|Previous Section||Index||Home Page|
Jane Kennedy: We are working closely with stakeholders to develop a more patient-focused system. This will build on the transfer of responsibility for independent review of complaints which is now undertaken by the Healthcare Commission.
However, in 200405 NHS spending on non-NHS healthcare was over £3.6 billion. This includes expenditure on services provided by all non-NHS bodies, including local authorities, other statutory bodies, and the independent sector.
Ms Rosie Winterton: The national service framework (NSF) for mental health (1999) has produced demonstrable improvements in specialist care, hospital accommodation, suicide prevention, research, clinical guidance, primary care, access, finance and workforce development.
Ms Abbott: To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients were treated for mental ill-health in Hackney North and Stoke Newington in each of the last three years for which figures are available, broken down by ethnic origin. 
Ms Abbott: To ask the Secretary of State for Healthhow much was allocated for mental health services in Hackney North and Stoke Newington in each of the last three financial years for which figures are available. 
|Funding (£ million)|
Mr. Byrne: There are no national targets for disability nurse specialists working in general hospitals. It is for the NHS locally to determine skill mix within the nursing work force. The Government have supported the development of a range of specialist roles within nursing, and hospitals must deploy them as they see fit.
Ms Rosie Winterton: Current arrangements provide ready access to a choice of providers for patients who are eligible for NHS-funded sight tests. The Review of General Ophthalmic Services provides an opportunity to review ways in which we and the NHS can build on these successful arrangements.
Mr. Hayes: To ask the Secretary of State for Health pursuant to the answer of 22 November 2005, Official Report, columns 1798W, to the hon. Member for Romford, (Andrew Rosindell), on abortions, if she will make a statement on the increase in expenditure on terminations. 
Caroline Flint: The increase in expenditure by the national health service on abortions is likely to be due to a number of factors. The NHS is now funding more abortions than in 1997 (from 123,886 to 152,385 in 2004, a 23 per cent. increase) and the cost of performing an abortion has increased since 1997, as has been the case for most other treatments.
Mr. Amess: To ask the Secretary of State for Health when her Department last undertook an evidence review into the use of (a) RU486 (mifepristone) and (b) the morning-after pill that drew on (i) UK and (ii) international research; and if she will make a statement. 
Jane Kennedy: In the United Kingdom mifepristone (RU486) and the emergency contraceptive pill (as Levonelle-2) have been available as prescription-only medicines since 1991, following advice from the then Committee on Safety of Medicines (CSM) that was based on a review of all the available evidence for safety, efficacy and quality.
The safety of mifepristone and the emergency contraceptive pill are also monitored by the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) on a continual basis using both UK and international data. Thus, yellow card reports of suspected adverse drug reactions, periodic safety update reports submitted by marketing authorisation holders and new research published in the medical literature are reviewed regularly. In the event that these processes identify information that changes the balance of risks and benefits of a medicine, advice is sought from the Commission on Human Medicines, formerly the Committee on Safety of Medicines, and its expert advisory groups.
When a medicine is on the market, the Department will (re-)review its use in response to a specific stimulus, such as a safety concern, a proposed change in policy or a proposal to change the dose, indication or legal classification. Such reviews take into consideration all relevant data, regardless of whether it was generated in the UK or elsewhere.
The MHRA, in consultation with the wider Department, reviewed the use of the emergency contraceptive pill in 2001, when Levonelle-2 was made available for sale in pharmacies as Levonelle; in 2003, when the dosing regimen was changed from taking two tablets 12 hours apart to taking them at the same time; and in relation to this, when the strength of the pill was doubled in 2004. Advice from the CSM was sought on all occasions.
The use of mifepristone was most recently reviewed by the MHRA in September 2005. This followed the receipt of new information about the reporting of serious suspected adverse reactions in the United States of America. No new safety concerns were identified and
20 Dec 2005 : Column 2689W
no action considered necessary. We are also aware that the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists reviewed the use of mifepristone when producing the 2004 edition of its evidence-based guideline 'The Care of Women Requesting Induced Abortion'.
Mr. Amess: To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) which (a) Government Departments and (b) stakeholders outside Government were consulted by her Department when producing the Partial Regulatory Impact Assessment on the Prohibition of Abortion (England and Wales) Bill; how many of the outside bodies consulted (i) support and (ii) oppose legalised abortion; and if she will make a statement; 
(2) what evidential basis her Department used for the estimate of the number of illegal abortions in Table 1 of the Partial Regulatory Impact Assessment on the Prohibition of Abortion (England and Wales) Bill; and if she will make a statement. 
Caroline Flint: When developing the partial regulatory impact assessment (PRIA) on the proposed Prohibition of Abortion (England and Wales) Bill we contacted a range of Government Departments and stakeholders to get the best possible understanding of the Bill. Whilst we are aware that some of these stakeholders have strong views on abortion we did not seek information on where organisations stand on the broader issue. A list of those consulted is as follows:
The number of possible illegal abortions contained in table 1 in the PRIA was estimated from information provided by those responding to the consultation and from examining what happened in other countries where access to abortion is restricted or illegal. The PRIA highlights that any outcomes would evolve over time, requiring around five years to become established.
|Next Section||Index||Home Page|