Tag: Lord Hunt of Kings Heath

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Hunt of Kings Heath on 2015-11-23.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the performance of the West London Mental Health NHS Trust in combatting bullying in that organisation.

Lord Prior of Brampton

We are advised by the NHS Trust Development Agency (NHS TDA) that the West London Mental Health NHS Trust is aware of long standing concerns relating to staff engagement and bullying within the organisation. These concerns were highlighted in recent inspections of the Trust by the Care Quality Commission.

We are assured by the NHS TDA that the trust has put in place a comprehensive staff engagement programme aimed at improving working culture and staff morale. The Trust has also introduced a number of additional staff support mechanisms to enable staff to raise any concerns they may have around bullying and harassment.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Hunt of Kings Heath on 2015-12-14.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what percentage of (1) all multi-academy trusts, and (2) multi-academy trusts with at least five schools, achieve above average value added.

Earl of Courtown

Value added scores are routinely published for individual schools as part of the department’s performance tables, which include the functionality to filter results by an academy sponsor.

The department does not publish a summary of value added scores for each academy chain or multi-academy trust. Simple aggregations of performance measures can lead to misleading conclusions about performance within a chain since they will often reflect the type of schools that have entered into the chain relationship.

Earlier this year, the department published a statistical working paper to consider how these issues may be addressed and invited comments from users. This can be found in the attachment to this answer.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Hunt of Kings Heath on 2016-01-12.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what costs have been incurred by the NHS Commissioning Board, Commissioning Support Units and Clinical Commissioning Groups in conducting the Lead Provider Framework procurement process to date, including those spent on external advisers and employed staff time.

Lord Prior of Brampton

The total costs incurred by the NHS Commissioning Board in conducting the Lead Provider Framework procurement process amount to £551,000, which includes staff costs, external legal costs and costs associated with the sizable evaluation panel.

The NHS Commissioning Board provides expert procurement and legal support to clinical commissioning groups (CCGs) in order to run their procurement through the Lead Provider Framework. Any costs incurred providing this support are covered by a management fee that the NHS Commissioning Board collects from any successful provider.

This helps minimise the costs incurred by CCGs when running competitions from the framework. As of December 2015, total Commissioning Support Units spend was £8.4 million with a further £1.4 million identified as future known commitments to year end.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Hunt of Kings Heath on 2016-01-20.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government which stakeholders were invited to the first meeting of the new Strategic Oversight Board.

Lord Prior of Brampton

The invitee list for the first Strategic Oversight Board meeting which took place on 18 November 2015 is below:

Name	Organisation
Professor the Lord Ara Darzi of Denham (Chair)	Imperial College London
Andrew Morris	Farr Institute
Anna Beckett	Care Quality Commission
Arvind Madan	Primary Care
Bethan George	Tower Hamlets Clinical Commissioning Group
Cynthia Clark	Patients 4 Data
Dame Sally Davies	Department of Health
Dawn Monaghan	Information Commissioner’s Office
Dr Aisling Burnand	Association of Medical Research Charities
Dr Ben Goldacre	Bad Science
Dr Grant Ingrams	British Medical Association
Dr Janet Valentine	Clinical Practice Research Datalink
Dr Mike Knapton	British Heart Foundation
Eve Roodhouse	Health and Social Care Information Centre
Gary Leeming	Greater Manchester Academic Health Science Network
Gerard Crofton-Martin	Healthwatch England
Jeremy Taylor	National Voices
John Newton	Public Health England
Katherine Rake	Healthwatch England
Katie Farrington	Office of National Data Guardian
Lisa Harrod-Rothwell	NHS England
Louise Wood	Association of Medical Research Charities
Neil Stutchbury	Monitor
Nicola Perrin	Wellcome Trust
Paul Bate	Care Quality Commission
Prof John Appleby	The Kings Fund
Prof Nigel Mathers	Royal College of General Practitioners
Prof Simon Wessley	Royal College of Psychiatrists
Prof Sue Bailey	Royal College of Psychiatrists
Ronan O’Connor	NHS England
Ros Roughton	NHS England
Sarah Schofield	West Hampshire Clinical Commissioning Group
Sir Bruce Keogh	NHS England
Sir Cyril Chantler	UCL Partners
Steven Black	Monitor

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Hunt of Kings Heath on 2016-02-01.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the impact on patients of the decision by NHS England to refuse funding for micro-processor knees.

Lord Prior of Brampton

NHS England has not refused to fund micro-processor knees. A revised policy proposal for the routine commissioning of microprocessor controlled knees was considered by NHS England’s expert Clinical Priorities Advisory Group which recommended its adoption for routine commissioning. The proposal was then considered by NHS England’s Specialised Commissioning Oversight Group at its meeting on 9 December 2015 where it was agreed that NHS England would support this service development as a possible call on its resources. However given the potential scale of investment and the need to consider its priority relative to other treatments which would also have a possible call on the specialised commissioning resources it was decided that the policy should go forward for consideration as part of NHS England’s next annual prioritisation round in June 2016.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Hunt of Kings Heath on 2016-02-09.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the Written Answer by Lord Prior of Brampton on 27 January (HL5180), how they will ensure that the forecast increase in the level of podiatry commissions by 2020 will be met by the podiatry workforce; and what assessment they have made of the risks presented by the reduction in Health Education England commissioned student places in 2016–17 and the end of bursaries in August 2017.

