UKPOL.CO.UK

Tag: Parliamentary Question

  • Steve McCabe – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Education

    Steve McCabe – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Education

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Steve McCabe on 2014-04-30.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Education, if he will take steps to ensure that governors are disqualified when a school governing body is found guilty of disability discrimination.

    Mr Edward Timpson

    Regulations set out the circumstances in which a person is disqualified from holding or continuing to hold office as a governor at a maintained school. These include bankruptcy, conviction for an offence carrying a sentence of imprisonment, disqualification from being a company director or charity trustee, and persons whose employment is prohibited or restricted.

    The Department for Education has issued advice to school governing bodies on their duties under the Equality Act 2010, including in respect of disability.

    It is for governing bodies of state-funded schools to comply with any orders of the First-tier Tribunal (Special Educational Needs and Disability) in relation to claims of disability discrimination.

  • Tessa Munt – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    Tessa Munt – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Tessa Munt on 2014-04-30.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Health, if he will take steps to encourage NHS England to respond to the Oxford Radiosurgery Centre’s request that NHS patients in Oxfordshire and surrounding counties who require radiosurgery be treated there.

    Jane Ellison

    The business case for the gamma-knife centre at Oxford was originally agreed with the primary care trust (PCT) prior to April 2013, with an assumption that the PCT would stop sending patients to other centres elsewhere, and start sending them to the new centre once it was completed.

    As of April 2013, commissioning of these services transferred to the specialist commissioning team in NHS England.

    NHS England is currently undertaking a review of stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) (e.g. Gamma Knife) and stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR, e.g. Cyber-knife) for intracranial conditions to establish what the national demand is in line with its national clinical commissioning policies on SRS and SABR, and what the national capacity requirements are for this specialised treatment.

    Until the capacity requirements are clear, NHS England has said that it would be inappropriate to encourage new market entrants to provide this service as it cannot be clear what the potential consequential impacts on service quality, sustainability (financial and clinical) and potential unintended changes to patient pathways will be. Until the review is complete NHS England has said no substantive changes will be made to the current provision.

    As part of the transition of this service to NHS England, it developed, consulted upon and published a series of national clinical commissioning policies for intracranial SRS and SRT treatment.

    A report setting out the emerging findings of this review has been shared with clinical reference groups to seek their views and help NHS England develop a final draft. Once the views of stakeholders have been gathered, this will then go to Specialised Commissioning Oversight Group (SCOG) to agree a preferred option. Once the SCOG has a preferred option, NHS England will consult with patients and professionals and take account of those views when taking a final decision. If it is concluded there are to be significant changes in the provision of services, there will be a full public consultation before any changes are made.

    NHS England is expecting that the draft report will be ready for consideration at SCOG in June and then it would commence a public consultation on the draft report and preferred option during July to September. The report and recommendations will then be finalised after taking account of the views expressed during the consultation stage and a final decision taken by SCOG in September 2014.

    NHS England inherited the range of gamma knife providers currently in place, of which University College London Hospitals (UCLH) was not one. NHS England is currently undertaking a review of stereotactic radiosurgery provision and will consult widely with stakeholders and providers prior to making changes to service provision. There are two long established providers of gamma knife surgery commissioned by NHS England located in central London to whom patients from all six London specialist neurosurgical centres have been referred for gamma knife treatment for a number of years, including patients from UCLH.

    Finally, there was no contract in place with UCLH to provide gamma knife surgery for any PCT prior to 1 April 2013. Any activity that may have been undertaken there would have been done on an ad-hoc, non-contracted basis and NHS England does not hold this information.

  • Hilary Benn – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Communities and Local Government

    Hilary Benn – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Communities and Local Government

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Hilary Benn on 2014-04-30.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, what the reasons are for the time taken to answer question 191956 tabled for answer on 8 April 2014.

    Stephen Williams

    I refer the rt. hon. Member to my answer of 1 May, Official Report, Column 803W.

  • Stephen Barclay – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Transport

    Stephen Barclay – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Transport

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Stephen Barclay on 2014-04-30.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to the Answer of 24 February 2014, Official Report, column 237W, on large goods vehicles: speed limits, what progress has been made on the Government’s further impact assessment of increasing the speed limit for hauliers from 40mph to 50mph.

    Stephen Hammond

    Ministers are giving careful consideration to any potential impacts of raising the speed limit for HGVs over 7.5t from 40mph to 50 mph on single carriageway roads and a further impact assessment has been undertaken as part of that process.

    I want to make sure careful consideration is given to the evidence of all of the effects of raising the speed limit; on the economy, environment and road safety before a decision is made. I will consider the responses received and evidence presented before publishing a Response Report and impact assessment on our website.

  • Richard Burden – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office

    Richard Burden – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Richard Burden on 2014-04-30.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, what representations he has made to his Israeli counterpart on the demolition on 2 and 3 April of EU-funded projects in Area C near the E1-settlement bloc; and whether he has demanded compensation following these actions.

    Hugh Robertson

    We have not made representations in response to the specific demolition cited, nor demanded compensation. However, Officials from our Embassy in Tel Aviv most recently raised the issue of demolitions in the Occupied Palestinian Territories with the office of Prime Minister Netanyahu on 1 May. We regularly make clear, publicly and privately, to Israel our serious concerns about the demolition of Palestinian homes and infrastructure and forced transfer of population in Area C and East Jerusalem.

