|Previous Section||Index||Home Page|
16 Feb 2011 : Column 852Wcontinued
Stewart Hosie: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change what recent assessment he has made of the (a) prospects for, (b) funding requirements for and (c) potential contribution of large-scale biomass developments to his Department's energy strategy. 
Charles Hendry: DECC's renewable energy planning database (REPD) at:
contains detailed information on biomass plant under construction, in planning, and consented in the UK. There are no large scale (>50 MW) dedicated biomass plants currently operational in the UK, however, a 50 MW combined heat and power biomass plant is under construction at Markinch, Fife. Four projects for large-scale plant have received planning consent (805 MW total capacity) and six large-scale projects (1.2 GW total capacity) are currently under planning consideration.
Modelling to inform delivery of the renewable energy directive target suggested that up to around 10 TWh of renewable generation in 2020 might come from dedicated biomass generation, or biomass CHP (based on an estimate of around 1.3 GW by 2020). This estimate is not based on specific size of plant. The renewables obligation (RO) is currently the Government's main mechanism for incentivising large scale renewable deployment. The cost of renewables obligation support for this level of biomass generation is estimated to be in the region of £0.5 to £1 billion in 2020 (2010-11 prices).
We are currently reviewing the level of support for all renewables technologies, and will consult on any changes to RO bands this summer. As part of that process, we have asked our consultants Arup to provide updated assumptions on potential deployment and costs for each renewable electricity technology.
Ian Swales: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change if he will meet representatives of the chemical industry from Teesside to discuss UK energy policy. 
Charles Hendry [holding answer 15 February 2011]: The Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change and all the ministerial team at DECC value the importance of the UK chemicals industry to the UK economy and helping to deliver a low carbon economy. DECC Ministers and officials are already engaged with representatives from the chemicals industry to discuss the impact of DECC policies on their sector. Last September I met with representatives from the Chemical Industries Association to discuss UK energy and climate change policies.
Philip Davies: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change how much his Department spent on carbon offsetting in each of the last three years; and to which companies payments for carbon offsetting were made in each such year. 
Gregory Barker: Figures for the amount spent on carbon offsets purchased through the Government Carbon Offsetting Facility by Central Government Departments are shown in the following table.
Ministry of Justice (MOJ) (including Department for Constitutional Affairs)
|(1) Some Departments may have purchased offsets in 2010-11 to account for emissions which took place in 2009-10 and therefore have a zero entry for 2009-10.|
(2) Includes Energy section of DECC from 3 October 2008.
(3) Includes Energy section of DECC from 3 October 2008.
(4) Includes Climate Change section of DECC from 3 October 2008.
(5) Includes Climate Change section of DECC from 3 October 2008.
(6) Includes Act On CO2 Campaign.
Caroline Lucas: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change pursuant to his oral statement of 13 December 2010, Official Report, columns 698-99W, on the Cancun Climate Change Conference, what the membership of the board of the green climate fund is; when he expects the fund to become operational; and how the fund will be capitalised. 
Gregory Barker: The operational details of the green climate fund, including its board membership and financing structure, will be considered by a Transitional Committee. This committee has been tasked with designing the fund and making its recommendations to COP 17 later this year. Terms of reference for the committee were annexed to the Cancun agreement. The timing of the fund becoming operational will depend on decisions taken at COP 17.
Dan Byles: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change what estimate he has made of the average quantity of radioactive materials released into the atmosphere from each (a) coal-fired and (b) nuclear power station in each of the last five years. 
Charles Hendry: Assessments published by the National Radiological Protection Board, now a division of the Health Protection Agency (HPA) in 2001 confirmed that the radioactivity in coal and its waste products is below the threshold value for regulation as a radioactive substance. This remains the most recent and authoritative report in respect of these discharges. It is available on the HPA website at:
Principal atmospheric discharges for 2006 to 2009 from operating nuclear power stations, and those undergoing decommissioning, are provided in the following table. The data are as reported to the Environment Agency and the Scottish Environment Protection Agency and published in the annual publication, 'Radioactivity in Food and the Environment (RIFE)'. Copies of RIFE are available in the Libraries of the House and on the Food Standards Agency website at:
Data for 2010 are not yet available.
|TBq = Terabecquerel-the international system unit of activity of a radionuclide.|
(1) Particulate activity
(2) Not reported after 31 March 2007
(3) Not reported prior to 1 April 2007
(4) Not reported prior to1 June 2007
Beta particles are high-energy, high-speed electrons or positrons emitted by certain types of radioactive nuclei. The beta particles emitted are a form of ionizing radiation also known as beta rays.
Radioactivity in Food and the Environment, 2006-09
|TBq = Terabecquerel-the international system unit of activity of a radionuclide.|
(1) Particulate activity
(2) Not reported after 31 March 2007
(3) Not reported prior to 1 April 2007
(4) Not reported prior to1 June 2007
Beta particles are high-energy, high-speed electrons or positrons emitted by certain types of radioactive nuclei. The beta particles emitted are a form of ionizing radiation also known as beta rays.
Radioactivity in Food and the Environment, 2006-09
Graham Stringer: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change what minimum efficiency standards his Department has set for solar photovoltaic projects to qualify for subsidy. 
Gregory Barker: FITs rewards generators in proportion to the amount of electricity generated so there is a strong economic incentive to use efficient equipment and to site the installation optimally.
A requirement of feed-in tariffs (FITs) is that installations under 50 kW, including solar photovoltaics, must use installers and products accredited under the Microgeneration Certification Scheme (MCS), or equivalent, to be eligible for FITs. MCS gives assurances about likely quality, durability and performance of installations. Solar photovoltaic installations of more than 50 kW are accredited by Ofgem under a process similar to the renewables obligation.
Graham Stringer: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change whether feed-in tariffs for solar photovoltaic energy vary by latitude. 
Gregory Barker: No. Under the feed-in tariffs scheme, tariff levels were set through consideration of the technology costs and electricity generation expectations at different scales. The tariffs were set to deliver an approximate rate of return of 5-8% for well sited installations.
Graham Stringer: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change what information his Department holds on the variation in (a) efficiency of and (b) payback periods for investment in solar photovoltaic energy by latitude within the UK. 
Under the feed-in tariff (FITs) scheme, tariff levels were set through consideration of the technology cost and electricity generation expectations at different
scales. The tariffs were set to deliver an approximate rate of return 5-8% for well-sited installations.
Reference installation was based on 850kWhr/kWp per year for well-orientated UK PV installations-see 'Quantitative Analysis of the Design of the Feed-in Tariffs' at:
Chris Ruane: To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what estimate he has made of the (a) number, (b) number per 1,000 head of population and (c) proportion of people who gave blood in each age decile for each of the last five years; 
(2) what estimate he has made of the number of blood donors per 1,000 head of population in each ethnic group in each of the last five years; 
(3) how many blood donors there were in each year for which figures are available; 
(4) how many blood donors of each (a) age group, (b) sex, (c) socio-economic group and (d) blood type there are in each region. 
Anne Milton: The information has been placed in the Library.
Chris Ruane: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research his Department has (a) commissioned and (b) evaluated on the potential effects of television viewing on the (i) metabolic rates and (ii) long-term health of children. 
Mr Simon Burns: The Department has not commissioned research specifically on the potential effects of television viewing on the metabolic rates and long-term health of children.
In 2009, the Department set up an expert group to review existing evidence on the impact of sedentary behaviour, including screen time on overweight and obesity, and the impact on health and activity levels. The group has drawn up draft recommendations on sedentary activities for all ages. These will be included in updated Chief Medical Officer guidelines on physical activity, expected in spring 2011.
Tony Cunningham: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what his policy is on the rebuilding of Cockermouth Community Health Hospital; and on what date he expects construction to begin. 
Mr Simon Burns: The Department supports the national health service in realising the potential of community services and recognises the health and wider benefits community hospitals can bring to the local population. However, the re-development of the Cockermouth community hospital is a matter for the local NHS in Cumbria. Cumbria primary care trust can advise on the current position of the development.
Mr Chope: To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make it his policy to equalise the position of British and foreign citizens seeking to obtain access to discretionary recognition of qualifications for dental care professions; and if he will make a statement. 
Mr Simon Burns: We sympathise with dental care professionals whose qualifications have not been approved by the General Dental Council (GDC), but any extension of the limited powers the GDC has for discretionary recognition of qualifications would have significant resource implications for the council. It would be preferable if these dental care professionals had the opportunity to undergo additional training to meet the standards set by the GDC.
Philip Davies: To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much his Department spent on carbon offsetting in each of the last three years; and to which companies payments for carbon offsetting were made in each such year. 
Mr Simon Burns: The Department offsets the carbon emissions resulting from our business air travel by contributing to the Government Carbon Offsetting Fund (GCOF). The GCOF aims to fulfil the Government's commitment to offset emissions attributable to all official and ministerial air travel in central Government. It is available to all central Government Departments and provides a simple and cost-effective way to offset, as well as ensuring high environmental integrity.
For the last three years, the Department paid:
Payments were made to Trading Emissions plc.
Mrs Hodgson: To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will assess the merits of providing routine screening for food intolerances to children from an early age. 
Anne Milton: The UK National Screening Committee (UK NSC) advises Ministers and the national health service in all four countries about all aspects of screening policy and supports implementation. Using research evidence, pilot programmes and economic evaluation, it assesses the evidence for programmes against a set of internationally recognised criteria.
The UK NSC regularly reviews policy on screening for different conditions in the light of new research evidence becoming available. Where stakeholders of the UK NSC feel that there is enough evidence published in peer reviewed journals to consider screening for a condition
they can submit a policy proposal to the UK NSC. Further information is available on the UK NSC's website at:
Margot James: To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many local authorities have launched the Food Standards Agency national food hygiene rating scheme recommended in Lord Young's report, Common Sense, Common Safety; 
(2) what progress has been made by the Food Standards Agency in rolling out a national food hygiene rating scheme across local authorities as recommended in Lord Young's report, Common Sense, Common Safety; 
(3) whether the Food Standards Agency has launched the web-based database for local authorities to publish results of food hygiene rating scheme inspections recommended in Lord Young's report, Common Sense, Common Safety. 
Anne Milton: The online search facility for the national food hygiene rating scheme being introduced by the Food Standards Agency (FSA) went live on 1 October 2010.
The scheme was launched formally on 30 November 2010 and, to date, 47 local authorities have started to roll it out in their areas and are publishing ratings online. This includes 28 in England, 18 in Wales and one in Northern Ireland. By the end of June, it is anticipated that around 40% of local authorities in England, all local authorities in Wales and around 70% of those in Northern Ireland will be operating the scheme.
The FSA is encouraging and supporting as many more local authorities as possible to adopt the scheme.
John Cryer: To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether GP consortia will be subject to the general duties of the public sector equality duty under the Equality Act 2010. 
