Tag: Lord Hunt of Kings Heath

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Hunt of Kings Heath on 2016-03-22.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the Written Answer by Lord Prior of Brampton on 21 March (HL7013), why the NHS Strategic Projects Team was said to have employees in view of it not being an organisation and therefore not able to employ staff.

Lord Prior of Brampton

The Strategic Projects Team is hosted by Arden GEM Commissioning Support Unit. The staff referred to in HL7013 were on secondment from the CSU and NHS England and were therefore employees.

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

To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they accept the recommendation of the report of the equality analysis undertaken under section 149 of the Equality Act 2010 that a number of steps be taken to amend the draft new contract for doctors in training to address the position of part-time doctors in order to advance equality of opportunity between men and women doctors.

Lord Prior of Brampton

The contract published on 31 March is a huge step forward for achieving fairness for all trainee doctors. For the first time junior doctors will be paid and rewarded solely on the basis of their own hard work and achievement and pay progression will be linked to level of training rather than arbitrarily to time served.

All junior doctors should have the same terms and conditions – a level playing field – which is ultimately what employers and the British Medical Association (BMA) want and everyone deserves.

When the Secretary of State published the Equality Analysis on the new contract for doctors and dentists in training in the NHS (“Doctors”) on the 31 March 2016 on the GOV.UK website he made it clear that, as a result of considering the Equality Analysis, in accordance with his duties and obligations, he had asked for a number of changes to the draft contract to address specific issues for certain groups with protected characteristics. This has been done and the contract has been duly amended. These changes included changes that benefited staff who work part time. The new contract is not discriminatory it ensures that all junior doctors receive equal pay for work of equal value. The BMA’s own lawyers have advised that nothing in the new contract is discriminatory. Nevertheless the equality duty is an ongoing duty and it is intended that monitoring will continue after the introduction of the new contract in accordance with the public sector equality duty in the Equality Act 2010.

A copy of the Equality Analysis is attached.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Hunt of Kings Heath on 2016-04-25.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they will establish a public inquiry into care failings in the Liverpool Community NHS Trust in the light of findings that executive directors of the trust downgraded serious risks or incidents and kept information from non-executive board members.

Lord Prior of Brampton

We are assured by NHS Improvement that it continues to work closely with the Trust following the support provided by the NHS Trust Development Authority (NTDA). Following the Care Quality Commission’s report of 2014, the NTDA took immediate steps to improve the skill set within the executive team, commissioned a board capability review and provided clinical and quality support in developing and delivering a quality improvement plan. As further issues came to light, the non-executive and the executive teams at the time of the failings were replaced.

A recent independent review made clear that the drive of the board to achieve foundation trust (FT) status was a dominant factor which contributed towards the failures of the trust. The report suggests that the board was managed in the way it was to ensure the FT application remained on track and that this led to downplaying of risks. A copy of this review, Quality, safety and management assurance review at Liverpool Community Health NHS Trust, is attached.

The Trust withdrew its application for FT status in January 2015. It is now actively working towards a transaction that is likely to see the trust’s services being delivered by alternative providers

In addition to a new leadership team in place, a number of other measures are being progressed. There is an ongoing improvement plan, the continued support of NHS Improvement, implementation of the independent review’s recommendations and a well-advanced transaction proposal that is likely to lead to the eventual disestablishment of the Trust. However we will consider the possibility of a further review with the leadership of NHS Improvement.

NHS Improvement is currently developing a new approach to authorising FTs. It will allow National Health Service trusts to demonstrate they meet the standards expected of FT status without the process becoming a serious distraction for them.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Hunt of Kings Heath on 2016-05-03.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what the costs will be of the proposed conversion of all non-academies to academy schools.

Lord Nash

Taking the Spending Review and the Budget together, we have set aside the funding to support a high quality school system where all schools are academies.

Through the Budget and the Department for Education’s settlement in the Spending Review there are sufficient resources available to take advantage of the opportunities presented by all schools becoming academies. The Government has allocated £300 million that will be available to support schools to convert and, in particular, support sponsors to turn around failing schools. A further £300 million will be available to support strong and effective multi-academy trusts to grow and improve.

The Department will be issuing further detail on how funding will support the conversion of all schools to academy status in due course.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Hunt of Kings Heath on 2016-05-23.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government why the independent review of the handling by the Royal Wolverhampton NHS Trust of concerns raised by and related to Mrs Haynes-Kirkbright did not inquire into wider governance concerns raised as part of the review when its terms or reference allowed it to report on other relevant matters that arose during the course of the review.

Lord Prior of Brampton

These are matters in the first instance for NHS Improvement. The Verita report, Independent review of the handling by The Royal Wolverhampton NHS Trust of concerns raised by and related to Mrs Haynes-Kirkbright, was commissioned by the NHS Trust Development Authority – a forerunner organisation – independently of Government.

NHS Improvement is commissioning a governance review to consider issues highlighted by the Verita report. A copy of the terms of reference for the new governance review are attached.

Verita was originally requested (under specific terms of reference) to review and provide a dedicated report on the handling by the Royal Wolverhampton NHS Trust of concerns raised by and related to Mrs Haynes-Kirkbright. Governance issues that fell outside of those terms of reference will be considered in the new review, to ensure thorough investigation.

The new review will take into account evidence provided by Mrs Haynes-Kirkbright and others in the course of the Verita review.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Hunt of Kings Heath on 2016-07-19.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government, in the light of the National Audit Office investigation into the collapse of the Uniting Care Partnership Contract in Cambridge and Peterborough, whether they plan to dismantle the Strategic Projects Team.

