| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
30 Jan 2004 : Column 558W—continued
Influenza
Mr. Burstow: To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what definition the Department uses of an influenza epidemic; [142961]
30 Jan 2004 : Column 559W
- (2) how many reported cases of influenza there were in each of the last five years; and in which of these years the reported level of influenza cases has been classified as an epidemic. [142962]
Miss Melanie Johnson: The numbers of influenza-like illnesses reported to the Royal College of General Practitioners in the past five winter seasons are shown in the table.
In none of these years did the level of general practitioner consultation rate reach 400 per 100,000 of the population, which is the level required to be classed as an epidemic.
| Number of influenza like illnesses | |
|---|---|
| 1998–99 | 10,044 |
| 1999–2000 | 8,513 |
| 2000–01 | 5,901 |
| 2001–02 | 4,111 |
| 2002–03 | 3,541 |
Lancashire Teaching Hospitals Trust
Mr. Hoyle: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the forecast outcome for the Lancashire Teaching Hospitals Trust is for 2003–04; what assessment has been made of its level of financial risk; and what loans it has (a) taken and (b) applied for from the NHS Bank in 2003–04. [151239]
Miss Melanie Johnson [holding answer 27 January 2004]: Audited information on the financial position of national health service trusts will be published in their individual annual accounts. These data will be available centrally in the autumn.
At the Cumbria and Lancashire Strategic Health Authority (SHA) Board meeting on 20 January 2004, Lancashire Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust reported a deficit of £1.7 million as at the end of December 2003. The SHA has assessed the financial risk and is forecasting a break even position for the Lancashire Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust at the end of the financial year 2003–04.
The SHA has not made an application to the NHS Bank on behalf of the trust in 2003–04.
Long-term Care
Mr. Burstow: To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) pursuant to his answer of 20 January 2004, Official Report, column 1110W, on personal care charges, what the sources of the estimate are; and if he will place in the Library the assumptions and analysis from which this estimate was derived; [151468]
- (2) pursuant to his answer of 20 January 2004, Official Report, columns 1110–11W, on long-term care, what the evidential basis is for his estimate; and if he will place in the Library the assumptions and analysis from which this estimate was derived. [151628]
Dr. Ladyman: The estimate for the cost of introducing free personal care was prepared by Department of Health economists using a variety of data and assumptions. An explanatory note has been placed in the Library.
30 Jan 2004 : Column 560W
Mental Health
Mrs. Helen Clark: To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the relationship between the criminal guardianship powers in the Mental Health Act 1983 and the community treatment orders proposed in the Draft Mental Health Bill 2002. [149798]
Ms Rosie Winterton: Like the guardianship order, the proposed power—that the courts would make a mental health order without requiring residence in hospital— could enable people who needed treatment subject to sanction to receive it without resort to detention in hospital. Unlike the guardianship order, the proposed power would enable the admission of the person to hospital for compulsory treatment in the event of that becoming necessary for his own health or safety or that of others.
Mrs. Helen Clark: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the target groups of people with mental health problems who will be helped by the introduction of community treatment orders. [149800]
Ms Rosie Winterton: The provisions in the draft Mental Health Bill for formal powers to be used in the community are based on the principle of least restriction. When treating someone for mental disorder under formal powers, the restriction of their liberty should be the minimum necessary, taking into account all their circumstances and the need to protect themselves or others. The conditions setting out the circumstances in which formal powers may be used, must always be satisfied, whether treatment is to be provided in hospital or in the community. The power to impose requirements on patients in the community will however, in some circumstances, avoid patients having to go to hospital if appropriate alternative arrangements can be made.
The most important group that it is intended that these powers would be used for is people who have a history of admission to hospital, improvement and discharge, followed by relapse (known as "revolving door" patients). Currently there may be no alternative to renewed admission to hospital. Where someone is well known to services it may not be necessary for them to be reassessed and treated in hospital. Treatment under a regime of conditions and requirements in the community may be more appropriate and avoid the distress of repeated unplanned admissions to hospital.
These powers would also be available for those whose mental condition has improved while being treated under compulsion in hospital and for whom formal treatment in the community would provide a supportive transition, helping to prevent patients relapsing on discharge from hospital. There may also be other individual cases in which treatment under compulsion in the community would be more appropriate.
Formal treatment in the community will also be an option for the Court to consider for mentally disordered offenders. It is intended that convicted offenders who require treatment for mental disorder could benefit if the court is satisfied that they do not need to be detained and clinicians confirm that treatment appropriate for the individual is available in the community.
30 Jan 2004 : Column 561W
The decision that compulsory treatment in the community is appropriate should always be based on the careful assessment of what is the most suitable way to treat and care for individual patients, taking into account all the circumstances of each individual case.
National Service Framework for Children
Tim Loughton: To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects to publish the National Service Framework for children. [152112]
Dr. Ladyman: The national service framework for children, young people and maternity services will be published later this year.
Osteoporosis
Chris Grayling: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what therapies other than Raloxifen will be provided by the NHS to patients suffering from osteoporosis. [151119]
Dr. Ladyman: There are a wide range of treatments available for patients suffering from osteoporosis. Some prevent bone breakdown and stimulate new bone formation while others help maintain bone density and reduce fracture rates. Individuals will receive treatment which best meets their needs.
Rainbows Children's Hospice (Leicestershire)
Keith Vaz: To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will visit Rainbows Children's Hospice in Leicestershire. [151663]
Dr. Ladyman: Minister will be pleased to consider an invitation to visit from the Rainbows Children's Hospice in Leicestershire.
Telephone Masts
Sir Michael Spicer: To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what plans he has to set up a public inquiry into the health effects of G3 technology telephone masts; [147054]
- (2) if he will make a statement on the health effects of G3 technology telephone masts. [147059]
Miss Melanie Johnson: Government advice on mobile phones and health is based on the Stewart Report, issued in May 2000 (www.iegmp.org.uk ). In respect of base stations they concluded:
- The balance of evidence indicates that there is no general risk to the health of people living near to base stations on the basis that exposures are expected to be small fractions of guidelines.
The operators of mobile telephone equipment including 3rd Generation (3G) systems should ensure that public exposure does not exceed the guidelines of the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection. Measurements undertaken by the Radiocommunications Agency, now part of OFCOM (www.ofcom.org.uk/static/archive/ra/rahome.htm), have confirmed that public exposures are very much lower than the international guidelines.
30 Jan 2004 : Column 562W
The National Radiological Protection Board (NRPB) has statutory responsibility for providing overall advice on health risks from exposure to electromagnetic fields including radio waves. Research published since the Stewart Report, including research on 3G effects, has been reviewed by the NRPB's Advisory Group on Non-ionising Radiation. Their review was announced on 14 January 2004 and concludes that
- "The weight of evidence now available does not suggest that there are adverse health effects from exposures to RF (radiofrequency) fields below guideline levels, but the published research on RF exposures and health has limitations, and mobile phones have only been in widespread use for a relatively short time."
The report is available on the NRPB web site at: http://www.nrpb.org./ review/docs nrpb/absdl4–2.htm. Copies have been placed in the Library.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |