| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
17 Nov 2008 : Column 205W—continued
Departmental NDPBs
Mr. Stephen O'Brien: To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether the regulatory (a) agencies and (b) non-departmental public bodies sponsored by his Department will recover their full costs of regulation from fees in the 2008-09 financial year. [232449]
Mr. Bradshaw: The information is as follows:
Medicines and Healthcare Regulatory Agency (MHRA):
The MHRA will recover the full cost of regulation from fees.
Non-departmental public bodies
Commission for Social Care Inspection (CSCI):
The CSCI will not recover the full cost of regulation from fees.
CSCI have no power to set their fees.
General Social Care Council (GSCC):
The GSCC will not recover the full costs of regulation from fees.
It is Government policy as set out in debates on the Care Standards Act that the GSCC should not break even with regard to the fees it charges to those registered.
The HC will recover the full costs of regulation from fees.
Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA):
The HFEA will recover the full costs of regulation from fees.
The HTA will recover the full cost of regulation from fees.
Independent Regulator of NHS Foundation Trusts (Monitor):
Monitor will not recover the full costs of regulation from fees.
Although Monitor has the power to require NHS foundation trusts to pay a reasonable annual fee, to date these powers have not been exercised.
Postgraduate Medical Education and Training Board (PMETB):
The PMETB will not recover the full costs of regulation from fees.
The aim was that PMETB would be self-financing from April 2010 but the function of PMETB will now transfer to the General Medical Council in 2010 subject to legislation.
Mike Penning:
To ask the Secretary of State for Health when his Department last reviewed the work of (a) Monitor, (b) the Standard Dental Advisory Committee, (c) the Doctors and Dentists Review Body, (d) the NHS Litigation Authority, (e) the NHS Institute for Innovation and Improvement, (f) the NHS Business Services Authority and (g) the NHS Purchasing and
Supply Agency; and if he will place copies of each such review in the Library. [232455]
Mr. Bradshaw: The following five bodies listed are Arm's Length Bodies (ALBs) and were reviewed as part of the Department's Review of ALBs in 2004:
Independent Regulator of NHS Foundation Trusts (Monitor);
NHS Litigation Authority;
NHS Institute for Innovation and Improvement;
NHS Business Services Authority; and
NHS Purchasing and Supply Agency.
The report, ‘Reconfiguring the Department of Health's Arm's Length Bodies’, which was issued on 25 November 2004 has been placed in the Library and is published on the Department's website:
Since 2004 the following further reviews have taken place:
The NHS Litigation Authority has recently undergone a 'fitness for purpose' review that is due to report soon.
The NHS Institute for Innovation and Improvement is currently undergoing a review that is due to complete in January 2009.
The following two bodies listed are advisory non-departmental public bodies:
The Standing Dental Advisory Committee; and
The Doctors and Dentists Review Body.
Following a public consultation which ended in January 2008 a decision has been made to abolish the Standing Dental Advisory Committee.
The response to the consultation has been placed in the Library and published on the Department's website and can be found at:
http://www.dh.gov.uk/en/Consultations/Responsesto consultations/DH_086586
The Doctors and Dentists Review Body (DDRB) is one of six independent Pay Review Bodies which advise the Prime Minister and various Secretaries of State on matters referred to them, primarily making annual recommendations about pay levels.
The DDRB was established in 1971 with changes to the terms of reference introduced in 1998, 2003 and 2007.
The Department keeps under review the system of setting pay for doctors and dentists and the membership of the DDRB and is satisfied with the current arrangements.
Mark Simmonds: To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many full-time equivalent staff are employed by the British Pharmacopoeia Commission; [235181]
(2) how many full-time equivalent staff are employed by the Human Medicines Commission; [235182]
(3) how many full-time equivalent staff are employed by the Committee on the Safety of Devices Committee; [235185]
(4) what (a) capital, (b) revenue and (c) other funding his Department has given to the Borderline Products Independent Review Panel since its inception; [235206]
(5) what (a) capital, (b) revenue and (c) other funding his Department has given to the Commission
on Human Medicines Commission since its inception; [235209]
(6) what (a) capital, (b) revenue and (c) other funding his Department has given to the Committee on the Safety of Devices since its inception. [235254]
Mr. Bradshaw: The Department does not provide any Capital, funding or revenue for the Commission for Human Medicines (CHM) or the Borderline Products Independent Review Panel. Members are paid a preparation and attendance fee and travel costs for turning up to meetings. CHM Commissioners are paid a taxable preparation and attendance fee of £275 and any travel and accommodation expenses for a meeting. The Chairman is paid a taxable preparation and attendance fee of £400 plus travel and accommodation expenses.
Borderline Products Independent Review Panel Members are paid a preparation and attendance fee of £150 (taxable) and any travel and accommodation expenses for a meeting. The Chairman is paid a preparation and attendance fee of £275 (taxable) plus travel and accommodation expenses.
The costs for these are entirely funded from the statutory fees raised on medicines licences, which are collected by the Medicines and Health care products Regulatory Agency.
The Commission on Human Medicines (CHM) does not employ any full time whole equivalent staff. The Commission meets monthly and the Secretariat for those meetings is provided by the Commission Secretariat who are employed by the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA).
There are no full-time equivalent staff employed by the Committee on the Safety of Devices. Members are paid a taxable preparation and attendance fee of £168.50 and any travel and accommodation expenses for a meeting. The Chairman is paid a taxable preparation and attendance fee of £210 and any travel and accommodation expenses for a meeting.
The British Pharmacopoeia Commission (BPC) does not employ any full time whole equivalent staff. The Commission meets three times a year and the Secretariat for those meetings is provided by the British Pharmacopoeia Secretariat who are employed by the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA).