Mr Simon Burns: The Health and Social Care Bill will amend the Equality Act 2010 to include commissioning consortia. Consortia will therefore be subject to the general duties under the Equality Act 2010.
Simon Kirby: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he is taking to ensure that relevant commissioning expertise will be available for the provision of integrated sexual health services by local authorities following implementation of his proposed public health reforms. 
Anne Milton: On 21 December 2010, we published "Healthy Lives, Healthy People: Consultation on the funding and commissioning routes for public health", a copy of which has already been placed in the Library.
The consultation makes proposals about the role of local authorities (LAs) in commissioning comprehensive open-access sexual health services using funds from the ring-fenced public health budget.
The ring-fenced public health grant will fund LAs to commission the integrated sexual health services they are responsible for. This means that it will fund those functions that are necessary for LAs to deliver their new public health responsibilities, including relevant commissioning expertise. These proposals are currently subject to consultation which closes on 31 March.
In addition, a new sexual health strategy to be published this year will set the broad future direction and priorities for sexual health.
Simon Kirby: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he is taking to ensure the impartiality of decision-making within local authorities in delivering public health commissioning. 
Anne Milton: As set out in the Public Health White Paper "Healthy Lives, healthy People: Our strategy for public health in England", directors of public health are to be employed in upper-tier councils and unitary authorities to lead local public health efforts and will play the leading role in discharging local authorities' public health functions.
Directors of public health will be a statutory member alongside general practitioner commissioning consortia, local HealthWatch and other key partners on health and well-being boards and as part of the local authority will play a key role in preparing the joint strategic needs assessment which will need to paint an objective picture of the health and social care needs of the local population. The needs assessments will provide the basis for developing a joint health and well-being strategy, outlining how health and social care commissioners can meet the needs identified and should provide the overarching framework for local commissioning plans.
Local democratic accountability to their local health populations, joint strategic working with other key partners and the focus on health outcomes aims to facilitate an impartial and objective approach to public health commissioning.
Chris Ruane: To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether his Department uses measures of health and well-being that involve self-reporting by individuals. 
Anne Milton: Self-reported measures of health and well-being are periodically included in a number of population-based surveys. The findings are used by the Department in developing and monitoring policy.
The most frequently used measures on health and wellbeing are:
General health and longstanding illness. These are primarily established by means of two main questions:
How is your health in general? Would you say it was: very good/good/fair/bad/very bad?
Do you have any long-standing illness, disability or infirmity? Yes or no?
Both of these questions have been included each year in both the General Lifestyle Survey (previously known as the General Household Survey) and the Health Survey for England.
EQ5D. Five questions aim to establish the respondent's general state of health and quality of life. In selected years, this has been included in the Health Survey for England.
GHQ-12 questions aim to establish whether the respondent has any mental health issues. In selected years, this has been included in the Health Survey for England.
Warwick and Edinburgh Mental Wellbeing Score (WEMWBS). 14 questions aim to assess the respondent's mental and overall wellbeing. This was included for the first time in the 2010 Health Survey for England and will also be included in the 2011 survey.
A list of the questions included in the final three measures have been placed in the Library.
The findings of the both the General Lifestyle Survey:
and the Health Survey for England:
are published online and are publicly available.
Mr Jim Cunningham: To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will ensure that competition in the health sector is based on the quality of the supplier; and if he will make a statement. 
Mr Simon Burns: In the new national health service, competition between providers will be a means, not an end, to empower patients and staff, drive up responsiveness, outcome, improved quality and efficiency.
Our aim is for services to be commissioned from the best provider(s) whether from the public, private or voluntary sector and for patients to have greater choice and control over their care.
Zac Goldsmith: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he plans to take to encourage hospitals to comply with the Government Buying Standards for the public procurement of food and food services. 
Anne Milton: "The Operating Framework for the NHS in England 2011-12", published on 15 December 2010, makes it clear that national health service organisations are encouraged to consider the Government Buying Standards for food and catering when they are introduced at the end of March 2011.
Mr Knight: To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many unsolicited letters the Hull and East Riding NHS Stop Smoking Service has sent; and what the cost to the public purse, including postage, of sending such letters was; 
(2) whether the Hull and East Riding NHS Stop Smoking Service attempted to ensure that the recent letters it sent were not addressed to non-smokers. 
Anne Milton: Priorities are set by local national health service Stop Smoking services for their own local population. This is a matter for the City Health Care Partnership (CHCP), which runs the Hull and East Riding Stop Smoking Service on behalf of Hull Teaching Primary Care Trust (PCT) and East Riding of Yorkshire PCT. I understand that my hon. Friend has already been in contact with the CHCP about this matter.
Guto Bebb: To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what estimates he has made of the cost to the livestock industry in Wales of implementation of the Food Standard Agency's proposals for full cost recovery of meat hygiene controls; 
(2) what assessment he has made of the effect of the Food Standard Agency's plans for full cost recovery of meat hygiene controls at slaughterhouses on small and medium-sized abattoirs in Wales. 
Anne Milton: The Food Standards Agency (FSA) has consulted across the United Kingdom on proposals for full cost recovery by removal of current discounts, with options for a phased introduction and a reduction in charges for low throughput businesses, and is committed to reducing its own costs.
I am advised that on the basis of the information available prior to the consultation, the FSA estimated that full cost recovery for meat controls would cost the Welsh meat industry approximately £2.2 million. In the draft impact assessment, the FSA has assumed that slaughterhouses will absorb approximately one-third of the cost associated with full recovery charging and farmers the remaining two-thirds. On this basis the FSA estimates that slaughterhouses, including low throughput establishments, will absorb approximately £0.73 million of the cost, and pass on £1.47 million to the livestock industry in Wales. The FSA will refine the impact assessment in light of information received in responses to the consultation.
