|Previous Section||Index||Home Page|
Mr. Burstow: To ask the Prime Minister on what dates special advisers from his Office have met representatives of United Healthcare since 1 May; which of his special advisers took part in each meeting; and where each meeting was held. 
The Prime Minister: My officials and I have meetings and discussions with a wide range of organisations and individuals. As with previous Administrations it is not the Government's practice to provide details of all such meetings, under Exemptions 2 and 7 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.
Norman Baker: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what instances of international trade in contravention of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) have been (a) identified and (b) apprehended by UK authorities since January 2001, broken down by (i) species and (ii) CITES category; and if he will make a statement. 
|Number of seizures||Number of items seized||Weight of items seized (kg)|
|Live animals and birds||89||2,905|||
|Parts and derivatives of endangered species||79||1,443|||
|Other CITES listed species||14||302|||
|Preparations of oriental medicines that include parts or derivatives of||6||4,220,807|||
Seizures may be recorded by weight or number of seizures of items such as traditional Chinese medicines may be recorded either according to the individual count of capsules or according to the quantity of containers.
Equivalent breakdowns for 2001 or 2002 would only be available at disproportionate cost. Information on CITES category is not recorded against individual seizures and in some cases the species could not be covered by two or more of the annexes in EU Regulation.
Andrew Mackinlay: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many and what percentage of deaths were caused by MRSA, or had MRSA as a contributing factor, in the last year for which figures are available, broken down by hospital; and if he will make a statement. 
As National Statistician, I have been asked to reply to your recent question asking how many and what percentage of deaths were caused by MRS A, or had MRSA as a contributing factor in the last year for which figures are available, broken down by hospital. (184410)
The latest year for which figures are available is 2002. The number of deaths contributed to by MRSA, by hospital, for this year is given in the table attached. This table includes hospitals where there were five or more deaths for which MRSA was recorded as a contributory factor. Where the number of deaths was less than five the number of deaths has not been provided, to minimise the risk of disclosure of confidential information.
I am also placing in the House of Commons library a table showing all the establishments recorded by ONS as general hospitals or multi-function sites during 2002 at which there was:
at least one death from any cause, and
either no deaths where MRSA was a contributory factor, or fewer than five such deaths.
It should be noted that it is not possible to put a firm figure to the number of people who die from MRSA because people are often very sick with a number of other conditions so the contribution of MRSA to the outcome in any particular case is uncertain. The underlying causeof death is most often the disease or injury which led them to be admitted to hospital, rather than the MRSA which may have complicated the course of the illness. Internationally accepted guidance from the World Health Organisation on the completion of death certificates requires only those conditions that contribute directly to death to be recorded.
|Hospital name||No. of deaths where MRSA was a contributory factor||Percentage of all deaths|
|England and Wales||721||0.2|
|Hospitals with five or more deaths where MRSA was a contributory factor|
|Addenbrookes Hospital, Cambridge||10||0.6|
|Alexandra Hospital, Redditch||5||0.7|
|Arrowe Park Hospital, Birkenhead||5||0.3|
|Birmingham Heartlands Hospital||17||0.9|
|Bristol Royal Infirmary||6||0.5|
|Broomfield Hospital, Chelmsford||8||0.6|
|City Hospital, Winson Green||10||0.7|
|Conquest Hospital, St. Leonards on Sea||9||0.7|
|Derriford Hospital, Plymouth||22||1.1|
|Freeman Hospital, Newcastle||9||0.9|
|General Hospital, Bishop Auckland||5||0.8|
|General Hospital, Southampton||7||0.3|
|General Infirmary, Leeds||11||0.6|
|George Eliot Hospital, Nuneaton||5||0.4|
|Hull Royal Infirmary||5||0.3|
|Ipswich Hospital NHS Trust||9||0.5|
|King's College Hospital, London||5||0.4|
|Lister Hospital, Stevenage||5||0.4|
|Luton and Dunstable Hospital||5||0.4|
|Maelor Hospital, Wrexham||10||0.8|
|Medway Maritime Hospital, Gillingham||13||0.8|
|Morriston Hospital, Swansea||7||0.5|
