|Previous Section||Index||Home Page|
To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent communications her Department has had with Dr. Marvin Swartz of the Duke
University Medical Center, North Carolina; and what fees and expenses her Department has (a) paid and (b) undertaken to pay to Dr. Swartz. 
Ms Rosie Winterton [holding answer 11 June 2007]: Dr. Marvin Swartz and a number of British psychiatrists were invited to speak to MPs about the Mental Health Bill on 5 June 2007. The purpose of the event was to give MPs access to useful evidence on the benefits of community treatment orders (CTOs), resulting from discussions at Committee Stage of the Bill about what evidence there was that CTOs work. I chaired the meeting.
Dr. Swartz was invited to the meeting as an internationally recognised expert on the use of CTOs in mental health, who has pioneered research into their use. Dr. Swartz also expressed an interest in attending the meeting as he felt that his research, which shows the benefits of CTOs, had been misrepresented in the debate over the Mental Health Bill.
Dr. Swartz was not paid a fee for his contribution to the meeting, but was reimbursed for his rail fare from Manchester, where he was speaking at an academic conference, to London, his overnight hotel accommodation on 4 June, his taxi and rail fare from Central London to Heathrow on 5 June and, because the meeting entailed a change in his planned itinerary in Europe, some of the cost of his air fares.
Mr. Laurence Robertson: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what ability (a) primary care trusts and (b) hospital trusts have to deny non-urgent treatment to patients whom they consider to be leading unhealthy lifestyles; and if she will make a statement. 
Mr. Ivan Lewis: It is for doctors to determine, in consultation with patients and their family, what care is clinically appropriate for each patient, based on an individual assessment of need and of the risks and benefits of all available treatment types. This assessment will take into account lifestyle choices which may affect the efficacy of treatment.
Mr. Baron: To ask the Secretary of State for Health when her Department expects to reply to the letter from the hon. Member for Billericay of 18 May 2007 on the proposed independent sector treatment centre for Basildon. 
PTC124 is a drug currently undergoing clinical trials in the United States for the treatment of Duchenne muscular dystrophy. PTC Therapeutics, the company behind this drug, has not currently organised clinical trials in the United Kingdom.
Mr. David Anderson: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what discussions she has had with the National Specialist Commissioning Advisory Group about commissioning services for muscular dystrophy and neuromuscular conditions. 
Mr. Ivan Lewis: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health has received no advice in the last 12 months from the National Specialist Commissioning Advisory Group about muscular dystrophy and neuromuscular conditions.
Ms Rosie Winterton: The direct costs of appointing the new chair, non-executive directors and commissioners to the new Appointments Commission amounted to £42,900. This sum includes the cost of advertising, the use of recruitment consultants for the chair post, independent assessors and interview expenses.
Mr. Stephen O'Brien: To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many practices received the initial incentive payment (component one) for agreeing a plan for the implementation of the practice based commissioning DES and specific objectives in 2006-07; and how many received the incentive payment (component two). 
Ms Rosie Winterton: National health service organisations are not required to report their planned or actual spending on interpretation and translation services to the Department. Therefore, it is not possible to provide either an estimate of spending in 2006-07 or a forecast for 2007-08.
When planning interpretation and translation services, NHS organisations should take due account of their legal duties, the composition of the communities they serve, and the needs and circumstances of their patients, service users and local populations, and costs.
The Government have established the independent Commission on Integration and Cohesion to look at Government policies and public services and to report in 2007. As part of its brief, the Commission has looked at the provision of language services across Government. The Department is fully supporting the Commission in its work.
Mr. David Anderson: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what discussions she has had with patient representatives on changes to the portfolio of the National Specialist Commissioning Advisory Group in the last 12 months; and if she will make a statement. 
Andy Burnham: The Secretary of State has had no discussions with patient representatives about changes to the portfolio of the National Specialist Commissioning Advisory Group (now known as the National Commissioning Group (NCG)) in the last 12 months.
Due to the very specialised nature of the services in the NCGs portfolio, clinical advisers to the NCG ensure that discussions take place with the patient representative groups specific to individual services. (Examples of the relationships between individual patient representative groups and the NCG are set out in its annual report.)
The Review of Commissioning Arrangements for Specialised Services published in May 2006, recommended the strengthening of patient involvement in the NCG decision-making process. To help achieve this, the Appointments Commission are currently running an open competition to appoint lay members to the group.
Mr. Andrew Turner: To ask the Secretary of State for Health where responsibility lies for (a) recognising, (b) commending and (c) thanking former members of the boards of (i) primary care trusts and (ii) health authorities for their services to the NHS. 