139 consultation responses have been received across UK, 20 in Wales, including 11 from Welsh slaughterhouses of varying sizes, and FSA is in the process of considering all responses prior to determining its advice to Government.
The FSA impact assessment has been published on the FSA website at:
Ian Swales: To ask the Secretary of State for Health pursuant to the Minister of State's contribution on 4 February 2011, Official Report, column 327WH, on Myalgic Encephalomyelitis, what recent representations his Department has received on the definition of CFS/ME. 
Paul Burstow: The Department has received, and continues to receive, a large volume of correspondence from stakeholders, and those living with this condition, on the definition and naming of chronic fatigue syndrome/myalgic encephalomyelitis (CFS/ME).
During the Westminster Hall debate, on 4 February 2011, I said that the World Health Organisation uses the composite term CFS/ME for this condition. This was incorrect.
The World Health Organisation classes benign myalgic encephalomyelitis and post viral fatigue syndrome under the same classification G93.3 'diseases of the nervous system'; subheading 'other disorders of the brain'.
The report of the CFS/ME Working Group to-the Chief Medical Officer, in January in 2002, suggested that the composite term CFS/ME be used as an umbrella term for this condition, or spectrum of disease. This term is also used by the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence for their clinical guidelines.
We do, however, intend to seek further advice on our classification and will update the hon. Member in due course.
Clive Efford: To ask the Secretary of State for Health with reference to clause 262 of the Health and Social Care Bill, whether the functions of the NHS Institute will be incorporated into the Commissioning Board; and if he will make a statement. 
Mr Simon Burns: The Department's "Liberating the NHS: Report of the arm's length bodies review" (published 26 July 2010) looked to reduce bureaucracy and improve efficiency by better aligning the arm's length bodies (ALBs) sector with the rest of the health and social care system. This is available at:
The review found, in assessing the NHS Institute for Innovation and Improvement's current form and functions, that it did not satisfy the criteria to remain as an ALB, as set out in the report.
It was therefore decided to abolish the NHS Institute for Innovation and Improvement as an ALB. The Department is engaging with the NHS Institute for Innovation and Improvement to review and evaluate its remaining functions, with a view to determining whether opportunities exist for alternative commercial delivery models, and whether or not to stop providing for certain functions altogether
The Health and Social Care Bill currently before Parliament provides for the NHS Commissioning Board to have a duty, in exercising its functions, to promote innovation in both the provision of health services and approaches to commissioning them. This will enable the NHS Commissioning Board to promote innovation as part of its role in providing national leadership for quality improvement in the national health service.
Emily Thornberry: To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will include indicators on the incidence of fragility fractures in older people in (a) the NHS Outcomes Framework and (b) the Adult Social Care Outcomes Framework. 
Paul Burstow: On 20 December 2010, we published 'The NHS Outcomes Framework 2011/12', which will measure the overall progress of the national health service in delivering better health outcomes for patients.
In the Framework, 'Domain 3: Helping people to recover from episodes of ill health or following injury', there is an improvement area which focuses on 'improving recovery from fragility fractures'. The indicator 'The proportion of patients recovering to their previous levels of mobility/walking ability at (i) 30 days and (ii) 120 days'.
This indicator is replicated in the draft Adult Social Care Outcomes Framework to help align the unique contributions that the NHS and adult social care have in delivering outcomes for fragility fractures in older people.
The draft Framework, on which we consulted from 16 November to 9 February 2011, also includes the indicator 'the number of emergency hospital admissions for people aged 65 and older as a result of falls and injuries', which is also relevant to improving outcomes for fragility fractures.
As with all measures in the draft Framework, inclusion in the final Adult Social Care Outcomes Framework for 2011/12 is subject to the level of support received via the consultation from councils, people using the services and their carers, providers, user-led organisations and others. We will publish a consultation response this spring setting out what people have said and how we have reflected this in the final Framework; as well as in our broader proposals to bring transparency to social care quality and outcomes.
Caroline Lucas: To ask the Secretary of State for Health pursuant to the answer to the hon. Member for Pudsey of 27 January 2011, Official Report, column 468W, on the NHS: drugs, if he will assess (a) the effectiveness of the unwanted and wasted medicines campaign run by Brighton and Hove Link and (b) the potential of such campaigns to reduce (i) the quantity of wasted medicines and (ii) the dangers such drugs pose; and if he will make a statement. 
Mr Simon Burns: We take the issue of waste medicines very seriously. Local initiatives such as the one run by Brighton and Hove Local Involvement Network, can play an important part in raising awareness of the issue of waste medicines with local populations and health care professionals.
The Department commissioned the York Health Economics Consortium and the School of Pharmacy at the University of London to carry out research to determine the scale, causes and cost of waste medicines in England. The report, 'Evaluation of the Scale, Causes and Costs of Waste Medicines', was published by the researchers on 23 November 2010.
The Department and key interested parties took part in a round table event hosted by the King's Fund on 20 January 2011 to discuss possible actions that could be taken forward either nationally or locally. Local initiatives, such as the one in Brighton, will help to inform our future work programme on reducing waste and improving health outcomes.
Iain Stewart: To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much each (a) primary care trust and (b) strategic health authority spent on market research and opinion polling in 2009-10; and what estimate he has made of such expenditure in 2010-11. 
