 2017 to March 2022. In this competition, a number of clinical areas of particular strategic importance to the health of patients are highlighted including mental health.

The NIHR Clinical Research Network supports delivery in the National Health Service of studies funded by the NIHR itself and by eligible partners including the United Kingdom Research Councils and medical research charities. To date in 2015/16, the network has recruited 23,778 participants in 273 studies where mental health is recorded as the main specialty. The network will continue to monitor the study pipeline for mental health.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Crisp on 2016-01-20.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they have taken to ensure parity between funding for physical health and mental health research following the 2014 Research Excellence Framework conducted by the Higher Education Funding Council for England.

Baroness Evans of Bowes Park

The Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) is allocated funding from the Department for Business Innovation and Skills (BIS) Science and Research budget to distribute to higher education institutions (HEIs) in England. Most of HEFCE’s funding is allocated as an unhypothecated research block grant to institutions, ensuring university leaders have flexibility to support their own research priorities. While this block grant is calculated using research quality and volume information from the 2014 Research Excellence Framework (REF2014) at a subject level, it is a matter for individual HEIs to determine how it is ultimately distributed to particular activities/subjects.

In developing the REF, the attribution of different disciplines to particular units of assessment was agreed with the relevant professional bodies. Research relevant to clinical mental health was assessed in a unit including psychology, psychiatry and neuroscience. As this unit included a mix of research with higher costs (clinical psychology and psychiatry, and neuroscience) and lower costs (social psychology), the funding was allocated at an intermediate cost rate, reflecting the mix of disciplines.

REF2014 demonstrated significantly improved research quality in all disciplines, including psychology, psychiatry and neuroscience. As a result, the funding allocated on the basis of performance to this group increased by 16.5 per cent.

As announced in the Spending Review 2015, the Government is taking forward a review of the REF to ensure that future university research funding is allocated efficiently, offers greater rewards for excellent research and reduces the administrative burden on institutions. This review will be led by Lord Stern, and he is expected to deliver his review to the Government in summer 2016.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Crisp on 2016-01-20.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the need for increased funding for the infrastructure costs associated with mental health research.

Lord Prior of Brampton

Mental health research is vital for better prevention of mental illness, development and evaluation of effective treatments, and to inform organisation and delivery of high quality care. Research funders are working together in this field to identify priorities and co-ordinate activity. In November 2015, the Department and Royal College of Psychiatrists held a joint meeting to identify key questions for mental health research. Following this meeting, funding organisations met on 6 January to discuss the strategic co-ordination of mental health research.

In 2014/15, the Department’s National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) spent £27.7 million on mental health through its research programmes – expenditure higher than in any other disease area including cancer (£19.8 million). In all, the NIHR spent a total of £72.6 million on mental health research in that year, including research infrastructure and fellowships.

Total NIHR investment in mental health research infrastructure (including that provided through NIHR biomedical research centres and the NIHR Clinical Research Network) has nearly doubled from £23.8 million in 2009/10 to £41.8 million in 2014/15.

The NIHR has launched a new, open competition for biomedical research centre funding from April 2017 to March 2022. In this competition, a number of clinical areas of particular strategic importance to the health of patients are highlighted including mental health.

The NIHR Clinical Research Network supports delivery in the National Health Service of studies funded by the NIHR itself and by eligible partners including the United Kingdom Research Councils and medical research charities. To date in 2015/16, the network has recruited 23,778 participants in 273 studies where mental health is recorded as the main specialty. The network will continue to monitor the study pipeline for mental health.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Crisp on 2016-01-20.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government why clinical research in mental health is scheduled to receive a tariff 32 per cent lower than for other clinical medicine subjects, including dentistry and nursing, for the same type of research, in the light of the overall increase in funding following the 2014 Research Excellence Framework conducted by the Higher Education Funding Council for England.

Baroness Evans of Bowes Park

The Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) is allocated funding from the Department for Business Innovation and Skills (BIS) Science and Research budget to distribute to higher education institutions (HEIs) in England. Most of HEFCE’s funding is allocated as an unhypothecated research block grant to institutions, ensuring university leaders have flexibility to support their own research priorities. While this block grant is calculated using research quality and volume information from the 2014 Research Excellence Framework (REF2014) at a subject level, it is a matter for individual HEIs to determine how it is ultimately distributed to particular activities/subjects.