Lord Prior of Brampton

The Department welcomes the National Audit Office (NAO) report. Decisions about the Strategic Projects Team (SPT) are, however, for NHS England. Following an internal review and the NAO report, NHS England identified concerns about the work of the SPT. As a result, the SPT will close and all its ongoing commitments will be reviewed with a view to bringing them to a conclusion.

NHS Improvement advises that it also welcomes the NAO report and is working closely with NHS England and the Department to consider assurance processes for such complex transactions. NHS Improvement further advises that its focus since May has been liaison with the NAO on its report and joint consideration with NHS England of the assurance issues raised.

NHS England confirms that the NAO investigation supports the findings of its previously published independent review. Before the NAO investigation, NHS England had already commissioned a follow-up review focusing on the role of external advisors, the effectiveness of the Gateway review process, and the role of the clinical commissioning group leadership and governing body. This work continues and NHS England expects to publish findings later this summer.

More widely, NHS England has been undertaking assessments of current and planned novel contracts and is developing an assurance framework for contracts of this sort. This is being informed by the findings of the Uniting Care reviews.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Hunt of Kings Heath on 2016-09-14.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the scale of trolley waits in the accident and emergency department of the Royal Blackburn Hospital and the consequent safety of patients.

Baroness Chisholm of Owlpen

No such assessments have been made. The provision of accident and emergency (A&E) services at the Royal Blackburn Hospital is a matter for the local National Health Service. The NHS in East Lancashire has established an A&E delivery board to oversee system performance and the effective delivery of urgent and emergency care locally.

Ministers consult weekly with NHS Improvement and the Care Quality Commission about A&E performance.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Hunt of Kings Heath on 2015-10-29.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government who are the members of, and what are the terms of reference for, the Department of Health’s Appraisal Alignment Working Group.

Lord Prior of Brampton

The current membership of the Appraisal Alignment Working Group is as follows:

Department of Health

Keith Derbyshire (Chair) Chief Analyst and Chief Economist

Danny Palnoch Senior Economic Adviser

Peter Bennett Senior Operational Research Scientist

Dr Mark Bale Deputy Chief Medical Officer

National Institute for Health and Care Excellence

Leeza Osipenko Associate Director

Meindert Boysen Associate Director

Public Health England

Prof Brian Ferguson Director for Knowledge & Intelligence

Dr Anne Mackie Director of Screening

Monitor

John Curnow Economics Project Director

Zephan Trent Impact Assessment Lead

NHS England

Dr Donald Franklin Senior Economic Adviser NHS England

Amy Lee Economic Advisor

Brunel University

Prof Martin Buxton Emeritus Professor of Health Economics

London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine Representing Joint Committee for Vaccines and Immunisations and Safety of Blood Tissues and Organs

Prof John Cairns Professor of Health Economics

The current Terms of Reference (agreed with ministers in February 2014) is replicated below:

Appraisal Alignment Working Group [AAWG] Terms of Reference & Objectives

The Appraisal Alignment Working Group (AAWG) is comprised of policy and analytic staff who work in, or give advice to, DH and its ALBs on the cost-benefit and cost-effectiveness of programmes, technologies and policies.

The purpose of the group is to share knowledge on the various techniques employed across the Health and Care sector, to discuss and debate the pros and cons of different approaches employed, to consider ways of rendering results comparable, and to understand the reasons for differences in approaches.

The working group is not a decision making body. Rather it is advisory. Individual members representing different organisations will take back recommendations and questions to their parent bodies for consideration.

It is proposed to have meetings every six to eight weeks to achieve the ‘Must Do’ (e.g. primary) objective described below.

The ‘Must Do’

Before the next Spending Review, (pencilled in for June to October 2015), it is essential the Department of Health (DH) and its Arm’s Length Bodies (ALBs) can present a consistent approach o HM Treasury (HMT) on the cost benefit of different programmes (e.g. vaccinations, screening new technologies). The cost benefit case for spending presented to HMT should follow public sector best practice as set out by HMT, in its Green Book. Therefore results of appraisals need to be capable of being expressed in HMT Green Book methodology terms (ie using the Green Book methodology as a “reference case”).

Having successfully achieved that, the Working Group will take stock and decide if the group (or some other forum) should continue and progress on three desiderata:

1. economic justification for methods employed in each area and clear rationale for when methods differ and/or diverge from HMT’s Green Book.
2. achieve greater alignment of techniques between the different sectors and organisations
3. serve as an expert panel to advise on the development and application of new techniques on an on-going basis.

This work would be less time critical and could be pursued by meetings every eight to twelve weeks.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Hunt of Kings Heath on 2015-11-10.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the future role of NHS Foundation Trusts in the NHS.

Lord Prior of Brampton

We will continue to discuss the role of foundation trusts (FTs) in the National Health Service with the leaders of NHS Improvement as the organisation moves to a more aligned approach to the regulation and oversight of FTs and NHS trusts.

The clinical and economic sustainability of all trusts is of paramount importance, and NHS Improvement will continue to support NHS providers to determine the most appropriate means of securing their long-term future.

The NHS Trust Development Authority is continuing to refer organisations to Monitor for FT authorisation decisions. No decisions have yet been made about how this activity will be undertaken by NHS Improvement from 1 April 2016.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Hunt of Kings Heath on 2015-11-19.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the additional costs to the NHS of the introduction of the single state pension in April 2016, which will remove the national insurance rebate currently received by NHS employers offering final salary schemes.

Lord Prior of Brampton

The Spending Review has announced that National Health Service funding will rise by £3.8 billion in real terms in 2016-17 and by £8 billion in real terms by 2020-21, compared to 2015-16. It is estimated that changes to the state pension, from April 2016, will cost the NHS £1.1 billion.

This funding will enable the NHS to meet a range of cost pressures, including increased costs for NHS employers of the introduction of the single state pension.