Mr Simon Burns: The information requested is not held centrally.
Stephen Mosley: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what reports his Department has received from former NHS employees about administrative errors associated with the processing of their pension in the last five years. 
Mr Simon Burns: NHS Pensions, the administrators of the NHS Pension scheme, received enquiries from former national health service employees about the non payment of interest where it was due under the Scheme regulations. An administrative exercise was undertaken to trawl and pay interest to members for all cases where it was due.
Clive Efford: To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what consideration he has given to allowing private health providers to take ownership of NHS property under his proposals for NHS reform; and if he will make a statement; 
(2) what consideration he has given to the transferral of NHS property to private health providers under his proposals for NHS reform; and if he will make a statement. 
Mr Simon Burns: On 6 January 2011, the Department announced that the primary care trust-owned estate that is required to deliver the commissioned services will be made available to first and second wave aspirant community foundation trusts. The Department is currently examining the implications for the management and ownership of the remaining estate following the dissolution of primary care trusts in 2013. An announcement will be made when this has been completed.
The acute sector estate is owned by foundation and national health service trusts. The White Paper "Equity and excellence: Liberating the NHS" proposes that the latter will become foundation trusts by 2013-14. These reforms will not otherwise affect the property holding arrangements in the NHS acute sector.
Clive Efford: To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether any limit will be imposed on the amount of private income a Foundation Trust can earn as a proportion of its overall income under his proposals for NHS reform; and if he will make a statement. 
Mr Simon Burns:
The Government have decided to use the Bill to remove the private patient cap, which is both arbitrary and unfair in its effects: giving extensive freedoms to some trusts and imposing tight constraints on others, based solely on the historical accident of how
much private income they earned in 2002-03. The Government are not persuaded that there is a case for imposing a new limit in the Bill on the amount of private income a foundation trust can earn as a proportion of its overall income. The Bill would not change a foundation trust's principal purpose of providing goods and services for the purposes of the national health service in England.
Clive Efford: To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will ensure that NHS patients do not wait longer for treatment as result of the removal of the private income cap for Foundation Trusts; and if he will make a statement. 
Mr Simon Burns: There is no reason to believe that removing the cap would disadvantage national health service patients. A foundation trust's principal purpose will remain the provision of goods and services for the purposes of the NHS. The Bill proposes reforms that would strengthen a foundation trust's governance arrangements. It would ensure greater transparency and accountability to enable the governors and members to ensure that a foundation trust is managed in the best interests of the public and its NHS patients.
Fabian Hamilton: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the likely status of the NHS as a protected state service under the relevant European directives under his proposals for NHS reform. 
Anne Milton: As we develop the national health service reform proposals we are assessing where European Union law will have an impact and what the position will be with respect to a health system that will remain funded by the taxpayer and providing universal coverage, free at the point of need.
Mr Jim Cunningham: To ask the Secretary of State for Health how he will ensure that his Department's proposals for health and social care reform will not create a risk of loss of financial control; and if he will make a statement. 
Mr Simon Burns: The maintenance of financial control during transition and the effective design of financial control in the new health landscape will remain a key objective as we implement the health reforms.
The NHS Operating Framework 2011/12, published on 15 December 2010, outlines the business and planning arrangements for the national health service over the transition year 2011-12. It describes the national priorities, system levers and enablers needed to build strong foundations set out in "Equity and excellence: Liberating the NHS", and to maintain and improve quality, while keeping tight financial control and delivering the quality and productivity challenge at a time of significant change.
The Operating Framework sets out how tight financial control will be maintained during 2011-12. Primary care trusts will continue to be required to invest 2%, of their budgets non-recurrently in order to create financial flexibility and headroom to support change. The marginal rate of tariff payment for emergency admissions above baseline thresholds will be maintained, incentivising
commissioners and providers to work together in an area that is critical to delivering local Quality, Innovation, Productivity and Prevention plans. These measures are critical for ensuring that the NHS maintains a strong financial position, to get the new system on the right footing from the outset.
Clive Efford: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what safeguards he plans to put in place to maintain quality of care in the NHS in the light of cost pressures; and if he will make a statement. 
Mr Simon Burns: The Operating Framework for the NHS in England set out the Department's plans for maintaining and improving the quality of care. Specifically, it says (paragraph 4.3, page 31) that
"as part of this NHS Operating Framework, we have developed a list of key indicators against which PCTs and clusters will be held to account during 2011-12. The list is included as an annex to this NHS Operating Framework and brings together key performance indicators to support quality, innovation, productivity and prevention efficiencies; indicators relating to new commitments and reform; and clinically relevant indicators from existing measures".
A copy of the Framework has already been placed in the Library and is available on the Department's website at:
Mr Jim Cunningham: To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will assess the merits of maintaining process targets which have a relationship to health outcomes; and if he will make a statement. 
Mr Simon Burns: The White Paper "Equity and Excellence: Liberating the NHS" set out how the Government would introduce a new system of accountability for the national health service based around the outcomes achieved for patients. As part of this, the first ever NHS Outcomes Framework was published on 20 December 2010. This framework will be used by the Secretary of State to hold the proposed NHS Commissioning Board to account for its role in overseeing the commissioning of NHS services.
It will be for the NHS Commissioning Board to translate the national outcomes into outcomes and indicators that are meaningful at a local level, and it may choose to include process measures in the tools and levers it will have its disposal. Putting in place the right processes of care is critical to securing improved outcomes. However, these should be determined by expert bodies and healthcare professionals rather than politicians. In line with this, the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence have begun building a broad library of quality standards which will set out the processes and structures of care that should be put in place for a particular care pathway in order to achieve high quality outcomes.
