|Previous Section||Index||Home Page|
Mr. Stephen O'Brien: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of finished episodes of care with a primary diagnosis of (a) coronary heart disease, (b) stroke and transient ischaemic attack, (c) diabetes, (d) chronic obstructive pulmonary disorder, (e) cancer, (f) dementia, (g) depression and (h) chronic kidney disease had a secondary diagnosis of (i) malnutrition and (ii) nutritional anaemias in each year since 1997-98. 
Mr. Stephen O'Brien: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of finished episodes of care with a primary diagnosis of (a) malnutrition and (b) nutritional anaemias had a secondary diagnosis of (i) coronary heart disease, (ii) stroke and transient ischaemic attack, (iii) diabetes, (iv) chronic obstructive pulmonary disorder, (v) cancer, (vi) dementia, (vii) depression and (viii) chronic kidney disease in each year since 1997-98. 
Mr. Hancock: To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will publish the legal advice underlying his Departments policy not to allow a parental opt-out for dental screening epidemiological surveys; and whether his Department obtained legal advice on its policy to allow a parental opt-out for the medical testing of obesity. 
No, the legal advice which we have received is confidential. However, we can say that dental screening and epidemiological surveys are very
different from weight and height population monitoring exercises, and that the legal advice reflects those differences.
Consent is needed for the dental surveys because they involve internal investigation (within the mouth) which might otherwise be an assault and battery whereas weight and height data can be collected with minimal or no touching. Also, the lawfulness of the dental surveys depends on consent whereas the height and weight exercise relies on the Health Service (Control of Patient Information) Regulations 2002 (No.1438).
Ann Keen: Numbers of national health service dentists at primary care trust (PCT) and strategic health authority (SHA) area as at 31 March 1997 to 2006 are available in Annex E of the NHS Dental Activity and Workforce Report England: 31 March 2006.
This information is based on the old contractual arrangements. This report, published by The Information Centre for health and social care and a copy of the report is available in the Library and is also available at:
Data in this report are available for High Peak and Dales PCT, Chesterfield PCT, North Eastern Derbyshire PCT, Derbyshire Dales and South Derbyshire PCT, Amber Valley PCT and Erewash PCT. These PCTs merged to form Derbyshire County PCT on 1 October 2006. Data are also available for Central Derby PCT and Greater Derby PCTs, which merged to form Derby City PCT on 1 October 2006.
Numbers of NHS dentists at PCT and SHA level as at 30 June, 30 September, 31 December 2006 and 31 March 2007 are available in Table El of Annex 3 of the NHS Dental Statistics for England: 2006-07 report. Data in this report are available for Derbyshire County PCT.
The inclusion of dentists on trust-led contracts in the data collection following the 2006 reforms means that data collected since April 2006 cannot be directly compared with data collected under the previous system.
Mr. Philip Hammond: To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will place in the Library a breakdown of the Departments efficiency savings in relation to its Spending Review 2004 (SR04) targets, including (a) the efficiency projects in the Department, (b) the date on which they were initiated and (c) how much each was predicted to contribute to the SR04 target. 
Mr. Bradshaw: Details of projects contributing to the departments efficiency target for the 2004 Spending Review (SR04) are provided in our Efficiency Technical Note (ETN), published in December 2005, a copy has been placed in the Library and is also available on the department website at:
The ETN sets out the predicted contribution of each of the main groups of projects (workstreams). It also indicates the scale of expected contribution for each project. It does not specifically indicate individual project start dates.
The ETN makes clear that the efficiency programme would continue to evolve during the delivery period with the inclusion of opportunities identified after 2005, and potential changes in the relative contributions of different workstreams and projects.
We delayed republishing the ETN pending final agreements with HM Treasury and the National Audit Office regarding a few areas of measurement, which have now been agreed. The updated document is almost complete and will be published prior to our next planned reporting of progress in our autumn performance report in December. We will include your request for project start dates in the update. A copy of the final publication will be placed on the department website and in the Library.
Andrew Selous: To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many employees in (a) his Department and (b) each (i) executive agency and (ii) non-departmental public body funded by his Department applied to continue to work beyond state retirement age in the latest year or part thereof for which figures are available; and how many of those applications were successful. 
Frank Dobson: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the salary including bonuses is of the Commercial Director of the Department of Health; and what other benefits he receives as part of his remuneration package. 
[holding answer 23 October 2007]: The Director General, of the Commercial Directorate of the Department receives a salary in the range of £185,000 to £190,000. The Director General will
become eligible to be considered for a bonus for the first time in April 2008. Other benefits include a one-off relocation package, and contributions to both accommodation in the United Kingdom and travel to the United States.
