Tag: Lord Hunt of Kings Heath

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Hunt of Kings Heath on 2015-10-26.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of whether, and to what extent, the report of the Herbal Medicines and Practitioners Working Group on the regulation of herbal practitioners represented the views solely of the Chairman.

Lord Prior of Brampton

The Report on the Regulation of Herbal Medicines and Practitioners is Professor Walker’s independent advice to Government. As the Report acknowledges this advice was informed by the input of the Working Group.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Hunt of Kings Heath on 2015-10-26.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether the report of the Herbal Medicines and Practitioners Working Group on the regulation of herbal practitioners was signed off by all members of that group.

Lord Prior of Brampton

The independent Report on the Regulation of Herbal Medicines and Practitioners is Professor Walker’s and so, although the Herbal Medicines and Practitioners Working Group informed the development the Report, it was not signed off by the Group.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Hunt of Kings Heath on 2015-10-26.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the governance arrangements of the Herbal Medicines and Practitioners Working Group report on the regulation of herbal practitioners.

Lord Prior of Brampton

As an independent Working Group the governance arrangements were a matter for the Chair and members of the Herbal Medicines and Practitioners Working Group to determine. The Working Group agreed its terms of reference and membership.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Hunt of Kings Heath on 2015-10-13.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what discussions took place between government officials or special advisers and Monitor over the publishing of Q1 financial figures for NHS Foundation Trusts prior to the Conservative Party Conference.

Lord Prior of Brampton

Departmental officials regularly have conversations with the Department’s arm’s length bodies, including with Monitor, about the ongoing work of Government business, including the publication of Quarter 1 financial figures.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Hunt of Kings Heath on 2015-10-13.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether Monitor was instructed by officials to delay publishing Q1 financial figures for NHS Foundation Trusts ahead of the Conservative Party Conference, and if so, why.

Lord Prior of Brampton

Departmental officials have no legal powers to instruct Monitor to delay publication of financial performance data. Departmental officials regularly have conversations with the Department’s arm’s length bodies, including with Monitor, about the ongoing work of Government business, including the publication of Quarter 1 financial figures from both Monitor and the Trust Development Authority.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Hunt of Kings Heath on 2015-10-13.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government why patients in England cannot access the drug Docetaxel, in contrast to patients in Scotland.

Lord Prior of Brampton

The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) is the independent body which, for England, makes decisions on the clinical and cost effectiveness of products based on thorough assessment of the best available evidence. NICE has recommended docetaxel for the treatment of hormone-refractory metastatic prostate cancer (where the disease becomes unresponsive to hormone treatment). It has not appraised docetaxel for use alongside hormone treatment.

In the absence of guidance from NICE, it is for commissioners in England to make funding decisions on drugs and treatments based on the available evidence. Although docetaxel is not licensed for this indication, there is no funding, legal or regulatory barrier to prescribing drugs off-licence. Where clinically appropriate, off-licence prescribing is safe and legal and most clinicians regularly prescribe in this way.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Hunt of Kings Heath on 2015-10-13.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the reasons for the variation in elective surgery rates among the most affluent and least affluent areas of England recorded in the recent survey by the Health Service Journal.

Lord Prior of Brampton

NHS England has advised it is aware of the findings of the survey.

The NHS Atlas of Variation in Healthcare, published in September 2015 by Public Health England, NHS England and NHS Right Care, aims to identify unwarranted variation, and the causes of variation, in the provision of health services. Linked to this, the NHS Right Care programme will advise local health systems on variation in elective surgery intervention rates and support them to look at reasons for this and identify any changes needed.

The NHS Atlas of Variation in Healthcare is too large to attach to this reply, but can be found online at the following:

http://www.rightcare.nhs.uk/atlas/RC_nhsAtlas3_HIGH_150915.pdf

“

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Hunt of Kings Heath on 2015-10-13.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they set aside the agreement in principle with the British Medical Association on junior doctor working and instead acted to impose a new contract, and if so, why.

Lord Prior of Brampton

No agreement ever existed – in principle or otherwise – beyond the Heads of Terms that were the basis for negotiations. No agreement has been set aside by the Government or the Department.

NHS Employers and the British Medical Association (BMA) agreed Heads of Terms for negotiations in July 2013 and commenced negotiations in October 2013, the intention being to conclude negotiations by the end of October 2014. The BMA walked away from those negotiations on 16 October 2014.