John Mann: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the effect of the public sector pay freeze on the payment of annual increments to NHS nurses who earn less than £21,000 per annum. 
Mr Simon Burns: The starting pay for a qualified nurse is £21,176 per annum full time equivalent.
There is currently no national freeze on incremental progression although there have been discussions between national health service employers and NHS trade unions on a National Enabling Framework to support local agreements to guarantee no compulsory redundancies in return for suspending incremental payments.
Clive Efford: To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will ensure that patient choice will continue to be determined on the basis of clinical need rather than price or competition law under his proposals for NHS reform; and if he will make a statement. 
Mr Simon Burns: The decision to refer a patient for national health service treatment is a clinical one and will remain so. Services will be commissioned according to the clinical needs of the population, but in a way which allows service users appropriate choice of treatment and provider.
Clive Efford: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the implications for patient choice are of lifting the competition exemption for the NHS under EU requirements; and if he will make a statement. 
Mr Simon Burns: The use of competition in the national health service is not about establishing normal commercial markets under price competition, and competition is not an end in itself.
The Government are focusing on using competition to enhance quality and choice in the system, in most instances using NHS tariff or pricing arrangements. For some services, where the delivery of care is essential (e.g. rural ambulance and emergency), competition will be more limited-if it exists at all.
Our aim is for services to be commissioned from the providers who are best placed to deliver the needs of their patients and populations. Commissioners and providers should also ensure that patients have accurate and reliable information, so that they can exercise more choice and control over their health care.
Fabian Hamilton: To ask the Secretary of State for Health by what mechanism patients will be able to choose any healthcare provider under his proposals for GP commissioning. 
Mr Simon Burns: We expect the ability of patients to choose services to be extended through the introduction of any willing provider as part of the implementation of the Government's proposals on choice. The NHS Commissioning Board will have overall responsibility for ensuring that commissioning consortia deliver a choice of provider. Further details of how the choice offer will develop will be given in the response to the choice consultation in the spring.
To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the number of mothers who suffered from a post-natal mental health problem
as a proportion of the number of live births in each year since 2000. 
Mr Hurd: I have been asked to reply.
The information requested falls within the responsibility of the UK Statistics Authority. I have asked the authority to reply.
Letter from Stephen Penneck, dated February 2011:
As Director General for the Office for National Statistics, I have been asked to reply to your Parliamentary Question asking what estimate has been made of the number of mothers who suffered from a post-natal mental health problem as a proportion of the number of live births in each year since 2000. (37850)
The Office for National Statistics does not hold the information requested.
Mr Betts: To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) with reference to the report prepared for his Department, One to one support for cancer patients, what steps he is taking to address the gap in the provision of one to one support workers for men with prostate cancer identified in the report; 
(2) what steps he is taking to implement the national clinical audit of prostate cancer referred to in Improving Outcomes: A Strategy for Cancer. 
Paul Burstow: 'One to One Support for Cancer Patients' shows that, in many scenarios, the savings that can be achieved through improved co-ordination of care can outweigh the costs of dedicated support roles. These savings include reductions in emergency bed days, reductions in routine follow-up appointments, and reductions in general practitioner visits.
The findings of the report are intended to assist local decision making and support the continued expansion in one to one support for all cancer patients, including those with prostate cancer. It is for local national health service organisations to decide whether to invest in new one to one support roles, and we have welcomed the recent announcement by Macmillan Cancer Support that they will invest up £300 million to pump prime additional one to one support posts over the next seven to 10 years.
We will build on 'One to One Support for Cancer Patients' to provide further evidence to support the NHS to develop new one to one support posts. We will highlight issues that service providers and commissioners need to consider as part of work force planning.
Regarding the implementation of a prostate cancer audit, a process to select topics for an extended national clinical audit and patient outcomes programme will begin shortly. We will consult widely and consider all representations before decisions are taken in the autumn.
Chris Ruane: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the number of diagnosed schizophrenics of each (a) age group and (b) sex there were in each region in each of the last 30 years. 
Paul Burstow: We do not collect this information centrally. However, the "Adult Psychiatric Morbidity in England, 2007" survey does contain some of the information requested. This publication has already been placed in the Library.
Mr Mike Hancock: To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills whether his review of informal adult learning will include consideration of (a) the transparency of and (b) mechanisms for allocating funding for informal adult and community learning. 
Mr Hayes: In November 2010, "Skills for Sustainable Growth" announced that the adult safeguarded learning budget of £210 million per annum for informal adult and community learning would be protected and that informal adult and community learning would be reformed in order to:
help build the big society, through learning for personal development, mental/physical health, digital inclusion, democratic engagement, family learning etc.
engage and motivate disadvantaged groups and create progression pathways towards the wider learning continuum, including skills-focused learning and employment.
Over the coming months BIS will hold a series of policy round table meetings, including one with a specific focus on funding. We will work closely with a wide range of partners, including representative bodies, local authorities, colleges and other learning providers to consider how to address historical funding imbalances and how best to fund informal adult and community learning in future.
Mr Mike Hancock: To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills (1) whether local authority adult community education services will be exempt from the Skills Funding Agency's minimum contract value proposals; 
(2) whether local authority adult community education services will be exempt from the Skills Funding Agency's minimum contact value arrangements. 