Ms Rosie Winterton [holding answer 14 June 2007]: It is the responsibility of the Appointments Commission to acknowledge the contribution of chairs and non-executive members. It is good practice for the local employing body to acknowledge the contribution of former executive board members.
Andy Burnham: This is a matter for the chair of The University College London Hospitals National Health Service Foundation Trust. We have written to Robert Naylor informing him of the hon. Members enquiry. He will reply shortly and a copy of the letter will be placed in the Library.
Mr. Stephen O'Brien: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what role Simon Morgan had in her Department at the time of the publication of the contract notice 2006/S 135-145353; whether he performed that role as a civil servant or consultant; and what role he currently has. 
Andy Burnham: At the time of the publication of the notice, Simon Morgans role within the Departments Commercial Directorate was the project lead for the Framework for procuring External Support for Commissioners (FESC). He is a contractor working within the Departments Commercial Directorate. His current role is the project lead for FESC.
Bob Russell: To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will introduce enrichment culture method tests of all pregnant women to test for streptococcus B; and if she will make a statement. 
Mr. Ivan Lewis: The current position is that routine screening of group B streptococcus (GBS) should not be offered to all pregnant women. The National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellences (NICE) guideline on antenatal care states that pregnant women should not be offered routine antenatal screening for GBS because evidence of its clinical effectiveness and cost effectiveness remains uncertain.
A proposal for NICE to appraise the use of an enriched culture medium for the detection of GBS carriage in a subset of pregnant women with clinical risk factors has been submitted on behalf of the UK National Screening Committees GBS Coordinating Group and is under consideration.
Helen Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many acute trusts have a member of staff responsible for ensuring that patients receive adequate information on the services available to them when they are discharged from hospital following a stroke; 
(2) how many NHS acute trusts have (a) carried out an audit of the information they provide to people leaving hospital following a stroke and (b) have a strategy covering the information which should be provided. 
The Royal College of Physicians National Sentinel Audit measures the quality of all stroke units against various criteria. The 2006 audit shows that 99 per cent. of stroke units display literature on stroke, 59 per cent. have patient versions of the national or local guidelines available and 82 per cent. provide information about social services local community care arrangements.
Mr. Laurence Robertson: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what specialist wheelchairs funded by the NHS are available for disabled children; whether equipment maintenance is provided; and if she will make a statement. 
Mr. Ivan Lewis: Each primary care trust (PCT) sets its own eligibility criteria, which will take into account individual need and local resources. Based on assessment of need and local eligibility criteria, PCTs decide what specialist wheelchairs should be made available for disabled children. All national health service wheelchair services are funded out of general allocation funding to PCTs. Maintenance of wheelchairs is also determined at local level.
NHS wheelchairs including specialist wheelchairs for children are supplied and maintained free of charge to disabled people whose need for a wheelchair is permanent. Indoor/outdoor electric chairs can be provided to disabled people who cannot propel a manual chair. Attendant controlled power chairs are also available if needed.
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department pursuant to the answer of 27 March 2007, Official Report, columns 1441-2W, on
Departments: public expenditure, for which losses his Department was granted Treasury approval in each of the last five years for which figures are available. 
Mr. Byrne: All losses incurred by the Home Office during the last five years have been managed by the Department within the scope of authorities delegated by the Treasury, the thresholds for which were set out in the reply provided to the hon. Member on 27 March 2007.
Mr. Amess: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what discussions he had with the Secretary of State for Transport regarding the use of mobile telephones while driving in each of the last five years; and if he will make a statement. 
Mr. Coaker: Ministers and officials discuss, as necessary, on roads policing issues, including the use of mobile phones while driving. Such discussions include for example the inclusion in the Road Safety Act 2006 of a provision (section 26), amending the Road Traffic Act 1988 to increase the penalty for offences involving mobile phone use while driving.
Mr. Spellar: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department pursuant to the answer of 16 April 2007 to question 130861, on cost recovery, whether the new charges for visas, residency and naturalisation are in excess of full cost recovery. 
Mr. Byrne: As I set out to the House in the Third Delegated Legislation Committee on 26 March 2007, in setting fees above normal cost recovery levels we have done so on the basis of the value to the migrant of a successful application (or for work permits, the employer) in reliance of the powers in section 42 of the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants etc) Act 2004.
The fees set at levels above cost recovery are set out in the Immigration and Nationality (Fees) Regulations 2007. The fees at or below cost recovery levels are set out in the Immigration and Nationality (Cost Recovery Fees) Regulations 2007.
|Next Section||Index||Home Page|