|Previous Section||Index||Home Page|
Mr. Khan: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment she has made of the merits of bringing forward amendments to the Mental Health Bill to enable a patient issued with a community treatment order to appeal against restrictions imposed by that order. 
Ms Rosie Winterton: The amendments to which my hon. Friend refers were debated at the tenth sitting of the Public Bill Committee on the Mental Health Bill on the 10 May 2007, when I set out the Government's views on this matter. The Government have also replied fully to the Joint Committee on Human Rights on this point.
As I outlined in Committee, given the nature of the conditions and the involvement of patients in setting the conditions for supervised community treatment, the Government do not believe that a third party appeals process would be appropriate.
Andy Burnham: The Phase 2 independent sector treatment centre (ISTC) programme was first announced in October 2004. The total cost of the procurement at the end of March 2007 was approximately £72 million. This figure includes all assessment, scoping, procurement and associated management, professional advisory and support costs.
Ben Chapman: To ask the Secretary of State for Health pursuant to the answer of 14 May 2007, Official Report, column 606W, on NHS: drugs, (1) what assessment she has made of the role of (a) general practitioners and (b) pharmacists in over-prescribing medicines; 
Caroline Flint: The Department is concerned about the amount of unused medicines and supports a range of initiatives to help patients get the most from their medicines, while at the same time minimising the amount of unwanted medicines returned to pharmacies.
The new contractual framework for community pharmacy includes repeat dispensing as an essential service, which means that all community pharmacies in England must be in a position to dispense a repeatable prescription if presented with one. This service together with medicines use reviews, an advanced service provided by accredited pharmacists in premises that have been accredited, should both help to reduce the amount of medicines wasted.
The National Audit Office in their recently published report Prescribing costs in primary care focused on the potential savings that could be achieved by reducing the amount of medicines wasted. It has recommended that the Department conduct some research to estimate the scale of medicines wastage, and provide better information on why patients do not take their medicines. This is a complex area and we intend to commission research to establish the extent of medicines waste and the complex and varied reasons for it. This may include the part played by patients and the pharmaceutical industry. We have not issued any guidance on over-prescribing.
Andy Burnham: Sir Ian was asked by the chief executive of the national health service (David Nicholson), to conduct a review of how the NHS managed reconfigurations. Far from damaging effects, it was clear that when managed and delivered well, reconfigurations have a positive effect on patient care. A copy of the report, setting out his findings, has now been placed in the Library.
David Heyes: To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much Spearhead funding has been allocated to (a) Oldham primary care trust and (b) Tameside and Glossop primary care trust; if she will provide a breakdown of how such funding has been spent; and what assessment she has made of the effect of such funding on health inequalities in the areas served by the primary care trusts. 
However, the 2006-07 and 2007-08 revenue allocations to primary care trusts (PCTs) separately identify £211 million in 2006-07 and £342 million in 2007-08, around half of the £1 billion promised, to support implementation of the Choosing Health White Paper initiatives. The funding has been targeted on the most deprived areas, including PCTs in spearhead areas.
|S eparately identified White Paper funding|
|Organisation name||2006-07||2007-08||Total 2006-08|
The White Paper funding is not ring-fenced within the PCT revenue allocations, as it is for PCTs to determine how to use the funding allocated to them to commission services to meet the healthcare needs of their local populations.
|A llocation (£ million)||Two year increase|
|Organisation name||2006-07||2007-08||£ million||Percentage|
Mr. Lansley: To ask the Secretary of State for Health pursuant to the answer of 8 March 2007, Official Report, column 2219W, on revascularisation, if she will publish the results of the cardiac stock-take which reviewed capacity in different parts of London and the South-East. 
Ms Rosie Winterton: 10 strategic health authorities across London and the south east conducted a stock-take of capacity for that area in 2005-06. This work was supported by the Departments vascular programme. The results from the stock-take were made available to all of the participating authorities in March 2006. It is now a year since the work was completed and there are no plans for formal publication. A compact disc providing details of the stock-take, the final report and supporting mapping and data analysis is available to interested bodies within the national health service.
Mrs. McGuire [holding answer 4 June 2007]: There are a number of industry produced guidelines available the latest of which is the British Standard 8415, Specifications for monuments within burial grounds, published in 2005.
John Mann: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what the minimum technical specifications are for a gravestone topple tester; and what the qualifications are for the (a) operative and (b) data recorder. 
Mrs. McGuire: The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) does not consider the risk posed by toppling gravestones to be a priority as compared with other workplace risks. Therefore, HSE has not produced any guidelines on the minimum technical specifications for topple testers. However, the Management of Health and Safety Regulations 1999 require that a risk assessment is undertaken by a competent person to identify any measures needed to control the risks caused by a workplace hazard. In undertaking an assessment of the stability of gravestones the competent person will need to apply an appropriate test.
Mrs. May: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many bonuses were awarded to senior civil servants working at the Child Support Agency in each year between 1997 and 2006; and what the total cost was of those bonuses in each year. 
In reply to your recent Parliamentary Question about the Child Support Agency, the Secretary of State promised a substantive reply from the Chief Executive. As he is out of the country, I am responding, with his authority, on his behalf.
You asked the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, how many bonuses were awarded to Senior Civil Servants working at the Child Support Agency in each year between 1997 and 2006; and what the total cost was of those bonuses in each year .
The table below contains the number and total of bonus payments awarded to senior civil servants in the Agency since 2001-02. The Agency offers bonuses to Senior Civil Servants as part of performance related pay deals, based on year long performance measures. Bonuses are also offered to Senior Civil Servants in recognition of considerable additional work. There is no statutory requirement to keep accounting records longer than 6 years. I am therefore unable to supply information prior to 2001/02 financial year.
|Number of bonuses awarded||Total bonus payments|
The increase in the size of average bonuses in 2005-06 compared with 2004-05 reflects the substantially improved performance of the Agency over that period. In particular, comparing 2005-06 with 2004-05:
55,000 more children were in receipt of maintenance;
There were 28,000 fewer uncleared cases;
Over 20,000 more of the poorest parents with care were receiving the Child Maintenance Premium, with payments up by £670,000 every month;
Accuracy increased from 75% to 81% on the scheme, and from 78% to 84% on the old scheme; and
Client Service in the Agency improved substantially with 91% of calls to the Agency answered, up from 84%, and a 40% reduction in the average time taken to answer calls.
These performance improvements laid a solid foundation for the launch of the Operational Improvement Plan in April 2006, and were a vital component of the improved, and improving, service offered by the Agency today.
I hope you find this answer helpful.
In reply to your recent Parliamentary Question about the Child Support Agency, the Secretary of State promised a substantive reply from the Chief Executive.
You asked the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, how many Child Support Agency Claimants in Bassetlaw are awaiting their first payment of maintenance.
At the end of March 2007, there were 280 cases on the new computer system in Bassetlaw, which had a positive liability and the Parent/Person with care was awaiting the first payment. This figure does not include maintenance direct cases.
|Next Section||Index||Home Page|