Mr Hayes: We announced in "Investing Skills for Sustainable Growth" in November 2010 that a minimum contract level (MCL) was being introduced for the 2011/12 academic year as part of our commitment to create a streamlined and more efficient FE system. In an environment of declining budgets, it has become increasingly difficult for small providers to operate without realising the efficiencies of shared services or economies of scale through collaboration or subcontracting. The Skills Funding Agency also needs to become more efficient and streamlined.
The Skills Funding Agency (SFA) published Guidance Note 6(1) (16 December 2010), which gives further detail on the implementation of a minimum contract level (MCL) for the 2011/12 academic year. Guidance Note 6 provides a list of the types of college/training organisation/employer that would be exempt from the application of the MCL due to the specific nature of the contractual relationships that the SFA has with them. Local authorities are not automatically exempt from the introduction of the MCL.
Where there is a risk of specialist provision being lost, or a significant impact on the choice available in
particular localities, for example, in rural communities, the agency will consider whether alternative arrangements should be made.
(1) Available at:
Mr Mike Hancock: To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills whether the process of reviewing and reinvigorating informal adult learning will include a review of the funding process for informal adult and community learning. 
Mr Hayes: In November 2010, "Skills for Sustainable Growth" announced that we would protect the Adult Safeguarded Learning budget of £210 million per annum for informal adult and community learning and that we would re-invigorate and reform informal adult and community learning to support the big society and to foster learning and progression for individuals, families and communities. Over the coming months we will work closely with partners to consider how public funding can be refocused and reprioritised for the people who need the most help and have had the fewest opportunities.
I refer my hon. Friend to his question tabled on 7 February 2011 (39061) which I answered today.
Paul Flynn: To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills what discussions he has had with ministerial colleagues on the future of citizens advice bureaux. 
Mr Davey: Government value highly the work of the citizens advice service but funding for citizens advice bureaux is not a matter for central Government but for local authorities who are better able to determine the structure and level of funding of advice services in their area which meets local needs. The Government do not, however, expect local authorities to respond to this freedom by passing on disproportionate cuts to other service providers, especially the voluntary sector.
Due to concerns raised by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey) about funding decisions by Birmingham city council and the threat that decision might pose to the sustainability of the local citizens advice bureaux, I addressed those concerns and the Government's response in an adjournment debate in Westminster Hall on 9 February 2011, Official Report, column 129WH.
Chris Ruane: To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills how much central Government funding has been allocated to Citizens Advice in each of the last five years. 
Mr Davey: The Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS) provides core grant in aid funding to Citizen Advice (CitA), the umbrella body for the Citizen Advice Service in England and Wales, and to Citizen Advice Scotland. Core funding for the individual citizen advice bureaux is typically provided by their local authority, not central Government.
Over previous years BIS has also provided programme funding to Citizen Advice under the financial inclusion fund (for face to face debt advice project) and to both Citizens Advice and Citizens Advice Scotland under the additional hours of advice (AHA) project. BIS also committed in the last spending review (SR07) to provide programme funding to Citizens Advice Scotland to aid in the development and roll-out of a case recording system (CASTLE) to be used across the bureaux network in Scotland.
|Citizens a dvice funding|
|BIS core funding||Financial inclusion fund||Additional hours project||Total|
|Citizens a dvice Scotland|
|Core grant in aid||CASTLE project||Additional hours/credit crunch project||Total|
Catherine McKinnell: To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills what steps (a) his Department, (b) its agencies and (c) the non-departmental public bodies for which he is responsible have taken to comply with the Guidance of the Office of Government Commerce on promoting skills through public procurement issued in 2009. 
Mr Davey: The Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS) adheres to applicable guidance published by the Office of Government Commerce.
This Department utilises Buying Solutions and other frameworks where possible. In such cases the responsibility for incorporating such considerations lies with the body responsible for establishing the framework.
BIS' facilities management service partners are contractually required to demonstrate active support to staff to improve their adult basic skills. This must include an initial assessment of staff and where found not to meet the criteria the service partner must make available suitable arrangements for appropriate training to assist them in attaining at least the basic level as part of their individual training plans.
The Government's skills strategy, published on 16 November, set out how BIS will also work with public sector bodies to encourage and support them to use public procurement as a lever to raise employers' engagement with skills and apprenticeships.
I have asked chief executives of the Executive agencies to respond directly to the hon. Member.
Further information could be provided only at disproportionate cost.
Letter from Stephen Speed, dated 15 December 2010:
The Secretary of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills has asked me to reply to your question what steps (a) his Department, (b) its agencies and (c) the non-departmental public bodies for which he is responsible have taken to comply with the Guidance of the Office of Government Commerce on promoting skills through public procurement issued in 2009.
The Insolvency Service Executive Agency of the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills adheres to current guidance by following Office of Government Commerce (OGC) recommendations, liaising with Buying Solutions specialists. It utilises OGC framework agreements where possible and advertises contracts via the Official Journal of the European Union where the whole-life value of the goods and services mandates this route.
The Insolvency Service is now embedding the Cabinet Office's 'Principles of Good Employment Practice' into its processes. In undertaking procurement activities, our trained procurement staff are mindful of small and medium sized enterprises (SMEs) and are members of the Chartered Institute of Purchasing & Supply (CIPS).
The Insolvency Service recently contacted all our suppliers of goods and services to encourage them to sign up to the Skills Pledge.
