|Previous Section||Index||Home Page|
Andrew George: To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much has been spent on research into treatment of ankylosing spondylitis in each year since 1997; and what percentage of his Departments budget for research and development activity this constituted in each year. 
Over the last 10 years, the main part of the Departments total expenditure on health research has been devolved to and managed by national health service organisations. Details of individual NHS supported research projects undertaken during that time are available on the archived national research register at:
Implementation of the Departments research strategy Best Research for Best Health has led to an expansion of our research programmes and in significant new funding opportunities for health research. A copy of the research strategy is available in the Library. Work relevant to musculoskeletal function will be undertaken in several of the National Institute for Health Research Biomedical Research Centres (BRC). For example, the Cambridge BRC has a musculoskeletal disorders research theme to which £2.2 million has been allocated over five years; and the Newcastle BRC has a musculoskeletal disorders research theme for which £0.3 million has been allocated over five years.
The Medical Research Council (MRC) is one of the main agencies through which the Government supports biomedical research. The MRC is an independent body funded by the Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills.
The MRC has funded and continues to fund research into understanding the pathophysiology of ankylosing spondylitis in search of possible new therapeutic approaches. MRCs spend in this area since 1997 is shown in the following table.
In addition, the MRC funds a large portfolio of research on arthritis, rheumatism and mechanisms of inflammation which will have relevance to our understanding of ankylosing spondylitis and its possible treatment. Available MRC expenditure figures for research relevant to arthritis and rheumatism are shown in the following table.
|Expenditure (£ million)|
John Bercow: To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will instruct the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence to investigate the comparative effectiveness of treatment for brain cancer in the UK and other EU member states. 
As the Cancer Reform Strategy is implemented across the national health service, the Department will track the progress of other countries on issues such as survival and mortality, awareness, early detection, access to different forms of treatment, clinical outcomes, patient experience and costs across all cancers.
Anne Milton: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of screens for chlamydia undertaken in (a) 2003-04, (b) 2004-05, (c) 2005-06 and (d) 2006-07 were (i) offered to and (ii) accepted by (A) men and (B) women. 
Dawn Primarolo: Data for the National Chlamydia Screening Programme (NCSP) records numbers of screens accepted not the numbers of screens offered. The data on proportion of screens accepted are shown in the following table:
|Proportion of males and females screened for Chlamydia as part of the NCSP: 2003-07|
|Proportion Male ( percentage )||Proportion Female ( percentage )||Total( 1)|
|(1)( )Total number screened excluding screens with sex marked as unknown and unspecified.|
1. The data from the NCSP are for screens outside of GUM clinics only and include screens from the Boots pathfinder project.
2. The data available from the NCSP are the number of screens undertaken and not the number of patients screened. The number of screens is assumed to be a close proxy of the number of people screened.
3. The data include those aged 13-24 years.
4. The NCSP began screening on 1 April 2003 and so data are only available from that date onwards.
5. The data is specific to the financial year 1 April-31 March: 2003-04, 2004-05, 2005-06. For 2006-07, data as of 27 February 2008.
David Taylor: To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make it his policy to consult patient and service user organisations on the skills, competences and experience required of future (a) lay and (b) professional members of the Council for Healthcare Regulatory Excellence. 
It is our intention that appointments made to the Council for Healthcare Regulatory Excellence (CHRE) by the Secretary of State will be devolved to the Appointments Commission who will work with CHRE on the precise process. We understand that CHRE intends to seek the views, as appropriate, of patient and service user organisations on the attributes for council members. They will also be able to draw on the recommendations made by Niall Dickson in his report Enhancing Confidence in
Healthcare Professional Regulation, which we intend to publish soon. All the appointments to the new council for CHRE will be public members (it will not be possible for a health professional or ex-health professional to be appointed).
Mr. Stewart Jackson: To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether the Peterborough Primary Care Trust has undertaken a needs assessment of children's orthodontics within its boundaries; and if he will make a statement. 
Primary care trusts (PCTs) are responsible for providing or commissioning primary dental care services, including orthodontic services, to reflect local needs. This is a local rather than centrally managed process. The Department has issued guidance to the local national health service on developing local dental commissioning plans. Additional support is available through the national primary care contracting team.
Increasing the number of patients seen within NHS dental service as a whole is now a formal priority in the NHS Operating Framework for 2008-09. The Department has supported this with a substantial 11 per cent. uplift in overall allocations to PCTs from 1 April 2008.
Mr. Hoban: To ask the Secretary of State for Health which of his Departments initiatives have been advertised to the public in each of the last 10 years; and what the cost of each such campaign was. 
|Next Section||Index||Home Page|