  • Jim Shannon – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    Jim Shannon – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Jim Shannon on 2014-04-30.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Health, what information his Department holds on whether the use of painkillers increases the risk of a stroke.

    Norman Lamb

    The Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) continuously monitors the safety of all medicines on the market in the United Kingdom. The MHRA holds data from clinical trials, published literature and spontaneous reports of suspected adverse drug reactions collected through the Yellow Card Scheme.

    Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are widely used and effective medicines for the treatment of arthritis and other painful conditions. It has been known for many years that NSAIDs are associated with a small increased risk of heart attacks or strokes, particularly when used at a high dose and for a long time.

    The MHRA has widely communicated the information and advice for healthcare professionals on the risk of heart attack and stroke with NSAIDs in letters and bulletins, and other publications through liaison with the British National Formulary and National Prescribing Centre. In addition, product information (including patient information leaflets) has been updated in order to support informed decision-making in relation to the choice of painkiller.

  • Craig Whittaker – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    Craig Whittaker – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Craig Whittaker on 2014-04-30.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Health, what his policy is on reporting to the police suspected criminal acts committed by doctors that are discovered by his Department and NHS England.

    Jane Ellison

    Allegations of breaches in the Abortion Act are taken extremely seriously. They will be referred to the police either as a result of these being brought to the Department’s attention or in the event of investigations by NHS England (under its contractual and general practitioner regulatory frameworks).

  • Emily Thornberry – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Attorney General

    Emily Thornberry – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Attorney General

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Emily Thornberry on 2014-04-30.

    To ask the Attorney General, how many cases of non-payment of the minimum wage were (a) referred to the Crown Prosecution Service from HM Revenue and Customs, (b) prosecuted and (c) prosecuted successfully in 2013-14 and each of the preceding three financial years.

    Oliver Heald

    Based on data held centrally by the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) together with information provided by Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs (HMRC), which has responsibility for enforcing the law in relation to the National Minimum Wage, I have established (a) three referrals were made to the CPS from HMRC in 2010-2011. No referrals were made in the financial years 2011-2012, 2012-2013 or 2013-2014. (b) One prosecution commenced in 2011-2012 from the three cases referred in 2010-2011. (c) One conviction is recorded in 2010-2011 (referred in 2009/10) and one conviction in 2012-2013 (referred in 2010/11). This information represents the period of 2013-14 and the preceding three financial years.

    HMRC also has civil enforcement powers to secure and punish in cases of non-compliance.

  • Mary Glindon – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    Mary Glindon – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Mary Glindon on 2014-04-30.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Health, what recent steps his Department has taken to address the lack of compulsory dermatological training in the GP educational pathway.

    Dr Daniel Poulter

    The Government has mandated Health Education England (HEE) to provide national leadership on education, training and workforce development in the National Health Service. This mandate includes a commitment that HEE will ensure that general practitioner (GP) training produces GPs with the required competencies to practise in the new NHS. Consequently HEE will work with stakeholders to influence training curricula as appropriate.

    The content and standard of medical training is the responsibility of the General Medical Council, which is an independent statutory body. It has the general function of promoting high standards of education and co-ordinating all stages of education to ensure that medical students and newly qualified doctors are equipped with the knowledge, skills and attitudes essential for professional practice. Within the current GP curriculum, trainees are required to successfully complete training on care of people with skin problems.

    Responsibility for the commission of dermatology services sits with NHS England. NHS England commissions specialised dermatology services for those patients requiring needing care from Highly Specialist Dermatology Centres (around 10% of sufferers). The level of provision of non-specialised dermatology services is decided by the local clinical commissioning group (CCG) and it will take into account the needs of the population overall. The CCG’s decisions are underpinned by clinical insight and knowledge of local healthcare needs. As such, provision of services will vary in response to local needs.

    The Department has not held any specific discussions on compulsory dermatological training for GPs with HEE or the Royal College of GPs (RCGP) since 4 December 2013, nor have HEE or NHS England held discussions with RCGP on this matter.

  • Jim Cunningham – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    Jim Cunningham – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Jim Cunningham on 2014-04-30.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Health, what mechanisms are in place to allow families of patients in care homes to report concerns about standards of care.

    Norman Lamb

    Regulation 19 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2010 requires all care providers registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) to “have an effective system in place for identifying, receiving, handling and responding appropriately to complaints and comments made by service users, or persons acting on their behalf”.

    Where a person’s care is provided or arranged by their local authority, complaints and concerns should be directed initially to the local authority, which remains responsible for the quality of care. If a person has arranged their own care, they should pursue the matter directly with the provider in the first instance.

    In both cases, should complainants not be satisfied with the response, they are entitled to ask the Local Government Ombudsman to investigate.

    People may also raise concerns with the CQC, as regulator of health and adult social care services. Under the 2008 Act, the CQC does not have the responsibility for investigating specific complaints about social care providers. However, where there are concerns about a provider which is registered with the CQC, such concerns should be brought to its attention. The CQC will use this information, together with local information from partners and the public, to help it decide when, where and what to inspect.

    The CQC is currently introducing a new system of inspection of social care providers. This new system of inspection will be structured around five key questions that matter most to people – are the services safe, caring, effective, well-led, and responsive to people’s needs. The new inspections will make more use of people’s views and will use expert inspection teams involving people who have personal experience of care. The CQC has been piloting this new approach in 252 of social care providers since April 2014.