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 evidence on which the current emphasis by NHS Choices on low-fat products or unsaturated fats in dietary advice for people with diabetes, or who are pre-diabetic, is based.

Lord Prior of Brampton

Public Health England (PHE) advocates a healthy balanced diet for all based on the eatwell plate; the national healthy eating guide. The eatwell plate shows for a healthy balanced diet people should try to eat plenty of starchy foods, fruit and vegetables, some milk, dairy, meat, fish and other non-dairy sources of protein and only small amounts of food and drinks high in fat and/or sugar.

The Government takes a whole population approach to healthy eating, and therefore does not provide specific dietary advice to individuals with medical needs. It is recommended for anyone with a medical condition who is in search of dietary advice to consult their local general practitioner or a dietician.

In July 2015, the Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition (SACN) published its report on Carbohydrates and Health, a review of the latest evidence on dietary carbohydrates and health. SACN recommended reducing sugar consumption, increasing fibre consumption and minimising consumption of sugars-sweetened drinks. A copy of Carbohydrates and Health is attached.

Following publication, advice on what constitutes a healthy balanced diet, for the general population, which includes those with diabetes, was updated to reflect SACN’s recommendations. As part of this, PHE is undertaking a review of the eatwell plate; the refreshed resource will be launched in early 2016.

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 sponsored academies that were rated inadequate by Ofsted on conversion remained inadequate at their next inspection, and what percentage of maintained schools that were rated inadequate by Ofsted at their previous inspection, but remained maintained, remained inadequate at their latest inspection.

Earl of Courtown

This is a matter for Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector, Sir Michael Wilshaw. I have asked him to write to you and a copy of his reply will be placed in the libraries of the House.

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

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what benefits aside from the 10 per cent price reduction that policy required have accrued from conducting the Lead Provider Framework procurement process to date.

Lord Prior of Brampton

The Lead Provider Framework enables clinical commissioning groups (CCGs) to run a simpler, legally compliant and more efficient process than typical European procurements in order to source high quality commissioning support from accredited, professional at scale providers.

Sourcing commissioning support collaboratively with other commissioners enables CCGs to benefit from the economies of scale and the diverse range of smaller niche organisations that the nine Lead Providers bring together.

The Lead Provider Framework has already led to consolidation within the market, driving efficiency and has improved the quality and range of services offered. CCGs are expected to benefit from further efficiencies as providers compete for their contracts.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Hunt of Kings Heath on 2016-01-19.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the Written Answer by Lord Prior of Brampton on 17 November 2015 (HL3303), whether Monitor has decided on (1) the terms of reference of the independent review into the actions of the South East Coast Ambulance Trust in delaying responses to patients with life-threatening conditions who contacted the 111 service, and (2) whether that review will be made public.

Lord Prior of Brampton

We are advised by Monitor that it is currently agreeing the terms of reference of the review with South East Coast Ambulance Service NHS Foundation Trust. The review will look at the impact of the 111 project on patients, covering both benefit and harm.

We are also informed by Monitor that the exact format of the review and what information will be made public are still to be determined. Monitor has made clear that the review should identify lessons and best practice which can be shared across the ambulance sector.

We are advised that it is expected that the findings of the review will be available before the summer.

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 whether the decision by NHS England to refuse funding for micro-processor knees is consistent with its Five Year Forward View, which states that the NHS needs to adapt to take advantage of the opportunities that science and technology offer patients and carers.

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 2016-02-08.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of whether the intention of NHS Improvement to commission management consultancies to work with turnaround trusts is consistent with their aim to limit the use of such consultancies by NHS organisations.

Lord Prior of Brampton

The guidance for use of management consultancies is set out as part of the spending approvals process. Monitor has published the following guidance for foundation trusts “Consultancy spending approval process: Initial guidance to NHS foundation trusts” with the Trust Development Authority (TDA) publishing similar for NHS trusts “Consultancy spending controls: Initial Guidance to NHS Trusts”. Copies of the guidance are attached.

The guidance is clear that expenditure on management consultancy must demonstrate that the skills and expertise of advisors cannot be delivered through use of existing resources. It is also a requirement that value for money must be demonstrated. This approach is the same for NHS providers, NHS Improvement or any NHS organisation. Therefore we are content NHS Improvement’s approach to managing turnaround programmes is consistent with this requirement.

NHS Improvement ensures that lessons learned from all financial turnaround programmes are taken into account when considering how to handle any financially challenged providers requiring turnaround actions in the future. This includes the use of the best available, most appropriate consultancies with the right blend of skills and experience required to deliver the turnaround programme.

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

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the impact on the quality and experience of inspectors of the decision by the Care Quality Commission to outsource services to Remploy.

Lord Prior of Brampton

Experts by Experience provide an important role in the Care Quality Commission’s (CQC) inspections programme, working alongside the CQC’s professional inspectors. Experts by Experience provide valuable insights and judgements, talking to people who use the service and observing the environment and the quality of care hospitals and care homes provide.

In December 2015, the CQC announced the successful winners of the new contracts to provide Experts by Experience, Choice Support and Remploy Ltd. The Experts by Experience service has been an outsourced service since its inception. The CQC’s professional inspectors are not outsourced and are unaffected by these contracts.

The delivery of these services from 1 February 2016 by Remploy is as a result of a compliant procurement of these services. The procurement process included a rigorous evaluation of each of the tendering organisations response to delivering the service requirements against quality standards for service delivery.

The CQC’s decision to award these new contracts focussed on expanding the numbers of Experts by Experience involved in the CQC’s inspections, ensuring that the high quality contribution Experts by Experience have provided to date is maintained and delivering value for money.

The CQC is the independent regulator for health and adult social care in England. It is responsible for its own staffing requirements, including any decisions on contracts around the supplying of Experts by Experience for its inspections of providers. In line with Cabinet Office approvals processes, the Department:

– gave approval for the CQC to invite tenders for the Experts by Experience programme; and

– reviewed and approved the CQC’s business case, to enable the CQC to proceed with finalising new contracts for Experts by Experience.

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

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what discussion they have had with universities in order to encourage them to raise awareness of the NHS Low Income Scheme.

Lord Prior of Brampton

There have been no discussions with universities or student representative bodies to encourage them to raise awareness of the NHS Low Income Scheme. However, information is made available to the public, including students, about the Help with Health Costs arrangements, which includes the NHS Low Income Scheme. This information is provided in various ways, including through the NHS Choices website and long-standing arrangements to make leaflets available to all the NHS service access points, for example general practitioner surgeries and NHS dental practices. The NHS Business Services Authority, which manages the Help with Health Costs system, also uses social media to raise awareness of the Help with Health Costs arrangements, such as through the Student Bursaries Facebook and Twitter accounts.

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

To ask Her Majesty’s Government why figures for the Barking, Havering and Redbridge NHS University Hospitals Trust were not included in the official figures of the number of patients waiting for treatment for more than a year.

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 what changes they propose to make in the new contract for doctors in training in the light of the equality analysis undertaken under section 149 of the Equality Act 2010.

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.