Tag: Lord Hunt of Kings Heath

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Hunt of Kings Heath on 2015-11-03.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the number of clinical staff in the National Health Service who will need to be made redundant to fund the proposed increases in fees as set out in the options in the consultation paper published by the Care Quality Commission on 2 November.

Lord Prior of Brampton

Government policy for fee-setting regulators is that their chargeable costs should be fully covered through their fees income, in line with HM Treasury Guidance set out in ‘Managing Public Money’.

The proposed fees increases being consulted upon for 2016-17 reflect the Care Quality Commission’s (CQC) commitment to achieving full cost recovery, in line with Managing Public Money, within the period of the Spending Review. The fees being charged are therefore funding the CQC as an effective regulator. They allow the CQC’s tough inspection regime to drive up standards across the country, which in turn ensures quality and safety of health and social care provision.

The CQC’s new regulatory model, led by three specialist Chief Inspectors, provides for robust monitoring and inspection of hospitals, adult care providers and general practitioners.

Our expectation is that National Health Service providers should be able to absorb these increases within their overall income which will depend, amongst other factors, on the outcome of the Spending Review and the subsequent tariff setting process for 2016-17.

The Department has also announced that it will make up to £15 million available for general practice in order to cover this and other pressures in 2016/17.

It is for providers to ensure that they have the appropriate capacity and capability in place in order to deliver a safe, high quality service.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Hunt of Kings Heath on 2015-11-17.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the investigation by The Times and the British Medical Journal into conflicts of interest caused by Clinical Commissioning Groups entering into contracts with companies in which one or more of their board members has a financial interest.

Lord Prior of Brampton

Clinical commissioning groups (CCGs) have legal duties under the Health and Social Care Act 2012 to manage conflicts of interests when deciding which health services to procure. CCGs must manage any actual or perceived conflicts in a way that is transparent, fair, and protects the integrity of their decision making.

NHS England publishes guidance for CCGs on their responsibility to manage conflicts of interest. CCGs must have regard to this.

Monitor must ensure that CCGs follow National Health Service regulations on procurement, patient choice and competition, and have powers of investigation if these are not followed.

In their recent report ‘Managing conflicts of interest in NHS clinical commissioning groups’ the National Audit Office (NAO) found that CCGs generally had arrangements in place to manage conflicts of interest to reduce the risk of commissioners’ decisions being improperly influenced. A copy of the NAO’s report is attached.

The NAO made recommendations to the Department, NHS England, Monitor and CCGs to strengthen current arrangements and we would expect the bodies concerned to consider these carefully and take appropriate action in response.

Action is already being taken by NHS England including:

– strengthening its CCG assurance processes;

– commissioning an independent audit of conflicts of interest management in ten primary care co-commissioning arrangements, with a review to using the learning to strengthen current arrangements;

– providing training to CCG lay members on management of conflicts of interest in 2015, with more training planned for next year; and,

– reviewing its own internal rules on conflicts of interest and the statutory guidance it issues to CCGs on management of conflicts of interest to ensure that arrangements are robust.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Hunt of Kings Heath on 2015-11-24.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they plan to undertake an investigation into the performance of local healthwatches.

Lord Prior of Brampton

The Department currently has no plans to undertake an investigation in to the performance of local Healthwatch organisations. In March 2015 the Department published a report commissioned from the King’s Fund – Local Healthwatch: Progress and promise – which set out the progress that local Healthwatch have made since being established in 2013. Transparency about the performance of local Healthwatch organisations is provided through the annual reports which they are required to publish. Reports on how the local Healthwatch network as a whole is operating and the nature of the support needed to deliver their activities effectively are discussed at quarterly public meetings of the Healthwatch England Committee.

Arrangements for ensuring local Healthwatch statutory activities are delivered in each area are a matter for local authorities. The Local Government Association has published guidance to support local Healthwatch and local commissioners in putting in place good governance arrangements, which includes clarity about the roles of all parties involved.

Neither the Department nor Healthwatch England are aware of local Healthwatch contractors refusing to engage with the public in their area. Where Healthwatch England is made aware of concerns in relation to local Healthwatch around governance or local relationships with specific individuals or organisations, it seeks to provide support to resolve these where appropriate. Members of the public are able to raise concerns though the complaints process of the local Healthwatch or the commissioning local authority.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Hunt of Kings Heath on 2015-12-15.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they intend to establish an independent external assessment of the reasons for the failure of the contract for older people’s services in Cambridge and Peterborough; and what plans they have for a moratorium on further large-scale procurements until lessons from that contract have been learnt.