|Musgrove Park Hospital, Taunton||7||0.5|
|New Cross Hospital, Wolverhampton||8||0.4|
|Norfolk and Norwich University Hospital||7||0.3|
|North Middlesex Hospital, Edmonton||5||0.5|
|Prince Charles Hospital, Merthyr Tydfil||6||0.6|
|Princess Margaret Hospital, Swindon||5||0.4|
|Princess of Wales Hospital, Bridgend, Mid Glamorgan||6||0.6|
|Queen Alexandra Hospital, Portsmouth||15||0.7|
|Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Edgbaston||5||0.6|
|Royal Berkshire Hospital, Reading||5||0.4|
|Royal Cornwall Hospital, Truro||5||0.4|
|Royal Infirmary, Doncaster||6||0.4|
|Royal Infirmary, Huddersfield||5||0.5|
|Royal Preston Hospital||5||0.4|
|Royal Sussex County Hospital, Brighton||6||0.4|
|Southmead Hospital, Bristol||5||0.5|
|St. Helier Hospital, Carshalton||5||0.4|
|St. Mary's Hospital, Westminster||9||1.0|
|St. Thomas's Hospital, London||9||0.8|
|Stoke Mandeville Hospital, Aylesbury||5||0.7|
|University Hospital Aintree||7||0.4|
|University Hospital of Wales, Cardiff||8||0.4|
|University Hospital, Nottingham||6||0.3|
|Whittington Hospital St. Mary's Wing, Islington||6||0.7|
|Wycombe General Hospital||5||0.6|
I understand from the Financial Services Authority, the Financial Ombudsman Service and the Financial Services Compensation Scheme that the following pensions cases has been resolved in the last year.
22 Jul 2004 : Column 473W
|Number of cases at 31 March 2004|
|Pensions review cases carried out by the financial industry||23,600|
|Pensions review cases conducted by the Financial Services Authority in conjunction with the Financial Services Compensation Scheme for those firms that are unable to meet claims against them.||3,335|
|Pension cases resolved by the Financial Ombudsman Service (including those cases relating to personal pensions, pensions review, free-standing additional voluntary contributions schemes, annuity contracts and all other products with a pensions element.)||6,265|
Adam Price: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what checks are carried out to ensure that compensation in cases of pension mis-selling are equivalent to reinstatement of the original pension scheme. 
Ruth Kelly: I understand from the FSA that in the case of pension compensation cases which are part of the formal Pensions Review, recompense is not normally payable in the form of cash but by addition to the individual's pension. The term "redress" is apposite rather than the term "compensation".
Otherwise, the normal method of redress is by topping-up the individual's personal pension. The value of pension and other benefits that would have been available from the original pension scheme, is compared with that from the personal pension after allowing for any relevant differences in the individual's pension contributions. The shortfall in value is added to the personal pension as redress.
As the level of benefits and risks differ between pension arrangements the method of working out the value of benefits needs to allow for this. Under the Pensions Review, which reviewed sales of personal pensions between 29 April 1988 and 30 June 1994, and which is now virtually complete save for relatively few difficult cases, the following method and checks applied:
To ensure that benefits provided by the personal pensions were equivalent in value to those provided by the original pension scheme, the method of valuation was specified in regulatory provisions using actuarial methodology together with assumptions about future investment return, inflation and longevity.
These assumptions were based on independent actuarial advice, confirmed by the actuarial profession and regularly reviewed.
Where other assumptions were needed about the individual's particular situation, either standard amounts were specified in the regulator's provisions or sufficiently important assumptions were required to be disclosed to the individual so that he or she could question them and provide further information if available.
Firms were required to confirm that the redress complied with the regulatory provisions for each case and also to carry out audits of their review process and results.
In addition, firms were subject to supervisory checks by the regulators.
If a consumer was not content with the offer made and was unable to resolve his or her concerns with the firm, he or she had the right to complain to the relevant Ombudsman, the normal time scales for complaints having been waived.
General pensions complaints are dealt with by the Financial Ombudsman Service for solvent firms and by the Financial Services Compensation Scheme for firms that are unable to meet claims against them.
22 Jul 2004 : Column 474W
|Next Section||Index||Home Page|