|Previous Section||Index||Home Page|
Jim Cousins: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he made of the implications for his Department of the judgment of the House of Lords in the case of Furniss v Dawson in 1984; and what estimate he has made of the effect of that judgment on the revenue of the Exchequer. 
Mr. Timms: The 1984 Furniss v. Dawson judgment is one of a line of cases, often referred to as the "Ramsay" cases. These cases deal with the principle of statutory interpretation and establish the principle that tax legislation must be construed purposively and applied to a realistic view of the transactions that have taken place.
Mr. Scott: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what his policy is on the (a) removal and (b) reduction of tax relief on pensions savings for people paying income tax at the 40 per cent. rate; 
(5) what estimate his Department has made of the likely effect on Exchequer revenues of the (a) reduction and (b) abolition of tax free lump sums for qualifying pension schemes in the last 12 months; 
(8) what estimate his Department has made of the likely effect on Exchequer revenues of the (a) removal and (b) reduction of tax relief on pensions savings for people paying income tax at the 40 per cent. rate in the last 12 months. 
Sarah McCarthy-Fry: The Government introduced a simplified regime for the taxation of pensions with effect from "A-day" (6 April 2006), and their approach to the taxation of pensions is set out in the Finance Act 2004 and in subsequent legislation.
Budget 2009 announced that from April 2011 tax relief on pension contributions would be restricted for those with incomes of £150,000 and over, and a consultation on the implementation of this restriction was launched at PBR 2009.
Mr. Liddell-Grainger: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many errors in the calculation of tax based on (a) Pay-As-You-Earn and (b) self assessment were identified in (i) 2006, (ii) 2007, (iii) 2008 and (iv) 2009; and how many errors in the calculation of all types of tax there were in each such year. 
Mr. Carmichael: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many complaints from UK businesses HM Revenue and Customs has received regarding its plans to make submission of value added tax returns online compulsory from April 2010. 
Mr. Timms: The Government's plans to make filing online value added tax returns compulsory from April 2010 has been largely welcomed by the professional tax community. HM Revenue and Customs has received 195 complaints, mostly from individual traders, about these plans.
Mr. Harper: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what his most recent estimate is of the monetary value of (a) working tax credit and (b) child tax credit paid to (i) non-British EU nationals resident in the UK, (ii) non-EU nationals resident in the UK, (iii) non-British EU nationals not resident in the UK and (iv) non-EU nationals not resident in the UK to date; and if he will make a statement. 
Tax credits are intended to provide support to families with children and to those in low-paid work in the UK. Therefore eligibility for tax credits depends on the claimants being present and ordinarily resident in the UK. Child tax credit claimants must also have a right to reside in the UK.
Jim Dobbin: To ask the Secretary of State for Health with reference to the answer of 12 October 2009, Official Report, column 684W, on abortions, for what reasons national health service numbers are not used as a unique patient identifier in respect of abortion operations; and what recent representations he has received on the matter. 
Gillian Merron: The national health service number is not used as a unique patient identifier for women accessing abortion services for reasons of confidentiality, enabling women who wish to remain anonymous to do so. This is in accordance with the 'NHS Number programme' implementation guidance issued in December 2008, which confirms that exemptions apply to patients accessing sexual health services. The Government have received some representation on this matter and have no plans to change their position.
Mr. Amess: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent assessment his Department has made of the effectiveness of rheumatoid arthritis services; what steps his Department is (a) taking and (b) plans to take to encourage primary care trusts to commission services in line with this assessment in the next six months; and if he will make a statement. 
It is the responsibility of primary care trusts as commissioners of health care services to ensure that their populations have access to the services that reflect their needs, priorities and aspirations and that the design and provision of services is evidence based.
To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps his Department is taking to improve the training provided to GPs in respect of rheumatoid arthritis; what funding his Department is providing to
support this training; when he anticipates the educational material to be provided by his Department; and if he will make a statement. 
Ann Keen: We recognise the importance of training in rheumatoid arthritis. The Government do not specify the content of the general practitioner training curriculum. This is developed by the Royal College of General Practitioners. Responsibility for approval of the curriculum reset with the Postgraduate Medical Education and Training Board (PMETB), which is the competent authority for postgraduate medical training in the United Kingdom. PMETB is an independent professional body.
While it is not practicable or desirable for the Government to prescribe the exact training that any individual doctor will receive we are, of course, aware of the need to ensure perceived areas of weakness in training curricula are addressed. For that reason, we are liaising with the Regulators and the Academy of Medical Royal Colleges about how best to ensure curricula do meet requirements.
Mr. Amess: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what his most recent assessment is of progress towards meeting the 18-week waiting time target for access to rheumatoid arthritis services; what assessment he has made of the effect of the waiting time target on the provision of rheumatology services; and if he will make a statement. 
Ann Keen: Latest figures, for December 2009, show that 98 per cent. of non-admitted rheumatology patients and 99 per cent. of admitted rheumatology patients started their treatment within 18 weeks of referral. Rheumatology is the treatment function category into which most rheumatoid arthritis patients will fall.
The 18 weeks waiting time standard has significantly improved access to consultant-led treatment-including patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Implementing the 18-week standard has driven earlier diagnosis and treatment of new patients-which is of particular benefit for patients diagnosed with rheumatoid arthritis.
Mr. Greg Knight: To ask the Secretary of State for Health for what reasons the shuttle bus service between Bridlington and Scarborough hospitals and funded by the NHS has ceased operating; and when he expects the service to resume. 
Ann Keen: The Information requested is not held centrally. However, the right hon. Member may wish to approach the Scarborough and North East Yorkshire healthcare NHS trust direct for this information.
Mr. Stephen O'Brien: To ask the Secretary of State for Health with reference to the answer of 10 November 2009, Official Report, column 242W, on cancer: drugs, (1) what period elapsed from the licensing of each drug referred to in the answer to the (a) draft and (b) final National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence guidance being available; 
(2) what cancer drugs have been appraised by the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence
(NICE) since the answer; whether each was (a) recommended and (b) not recommended for NHS use; how long the appraisal of each took; whether the pharmaceutical company supplying each such drug offered to make it available through a patient access scheme; and how long it has taken from the licensing of each drug to draft and final NICE guidance being made available. 
|Topic||Single Technology Appraisal (STA) or Multiple Technology Appraisal (MTA)||Date of market authorisation for relevant indication||Start of NICE appraisal( 1)||Date of draft NICE guidance||Date of final NICE guidance||Recommendation||Patient Access Scheme considered by NICE|
Avastin (bevacizumab) (first-line), Nexavar (sorafenib) (first-line and second-line), Sutent (sunitinib) (second-line) and Torisel (temsirolimus) (first-line) for the treatment of advanced and/or metastatic renal cell carcinoma
|(1) The date NICE commenced work on the appraisal. NICE will also have carried out scoping work for the appraisal before this date.|
(2 )This is the date on which the MTA began for Avastin (bevacizumab) (first-line), Nexavar (sorafenib) (first-line and second-line), Sutent (sunitinib) (first and second-line) and Torisel (temsirolimus) (first-line) for the treatment of advanced and/or metastatic renal cell carcinoma. The MTA was subsequently split and Sutent (sunitinib) for the first-line treatment of renal cell carcinoma was considered in a separate STA.
|Next Section||Index||Home Page|