Departmental Written Questions
Mr. Gibb: To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many Questions for written answer were tabled to his Department in Session (a) 2002-03, (b) 2003-04, (c) 2004-05, (d) 2005-06, (e) 2006-07 and (f) 2007-08 to date; and how many were (i) answered substantively and (ii) not answered on grounds of disproportionate cost. [235393]
Mr. Bradshaw: The numbers of written parliamentary questions for each Session since 2002 are show in the following table.
| Number of written parliamentary questions | |
We do not record separately how many answers referred to the disproportionate cost threshold. Written answers are however a matter of public record and published in the Official Report.
Diabetes
Keith Vaz: To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much funding his Department is providing to charitable or non-governmental organisations and projects which raise awareness of type 2 diabetes in 2008-09. [235045]
Ann Keen: Through the Section 64 General Grant scheme (now known as Third Sector Investment Programme), we gave a total of £80,952 in support of two projects that include raising awareness of Type 2 diabetes in 2008-09.
The organisations that were awarded Section 64 funding to take forward their projects are as follows:
In 2007, the Sikh Community Care Project was granted a total of £198,000 over three years for their Diabetes Intervention and Prevention Programme to raise awareness of Type 2 diabetes among local south Asian community groups. The amount received in 2008-09 was £65,000.
In 2007, Speak Up Self Advocacy was awarded at total of £48,567 for a two year project to develop and distribute a DVD on Type 2 diabetes prevention to people with learning disabilities. The amount received in 2008-09 was £15,952.
As part of the ‘Change4Life’ campaign, we will be providing £500,000 in 2008-09 to Diabetes UK, the British Heart Foundation and Cancer Research UK to highlight the health consequences of obesity. This will include an advertising campaign that will raise awareness of the problems caused by our sedentary lifestyles and poor diets, such as Type 2 diabetes.
Direct Payments
Mr. Harper: To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what assessment he has made of the potential effects of the lack of requirement in the draft Direct Payments Regulations to (a) vet friends involved in the provision of care to become a suitable person for individuals who lack capacity and (b) vet staff directly employed by the family and friends of individuals who lack capacity; [236252]
(2) what (a) support and (b) information his Department proposes to make available to the suitable person identified in the draft Direct Payments Regulations as the person responsible for managing direct payments on behalf of an individual who lacks capacity; [236253]
(3) what steps he has taken to ensure adequate availability of professionals with specialist knowledge to advise families who will manage direct payments on behalf of an individual who lacks capacity under the provisions of the draft Direct Payments Regulations; and if he will make a statement. [236254]
Phil Hope: The majority of ‘suitable persons’ will either be court-appointed deputies, donees of lasting powers of attorneys or friends or relatives who may already be involved in managing and organising the care of the direct payment recipient. It would not be appropriate to vet these people who have been chosen by the person without capacity themselves or the Court of Protection. However, it is up to local authorities to satisfy themselves that identified suitable persons are able to act in the best interests of the person who lacks capacity, even where they are not fully vetted.
The Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006 introduces further safeguards where the ‘suitable person’ is not a friend or family member of the individual whose direct payment they are managing. Where the council engages someone to provide services for that individual, then they become a regulated activity provider. These issues were fully debated during the passage of the Act. In practice, this means that the council must ensure that the individual they engage has undergone a vetting and barring check, as specified in the Act. If the suitable person is a friend or family member, the council will be able to apply for vetting information about potential carers but checks will not be mandatory.
Guidance recommends that this is a good option currently for Direct Payment recipients and we would envisage that the new guidance would mirror this advice for suitable people. Furthermore, regulation 16 of the draft regulations sets out that the local authority must review the making of the direct payment at certain intervals and under certain circumstances.
Until the safeguards included in the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006 are brought into force, safeguards are being provided through Criminal Records Bureau (CRB) checks. Through a registered body, such as a local authority, a ‘suitable person’ will be able to apply for a CRB disclosure on the person they wish to employ. This facility is currently available to people managing their own direct payment.
In relation to support and information available to the person managing direct payments on behalf of an individual who lacks capacity, the Department will issue guidance after analysing responses to the ‘Putting People First—Transforming Adult Social Care—Consultation on Direct Payments Regulations’ in spring 2009. This guidance will also support suitable persons identified in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and draft Direct Payments regulations made under the provisions in this Act. Furthermore, as part of ‘Putting People First’, we have encouraged councils to explore different support mechanisms to support people to access Direct Payments.
Finally, we are taking action to ensure advice is made available to families who will manage direct payments on behalf of an individual who lacks capacity. The Government are making resources available under the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) grant to councils and primary care trusts to train professionals on all aspects of working with people who lack capacity and taking best interest decisions on their behalf. Councils decide how best to use these resources on training, awareness raising and appointing specialist MCA professionals.
Drinking Water: Standards
Miss McIntosh:
To ask the Secretary of State for Health to what extent the Food Standards Agency has
implemented the provisions relating to (a) bottled and (b) tap water of the EU Drinking Water Directive; and if he will make a statement. [235788]
Dawn Primarolo: European Council Directive 98/83/EC on the quality of water for human consumption is fully implemented in England for bottled waters by the Natural Mineral Water, Spring Water and Bottled Drinking Water (England) Regulations 2007. These Regulations are the responsibility of the Food Standards Agency. Similar regulations exist in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
In relation to tap water the Drinking Water Directive (98/83/EC) has been implemented by the Water Supply (Water Quality) Regulations 2000 which apply to water supplies provided by water companies in England. These regulations are the responsibility of the Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. Similar Regulations exist in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |