|Previous Section||Index||Home Page|
|Table 5: Individuals diagnosed and receiving care in the area with HIV in the North East Region within the calendar year by year of diagnosis, new and old strategic health authority (SHA)Cumulative data to the end of September 2006|
| Notes: 1. Data include individuals who have an existing infection as well as those who have a newly acquired infection. 2. Data may include duplicates for the same individual where records with different information could not be reconciled. 3. Data are based on reports received by the end of September 2006 and numbers may rise as further reports are received (particularly true for more recent years).|
Mr. Amess: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the evidential basis was for the recent statement made by the Minister of State that pregnant teenagers smoke to try to reduce the size of their babies, and make delivery less painful; what steps she (a) has taken and (b) plans to take to warn pregnant teenagers of the risks of smoking to (i) themselves and (ii) their unborn babies; and if she will make a statement. 
Caroline Flint: I made the observation, after having heard this issue anecdotally from both health professionals and young women, that some young pregnant women may take the message that smoking leads to low birth weight babies and that low birth weight or smaller babies may make childbirth less painful. It is important that we understand what stops young women making healthy choices and tailor our messages accordingly. In this case childbirth is no less painful if your baby is low weight.
The Departments advice remains that women should not smoke during pregnancy. Women who smoke are less likely to carry their babies to full term and there is a 26 per cent. increased risk that they will miscarry or experience a stillbirth. Babies of smoking mothers are an average 200 g lighter at birth.
Mr. Vara: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidance has been issued to strategic health authorities (SHAs) to assist them in evaluating whether services should be retained at those hospitals currently being reviewed by the SHAs. 
Andy Burnham: It is for strategic health authorities (SHAs) to determine which schemes should be reviewed and the Department has not issued any specific guidance to SHAs on evaluating services that should be retained. However, the Department has recently begun a piece of work with SHAs to understand which services might be subject to review and how the Department can support SHAs in this task.
Andy Burnham: It is for strategic health authorities (SHAs) to determine which schemes should be reviewed and the Department does not currently hold validated information. The Department has recently begun a piece of work with SHAs to understand which services might be subject to review and how the Department can support SHAs in this task.
Caroline Flint: The NHS south west has advised that at a meeting on 21 September 2006, the Cotswold and Vale, Cheltenham and Tewkesbury and West Gloucestershire Primary Care Trusts (PCT) Boards decided not to close Stroud maternity unit. The new Gloucestershire PCT will be considering the future of services at Stroud, and across the county in due course.
John Bercow: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations she has received on the use of Temozolomide for the treatment of brain tumours in advance of the ratification of the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence guidance on the issue. 
Ms Rosie Winterton: The Department has received a number of letters in recent months about the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence's appraisal of Temozolomide for newly diagnosed and high-grade brain cancer.
Ms Rosie Winterton: The National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence published guidance on the use of Temozolomide for recurrent malignant glioma (brain cancer) in April 2001. NICE is also developing guidance for the national health service on the use of Temozolomide for the treatment of newly diagnosed and high-grade brain cancer. Final guidance has not yet been issued.
Mrs. Spelman: To ask the hon. Member for Gosport, representing the Speakers Committee on the Electoral Commission what the total expenditure was of the Electoral Commission in each year of its operation; and what its budget is for (a) 2006-07 and (b) 2007-08. 
Peter Viggers: The Electoral Commissions Resource Accounts for 2005-06, which were laid before the House on 20 July as HC 1565, report that its net resource expenditure in 2005-06 was £21.916 million. The corresponding figures for earlier years are given in the commissions annual report and accounts for the years concerned; these have been laid before the House and are available in the Library. The Appropriation (No. 2) Act 2006 authorises net resources of £26.180 million for use by the Electoral Commission in 2006-07. The commissions Corporate Plan 2006-07 to 2010-11, which was laid before the House in April 2006 as HC 987, forecasts a net resource requirement for the commission in 2007-08 of £25.945 million.
Mrs. Spelman: To ask the hon. Member for Gosport, representing the Speakers Committee on the Electoral Commission (1) how much has been allocated for the Electoral Commissions conference on the regulation of political party financing; 
Peter Viggers: I assume that my hon. Friend is referring to the conference on the regulation of party finances held by the Electoral Commission in September for representatives of overseas regulatory organisations and academic specialists in this field.
The commission informs me that the cost of the conference, which was attended by more than 60 delegates from 15 countries, was £45,000. The commission also incurred travel and subsistence costs of £14,000 in relation to the attendance of certain key speakers.