As part of negotiations, proposals for a new contract had been made by the management side (employers from each of the four United Kingdom countries). The BMA said it could not agree to these. The Government therefore asked the independent Review Body on Doctors’ and Dentists’ Remuneration (DDRB) to make recommendations.

The DDRB took evidence from the BMA, NHS Employers, the Department of Health and other parties. NHS Employers’ evidence, on behalf of the four UK countries, set out the proposals made by employers in negotiations, illustrating how these related to the jointly agreed Heads of Terms. The BMA’s evidence set out alternative proposals, which had not been made during negotiations.

The DDRB’s report broadly endorsed the proposals made by NHS Employers and made recommendations, identifying some areas where further discussion was needed. The Government invited both parties to return to the table with the DDRB recommendations forming the basis for further negotiations.

The Government, in England, has made clear its desire for the BMA to be involved in work to introduce a new contract. The Government has asked NHS Employers to work on the detailed design of a new contract for introduction in August 2016 and has continued to encourage the BMA to return to negotiations and take part in that work.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Hunt of Kings Heath on 2015-10-13.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government on what basis officials in the Department of Health have said that the claims made by Dr Dan Poulter, formerly the minister in charge of negotiations, that they had set aside an agreement in principle with the British Medical Association on junior doctor working and instead acted to impose a new contract, were incorrect.

Lord Prior of Brampton

No agreement ever existed – in principle or otherwise – beyond the Heads of Terms that were the basis for negotiations. No agreement has been set aside by the Government or the Department.

NHS Employers and the British Medical Association (BMA) agreed Heads of Terms for negotiations in July 2013 and commenced negotiations in October 2013, the intention being to conclude negotiations by the end of October 2014. The BMA walked away from those negotiations on 16 October 2014.

As part of negotiations, proposals for a new contract had been made by the management side (employers from each of the four United Kingdom countries). The BMA said it could not agree to these. The Government therefore asked the independent Review Body on Doctors’ and Dentists’ Remuneration (DDRB) to make recommendations.

The DDRB took evidence from the BMA, NHS Employers, the Department of Health and other parties. NHS Employers’ evidence, on behalf of the four UK countries, set out the proposals made by employers in negotiations, illustrating how these related to the jointly agreed Heads of Terms. The BMA’s evidence set out alternative proposals, which had not been made during negotiations.

The DDRB’s report broadly endorsed the proposals made by NHS Employers and made recommendations, identifying some areas where further discussion was needed. The Government invited both parties to return to the table with the DDRB recommendations forming the basis for further negotiations.

The Government, in England, has made clear its desire for the BMA to be involved in work to introduce a new contract. The Government has asked NHS Employers to work on the detailed design of a new contract for introduction in August 2016 and has continued to encourage the BMA to return to negotiations and take part in that work.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Hunt of Kings Heath on 2015-10-05.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of whether Monitor and the Care Quality Commission apply a consistent approach in relation to safety, quality and financial requirements of NHS foundation trusts and NHS trusts.

Lord Prior of Brampton

Robert Francis’ second report into the failings at Mid Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust led to major changes in the Care Quality Commission’s (CQC) regulatory regime, and to Monitor’s and the NHS Trust Development Authority’s (NHS TDA) routine oversight of providers and assessment of aspirant foundation trusts. It has also resulted in closer working relationships between the three bodies responsible for regulation and oversight, particularly around the sharing of information and intelligence.

The currentrelationship between the CQC and Monitor is set out in a Memorandum of understanding and Operational Annexes which are attached. These outline how the two organisations work together, including on safety and quality issues. This includes the co-ordination and sharing of information following a CQC inspection and CQC providing a briefing document for Monitor which includes a review of the provider’s compliance from a quality of care perspective. The Operational Annex also specifically states, ‘each organisation will openly share relevant information on safety, quality, financial and governance risks at a licenced provider where appropriate’.

The Government sponsors each of the regulators, and provides stewardship of the health and care system as a whole, and in this role works with the regulators on an individual and collective basis to ensure that the regulatory system is as consistent and effective as possible. Both the Government and the system regulators are clear that it is in the interests of future care quality that the finances of acute trusts are healthy; and many of the improvements that are needed to improve quality of care will also improve efficiency.