Lord Prior of Brampton

NHS England advises that it will be commissioning an investigation into the circumstances leading up to the termination of the contract between Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Clinical Commissioning Group and UnitingCare Partnership LLP to deliver urgent care for the over 65s and adult community services. This will include the role of the Strategic Projects Team. NHS England is also considering how similar contracts will be managed and assured in the future.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Hunt of Kings Heath on 2015-12-21.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what consideration they have given to reviewing the process for the price setting of dermatology specials, and according to what timeframe.

Lord Prior of Brampton

The Drug Tariff sets out what National Health Service dispensing contractors will be paid for the products supplied as part of providing pharmaceutical services and the fees for providing those services in primary care.

The current arrangements in the Drug Tariff for paying for specials, including dermatological specials, were introduced in 2011. It is recognised that there can be variations in the price of some specials, which is why we are considering further possible improvements in the arrangements that govern the price the NHS pays. These include expanding the number of products covered by these arrangements and improving the data used to set the prices.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Hunt of Kings Heath on 2016-01-18.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government when they expect to publish a progress report on the 10-year PET-CT NHS England contract awarded to Alliance Medical in January 2015.

Lord Prior of Brampton

NHS England has put in place robust governance arrangements to support the national positron emission tomography–computed tomography (PET CT) contract, including regular reviews of the national contract, to ensure that services are commenced as planned, securing significant benefits for patients. As the contract was not fully mobilised until December 2015, NHS England plans to review the progress made over the first year in April 2016 and would be happy to make this report available.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Hunt of Kings Heath on 2016-01-26.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is their assessment of the number of hours a week worked by (1) teachers, and (2) school leaders.

Lord Nash

Removing unnecessary workload for teachers is a priority for this Government. On 6 February 2015, we published the response to our Workload Challenge alongside the findings in an independent research report. In response, a comprehensive programme was put in place to help address the complex issues raised. This included a commitment to continue to track teachers’ workload by carrying out a large scale survey every two years. This will start in spring 2016. Three review groups are also in progress to address the causes of unnecessary workload in relation to three of the biggest issues emerging from the Workload Challenge, namely: marking, planning, resources and data management. The groups will report to the Secretary of State in the spring of 2016 with principles for teaching practice and recommendations for the Department, schools and headteachers on how to eliminate unnecessary workload.

Information on hours worked by teachers was collected in the 2013 Teaching and Learning International Study.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Hunt of Kings Heath on 2016-02-02.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government how many prescriptions, per year, are (1) made for adults aged 70–76, and (2) not collected by adults aged 70–76.

Lord Prior of Brampton

We do not collect this information.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Hunt of Kings Heath on 2016-02-23.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what percentage of objections submitted to the Office of the Schools Adjudicator about the admission arrangements of schools were submitted by (1) groups and organisations, and (2) local parents, in each of the years from 2012 to 2015 inclusive.

Lord Nash

There is currently no requirement for an objector to identify themselves, or whether they belong to, or represent, a campaign group or organisation. Some objectors volunteer this information. However, some wish to remain anonymous and other parent objectors may not reveal whether they submitted the objection on behalf of a campaign group. We have no means of identifying this.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Hunt of Kings Heath on 2016-03-01.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the Written Answer by Lord Prior of Brampton on 4 January (HL4800), whether they are aware of any limitations regarding the data contained in the Nursing Times report in December 2014, in particular its accuracy and relevance to the UK.

Lord Prior of Brampton

There were 856 responses to the Royal College of Nursing survey run by Nursing Times in December 2014. The respondents were keen to get involved in the procurement process and recognised opportunities to save money.

The respondents to the survey included a broad spectrum of nursing staff, the breakdown of which was as follows: 35% Staff nurses, 31% Clinical nurse specialists; 16% ward sisters; 10% Senior nurse managers; 4% Healthcare Assistants; 1% Directors of Nursing; and 1% Student nurses. 74% of respondents to the survey saw opportunities to reduce duplication on wound care products.