Tag: Lord Hunt of Kings Heath

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

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what evidence they have, if any, to show that sponsored academies are more successful at improving in terms of Ofsted status, when compared to similar maintained schools.

Earl of Courtown

Ofsted inspection reports for sponsored academies are readily available, as is information on exam performance.

Sponsored academies are transforming some of the worst underperforming schools under the guidance of an expert sponsor. Becoming an academy enables us to move quickly to replace poor leadership and governance in these failing schools, giving strong leaders the freedom to make decisions that will drive up standards balanced with tough accountability.

The latest Ofsted Annual Report (December 2015) stated that: “Sponsor-led academies were initially created to raise attainment in schools with long-standing poor performance, often in very deprived areas. Attainment in these schools has increased over time, with the longest standing academies having the strongest performance.”

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

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what arrangements have been put in place for independent external evaluation of the Lead Provider Framework process, and when that evaluation will report.

Lord Prior of Brampton

Given the relatively early stage of procurements from the Lead Provider Framework, it would be premature to undertake an independent evaluation. NHS England is, however, keen to learn lessons as to how the Lead Provider Framework process can be improved for users and bidders alike.

NHS England has therefore sought feedback from clinical commissioning groups (CCGs), providers and NHS clinical commissioners. They are acting on this information and are intending to share lessons learnt with those CCGs who are yet to use the Lead Provider Framework; for example by sharing specifications and evaluation approaches that other organisations have developed.

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

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what has been the outcome of the Clinical Commissioning Group review into recent allegations about the NHS 111 service in the East Midlands.

Lord Prior of Brampton

NHS England advises that North Derbyshire Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG) comprehensively and swiftly investigated the allegations about the NHS 111 service in the East Midlands. The core of the allegations has no substance.

The report however made a number of recommendations for the service, and the CCG will update NHS England regularly as these are implemented.

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 cost of giving free prescriptions to students in full-time education.

Lord Prior of Brampton

We are unable to provide the cost of giving free prescriptions to students in full-time education.

The estimated cost of giving free prescriptions to those young people aged 16, 17 and 18 in full-time education for the period April 2014 to March 2015 is £68,088,373. This is based on information captured when processing National Health Service FP10 prescription forms which were dispensed in the community during the period April 2014 to March 2015.

We do not hold the information on how much the average student spends per year on prescriptions.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Hunt of Kings Heath on 2016-02-08.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they propose to cap the rates paid by NHS bodies to management consultancies, similar to their policy with regard to staff agencies.

Lord Prior of Brampton

Cabinet Office have published guidance on the use of management consultants Cabinet Office controls guidance: version 4.0 which government departments and their arms length bodies are required to follow. A copy of the guidance is attached.

National Health Service providers follow a similar consultancy spending approvals process as defined by Monitor and the Trust Development Authority (TDA). Monitor has published the following guidance for foundation trusts Consultancy spending approval process: Initial guidance to NHS foundation trusts, with TDA publishing similar for NHS trusts Consultancy spending controls: Initial Guidance to NHS Trusts. Copies of the guidance are attached.

At this time, these do not include any directive to set caps on rates paid to management consultancies.

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

To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they will consider suspending their consultation on how to implement grants and tuition fees for nursing, midwives and allied health professional healthcare students, and instead consult fully on a range of proposals that would best deliver a sustainable future workforce with access to high quality education and clinical training.

Lord Prior of Brampton

In the Spending Review 2015 the Government announced that from 1 August 2017, new nursing, midwifery and allied health professional students will no longer receive National Health Service bursaries and will move onto the standard student loans system.

The Government has set out its intention for these changes to be implemented in August 2017. Ahead of this, the Government will issue a public consultation on how we most successfully implement these reforms. The consultation will welcome a range of views from stakeholders, which the Government will consider before publishing its consultation response later in the year.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Hunt of Kings Heath on 2016-03-14.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether their review of the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG) contract with UnitingCare LLP for older people’s and adult community services will consider the role and advice given to the CCG by the Strategic Projects Team.

Lord Prior of Brampton

NHS England is responsible for the review of Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Clinical Commissioning Group’s (CCG’s) contract with UnitingCare LLP. NHS England confirms that its review will look at the role of the Strategic Projects Team and the advice that it gave to the CCG.

NHS England advises that it has commissioned an independent review, so the Strategic Projects Team’s role can be considered objectively.

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

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what priority they give to the elimination of hepatitis C as a threat to public health.

Lord Prior of Brampton

The United Kingdom Government takes the issue of prevention, diagnosis and treatment of hepatitis C very seriously. Public Health England (PHE) and NHS England continue working together with key stakeholders to establish a strategic approach to tackle hepatitis C, including monitoring treatment access and uptake, as well as establishing Operation Delivery Networks (ODNs).

NHS England has invested in a Commissioning for Quality and Innovation scheme to incentivise ODNs to meet their agreed rate of roll-out. If their treatment rates deviate from this agreed rate of treatment, they are no longer eligible for these incentives.

PHE is working together with NHS England and the National Offender Management Service to improve coverage of blood borne virus testing for people in prisons through implementation of opt-out testing.

PHE has also commissioned the Royal College of General Practitioners (RCGP) Certificate in the Detection, Diagnosis and Management of Hepatitis B and C in Primary Care to help raise awareness in primary care and among other professionals working with groups at high risk of chronic viral hepatitis infection. To supplement this, a new RCGP course was launched in April 2015, Hepatitis C: Enhancing Prevention, Testing and Care which comprises four lessons: understanding hepatitis C; preventing transmission; testing and diagnosis; and treatment and care.

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

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what mitigating actions they propose to take with regards to the new contract for doctors in training in the light of the equality analysis undertaken under section 149 of the Equality Act 2010 showing that certain features of that contract will have an adverse impact on those who work part-time, who are predominantly women.

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 under which legislative provision the Secretary of State has the power to impose junior doctors’ contracts on (1) GP practices that are not public bodies and deliver services to patients under a General Medical Services contract; (2) GP practices that are not public bodies and deliver services to patients under an Alternative Personal Medical Services contract; (3) local authorities that employ junior doctors to deliver public health services; and (4) NHS Trusts otherwise than by way of directions.

Lord Prior of Brampton

In deciding that a new contract – which would be safer for patients and fair and reasonable for junior doctors – should be introduced without further negotiation with the British Medical Association, the Secretary of State was exercising his powers under the NHS Act 2006 (in particular sections 1, 1A, 1B, 1F, 1G and 2). To introduce the contract he is working with the National Health Service and other employers who, as they are employers of junior doctors, are using their employment powers. The Secretary of State has not announced, and does not state, that he has a power to direct all NHS bodies or non-NHS bodies providing healthcare services.