Lord Prior of Brampton

Health Education England (HEE) operates an annual comprehensive planning process to ensure their investments meet the future needs of the population. This process determines the education commissioning volumes for the following financial year.

The HEE Commissioning and Investment Plan – 2016/17 includes a forecast increase in the available supply of podiatrists into the National Health Service workforce of 36.4% by 2020. The forecast reflects the planned commissions but also the net effect of different levels of non-retirement, leavers and joiners other than from HEE training programmes.

HEE local teams are responsible for assessing the forecast supply and demand. The activity of gathering evidence, modelling and decision making at the local level is supported by Partnership Councils, including NHS and non-NHS service providers.

The Department will run a consultation on how the funding reforms for nursing, midwifery and allied health education can be most successfully implemented. We currently expect to consult during March 2016. As part of this, an economic impact assessment and equality impact assessment will be published.

HEE will continue to have a central role in the commissioning of nursing, midwifery and allied health courses which will include podiatry. They will continue to provide sufficient clinical placement funding for those places needed to meet the workforce planning needs of the NHS.

We estimate that the reforms will allow universities to be able to offer up to 10,000 more nursing, midwifery and allied health training places over this parliament.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Hunt of Kings Heath on 2016-02-22.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what pressure, if any, they have placed on Health Education England to penalise NHS Foundation Trusts in respect of the funding of training places if they do not implement the junior doctors’ contract consistently.

Lord Prior of Brampton

The Government has not pressured Health Education England to penalise National Health Service foundation trusts. The emphasis of the letter sent by Health Education England’s Chief Executive, Professor Ian Cumming OBE, to all trusts on 15 February this year, was clear on the need for consistent implementation to ensure that patients get the care they need where they need it and junior doctors get the training they need across the whole of the NHS:

“A single national approach is essential to safeguard the organisation and delivery of postgraduate medical training to ensure all doctors can secure the professional development they require to complete their training programmes. We are not prepared to see a system where a competition based on a local employer’s ability to offer different terms is part of the recruitment process. The recruitment process should be based on patient and service need and quality of training as it always has been. Therefore implementation of the national contract will be a key criterion for Health Education England in making its decisions on our investment in training posts.”

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Hunt of Kings Heath on 2016-03-07.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what action they are taking in the light of the concerns raised by the National Children’s Bureau that academy schools are refusing to take children with special needs in order to take pupils who are likely to get the best results.

Lord Nash

The School Admissions Code and equalities legislation prevents any school from taking account of a child’s SEN or disability in deciding whether to admit him or her. Children with special educational needs (SEN) and disabilities who do not have a statement of SEN or an Education Health and Care (EHC) plan which names a school, will apply to schools as mainstream applicants. In these circumstances, academies, like local authority maintained schools, are required to comply with the statutory School Admissions Code in applying their admission policies. Any parent whose application is refused has a right to appeal to an independent appeal panel and the School Admission Appeals Code requires the panel to uphold any appeals where a school has not applied its admission policy correctly. The panel’s decision is binding on the school.

When a child has a statement of SEN or an EHC plan, naming a school, the law requires the school to admit the child (including if it is an academy). If an academy named in a pupil’s statement of SEN or EHC plan were to refuse to admit him or her, we would not hesitate to take action.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Hunt of Kings Heath on 2016-03-21.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government why nine trusts have not reported a figure for the number of patients waiting for treatment for more than a year even though the figures were available in their own board papers or commissioners’ boards’ papers.

Lord Prior of Brampton

Consultant-led referral to treatment waiting time statistics are designated as National Statistics. This means that the statistics are produced according to sound methods, and are managed impartially and objectively in the public interest.

From time to time, for example when there are serious problems with patient administration systems, National Health Service trusts do need to temporarily suspend submissions of data for inclusion in the publication of National Statistics for reasons of data quality and completeness. Nine acute trusts did not submit data on referral to treatment waiting times for January 2016. For this reason, the published data on the number of patients waiting more than a year to start consultant-led treatment for non-urgent conditions may be understated. NHS Improvement is working intensively with these trusts so that they can begin submitting data again as quickly as possible.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Hunt of Kings Heath on 2016-04-14.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government why the South Warwickshire Clinical Commissioning Group is going ahead with its proposals to tender out its £227 million Out of Hospital Programme in the light of (1) the review of such contracts that is being conducted following the review by David Stout into the causes of the termination of the Uniting Care Partnership Contract, and (2) the criticism by the local acute Foundation Trust of that process.

Lord Prior of Brampton

NHS England advises that it is reviewing how this type of contract is assured. We understand that South Warwickshire Clinical Commissioning Group’s procurement has been placed on hold until the appropriate assurance is in place.