Mr. Hoban: To ask the Secretary of State for Health pursuant to the draft of his Departments Policy Costing Handbook dated 7 March, (1) which policy proposals his Department classed as high risk in each of the last five financial years; 
(2) for which policy proposals his Department sought formal HM Treasury approval in each of the last five financial years because they have revenue costs above his Departments delegated limits or have been classed as high risk, as referred to in paragraph 33 on page 9. 
Mr. Hoban: To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) on what dates his Department breached its (a) resource, (b) near-cash, (c) administration and (d) capital budgets since 2001; what the value of each breach was; and what the reason was for each breach; 
(2) pursuant to the answer of 3 September 2007, Official Report, columns 1867-8W, on Departments: Finance, if he will break down the chapter, Differences from Previous Plans, into (a) near cash, (b) non-cash and (c) capital budget; and what his Departments budget was in (i) the years covered by the 2004 Spending Review and (ii) at the time of the 2006 Budget, broken down into (A) near-cash, (B) non-cash and (C) capital expenditure plans for each year; 
(3) in which financial years since 2001 his Departments outturn for its capital budget at the end of the year was less than planned at the beginning of the year; and what the (a) value and (b) reason for the underspend was in each case. 
Mr. Bradshaw: The National Audit Office measures spending performance against plans by comparing outturns against final provision following supplementary estimates, rather than against plans at the start of the year. This is because plans can change during the year for a number of reasons, such as, machinery of Government and classification changes.
The definitive figures for final provision and provisional outturn are published each year in Public Expenditure Outturn White Papers (PEOWP), which are available in the Library. The paper references are:
Provisional spending estimates for resource, near-cash, non-cash, capital and administration budgets are published in the Public Expenditure Statistical Analyses (PESA), along with changes to plans arising in-year and the differences between provisional and final outturns. PESA papers are available in the Library. The paper references are:
PESA 2002CM4602 to CM4621
Mrs. May: To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many citizens juries have been arranged by his Department since June 2007; which organisations have been commissioned to conduct each citizens jury; and what the estimated cost is of each exercise. 
Ann Keen: The Department has run nine citizens juries on the future of the national health service. These were organised by Opinion Leader Research. Each event cost £96,547.78, totalling £868,930.02.
Mrs. May: To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many citizens juries were arranged for (a) his Department and (b) his Departments agencies in each year since 1997; which organisations were commissioned to conduct each citizens jury; and what the cost was of each. 
Dawn Primarolo: Data from 1997 on the number and cost of citizens juries undertaken by the Department are not readily available. Supplying the costs and occurrences of citizens juries would require a substantive investigation into all public engagement programmes undertaken by various divisions within the Department and its arms- length bodies including the national health service at a disproportionate cost. However, we can identify details on two substantial engagement programmes the Department has recently undertaken.
Firstly the national engagement for the Our health, our care, our say White Paper in 2005, for which the cost of the nationally organised listening exercise was £1.39 million. This was funded through the Departments running cost budget. The main element was £1.05 million paid to Opinion Leader Research (OLR) to deliver a major research programme, which included the cost of running a series of regional deliberative events, and a national citizens summit attended by nearly 1,000 members of the public and a citizens panel of 10 people. OLRs costs were incurred in the delivery of the service rather than the provision of consultancy.
Secondly, the Department held a series of citizens juries informing Lord Darzis review of the NHS. Again this was a national deliberative event conducted through
nine regional events in each strategic health authority outside London. On 18 September 2007 over 1,100 patients, members of the public and NHS staff were involved in the events. The aim of which was to identify the way forward for a 21(st) century NHS which is clinically-driven, patient centred and responsive to local communities. Lord Darzi, the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State (Alan Johnson) attended the event in Birmingham and were video linked to each of the other eight events. The main component of this was the nine 18 September events totalling £868,930.02.
Mr. Stephen O'Brien: To ask the Secretary of State for Health pursuant to the answer of 18 June 2007, Official Report, columns 1560-61W, on Departments: surveys, for what reasons the departmental staff surveys for his Department in 2006 and 2007 are not yet available on the www.civilservice.gov.uk website. 
Mr. Harper: To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many and what percentage of questions tabled to his Department for answer on a named day received a substantive reply on the day named in the last 12 months for which figures are available. 
David Tredinnick: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps the Food Standards Agency and the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency intend to take in relation to the trade in food supplements and herbal remedies from the Channel Islands in the next 12 months. 
Dawn Primarolo: The Food Standards Agency has written to the governments of Jersey and Guernsey suggesting a collective meeting where the application of the European Commission Food Supplements Directive and the associated implications for trade will be discussed.
The Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency has begun discussions about the implementation of the Traditional Herbal Medicinal Products Directive, as part of discussions on the implementation of the Pharmaceutical Directive, with the government of Guernsey and wrote on 28 June 2007 to the government of Jersey to open similar discussions. The discussions with Guernsey are ongoing.
|Next Section||Index||Home Page|