In developing the REF, the attribution of different disciplines to particular units of assessment was agreed with the relevant professional bodies. Research relevant to clinical mental health was assessed in a unit including psychology, psychiatry and neuroscience. As this unit included a mix of research with higher costs (clinical psychology and psychiatry, and neuroscience) and lower costs (social psychology), the funding was allocated at an intermediate cost rate, reflecting the mix of disciplines.

REF2014 demonstrated significantly improved research quality in all disciplines, including psychology, psychiatry and neuroscience. As a result, the funding allocated on the basis of performance to this group increased by 16.5 per cent.

As announced in the Spending Review 2015, the Government is taking forward a review of the REF to ensure that future university research funding is allocated efficiently, offers greater rewards for excellent research and reduces the administrative burden on institutions. This review will be led by Lord Stern, and he is expected to deliver his review to the Government in summer 2016.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Crisp on 2016-02-01.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government how much the Department for International Development spent on mental health in low- and middle-income countries in 2015.

Baroness Verma

Tracking of inputs, allocations and expenditure is based on the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development’s Development Assistance Committee (OECD-DAC) codes, which are used for reporting official development assistance.

The UK’s health focus in developing countries is on improving the provision of basic health services for the poor by strengthening and supporting health systems, health worker capacity and access to essential medicines. Increasing coverage, equity, access and quality will strengthen health services to address all health problems including non-communicable diseases, like mental disorders and dementia.

DFID is helping countries to make fairer, transparent and evidence-based decisions about how to set priorities and allocate resources in health. We support research on mental health through our PRIME (Programme for Improving Mental Health Care) programme. This research is providing world class evidence on implementation and scaling up for treatment programmes and having this adopted by policy makers.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Crisp on 2016-02-01.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether the proportion of the Department for International Development funding for mental health in low- and middle-income countries has increased or decreased in the last year for which figures are available.

Baroness Verma

Tracking of inputs, allocations and expenditure is based on the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development’s Development Assistance Committee (OECD-DAC) codes, which are used for reporting official development assistance.

The UK’s health focus in developing countries is on improving the provision of basic health services for the poor by strengthening and supporting health systems, health worker capacity and access to essential medicines. Increasing coverage, equity, access and quality will strengthen health services to address all health problems including non-communicable diseases, like mental disorders and dementia.

DFID is helping countries to make fairer, transparent and evidence-based decisions about how to set priorities and allocate resources in health. We support research on mental health through our PRIME (Programme for Improving Mental Health Care) programme. This research is providing world class evidence on implementation and scaling up for treatment programmes and having this adopted by policy makers.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Crisp on 2016-02-01.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether the Department for International Development will value mental health equally with physical health in its funding decisions.

Baroness Verma

The UK has lobbied hard to make sure the Global Goals cover the areas not covered by the Millennium Development Goals, to make sure nobody is left behind, including in health, which is a significant step forward. DFID’s principal approach to supporting the Global Goal for health is to strengthen health services, improving coverage, access and quality so that services better address all major causes of ill health including mental health. The UK has played a key role in creating a set of goals that are universal and inclusive and focused on ending chronic poverty forever, for everyone, everywhere. The UK has been a strong and consistent supporter of the need to achieve Universal Health Coverage.

We also support research, together with specific work on mental health. For example, in Ghana, addressing mental health is a specific focus within DFID’s health sector support programme as well as under the Health Partnership Scheme, DFID is helping to establish a community-based programme of mental health care in Malawi to improve care of people with common and severe mental health illnesses. DFID is also providing support for mental health services for Syrian refugees, including those traumatised by the conflict.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Crisp on 2016-02-01.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government in the light of the recent inclusion of mental health targets under Sustainable Development Goal 3, whether the Department for International Development plans to review its strategy for funding mental health in low- and middle-income countries.

Baroness Verma

The UK’s health focus in developing countries is on improving the provision of basic health services for the poor by supporting and strengthening health systems, health worker capacity and access to essential medicines. Increasing coverage, equity, access and quality will strengthen health services to address all health problems including non-communicable diseases, like mental disorders and dementia.

The Global Goals are a major landmark in our fight against poverty. The UK has lobbied hard to make sure the Global Goals cover the areas not covered by the Millennium Development Goals, to make sure nobody is left behind including those most marginalized. DFID’s principal approach to supporting the Global Goal for health is to strengthen health services, improving coverage, access and quality so that services better address all major causes of ill health including mental health. The UK has played a key role in creating a set of goals that are universal and inclusive and focused on ending chronic poverty forever, for everyone, everywhere. The UK has been a strong and consistent supporter of the need to achieve Universal Health Coverage (UHC).