Letter from Geof Russell, dated 15 December 2010:
The majority of activity procured by the Skill Funding Agency (the Agency) is for education and vocational training rather than the provision of goods and services. All procurement of this activity will in future be undertaken through the Agency's Approved College and Training Organisation Register (ACTOR). Through this process the Agency ensures that providers that hold Agency contracts are committed to developing the skills of their staff. This includes monitoring those organisations that have Investors in People or the Training Quality Standard (TQS). Through the procurement process the Agency ensures that organisations use skilled staff for the delivery of education and training and commit to the continuous professional development of their staff. Furthermore, all trainers, verifiers and guidance suppliers are required to have formal qualifications, in order to practise.
In terms of the procurement of goods and service provision the Agency uses collaborative procurement where possible. These are purchased through pan-government frameworks, where the evaluation criteria (and all references to skills requirements, provision of apprenticeship places, and contract terms and conditions) are actually set by other public sector bodies.
Where the Agency does issue bespoke tenders, the goods and services tendering documentation has been updated to encourage its suppliers to support developing the skills of their staff, and where relevant, the use of Apprenticeships. The need to embed skills and Apprenticeships is considered separately for each procurement and, where relevant, the wording and evaluation criteria are strengthened.
Letter from Peter Mason, dated 19 January 2011:
I am responding in respect of the National Measurement Office (NMO) to your Parliamentary Question tabled 15 December 2010, asking the Secretary of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, what steps (b) its Agencies and (c) the non departmental public bodies for which he is responsible have taken to comply with the Guidance of the Office of Government Commerce on promoting skills through public procurement issued in 2009.
NMO takes OGC Guidance into account when carrying out its procurement activities and in its most recent large procurement exercise, the first since this particular guidance was issued, bidders were explicitly scored on the extent to which they had a formal training plan for the development of their workforce.
Letter from Gareth Jones, dated 24 January 2011:
I am replying on behalf of Companies House to your Parliamentary Question tabled 13 December 2010, UIN 31316 to the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills.
Companies House's contracts are awarded in accordance with all relevant procurement legislation but, because of the nature of our business requirements, there are very few services for which we contract where promoting apprenticeships are applicable.
However, we have made full use of apprentice resource as part of our current Building Maintenance Contract.
Letter from John Alty, dated 10 February 2011:
I am responding in respect of the Intellectual Property Office (IPO) to your Parliamentary Question tabled 13 December 2010, asking the Secretary of State, Department for Business, Innovation & Skills, what steps (b) its agencies and (c) the non departmental public bodies for which he/she is responsible have taken to comply with the Guidance of the Office of Government Commerce on promoting skills through public procurement issued in 2009.
In line with central government guidance, the IPO use collaborative framework arrangements for goods and services wherever possible, and in these instances the supplier selection (and other evaluation) criteria are decided upon by other public sector organisations when setting up the framework. Where the IPO issue bespoke tender requirements, our documentation will reflect the guidance by promoting skills and apprenticeships where relevant to the requirement. We have also specifically addressed this as part of our overall procurement strategy, along with other corporate social responsibility obligations.
Teresa Pearce: To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills (1) which colleges he expects to participate in the job outcome pilot scheme in 2011-12 
(2) whether funding for job outcome pilot schemes will be ring-fenced in the 2011-12 academic year; 
(3) how many people he expects to participate in the job outcomes pilot scheme in academic year 2011-12; 
(4) whether the funding allocated to colleges under the job outcomes scheme will be dependent on participants entering employment after training. 
Mr Hayes: As outlined in 'Investing in Skills for Sustainable Growth', as part of our approach to simplifying the system, while ensuring it continues to deliver more for individuals and employers, we are introducing outcome incentive payments. In the 2011/12 academic year the Skills Funding Agency will trial this approach through the introduction of a job outcome payment. I have asked the chief executive of the Skills Funding Agency to write to you to provide you with further details about this pilot with a copy of the responses being placed in the House.
Teresa Pearce: To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills (1) what discussions he has had with the Department for Work and Pensions on the operation of the job outcome pilot scheme in the 2011-12 academic year; 
(2) what discussions (a) he and (b) his Department have had with the Department for Work and Pensions on the implications of the job outcomes scheme pilot for that Department's consultation on skills conditionality. 
We have been working closely with both the Department for Work and Pensions and Jobcentre Plus on the operation of job outcome incentive payments. Both have welcomed the principle of the payments. We
are currently working through the model of how the proposals will operate in the 2011-12 academic year and will have detailed discussions as the proposals develop.
The Skills Conditionality consultation (which was a joint consultation led by both BIS and DWP) closed on 3 February. Both Departments are currently working through the responses and, following the publication of the Government's response to the consultation, will be continuing to engage with the sector (including colleges and training providers) as we work up detailed proposals for implementation.
Teresa Pearce: To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills how much funding he plans to allocate to colleges for the purposes of providing training for those who have been out of work for six months or more in the 2011-12 academic year. 
Mr Hayes: As set out in Investing in 'Skills for Sustainable Growth'(1) on 16 November 2010 the total Skills Funding Agency programme budget will be £3.4 billion in 2011-12 financial year.
As a part of the spending review we have had to look hard at the rationale for funding adult skills training and have been clear that we must do all that we can to support people enter the labour market. This is why full funding will be focused on people who are actively seeking work-recipients of jobseekers allowance (JSA) or employment support allowance (Work Related Activity Group; ESA (WRAG).
It is not for us to attempt to plan the delivery of further education and skills from the top down. Instead, our simplification agenda will set colleges and training organisations free to respond to local need, giving Jobcentre Plus and employers a key role in shaping both the volume and content of provision for this group. We expect that the availability of fee remission for those on JSA or ESA (WRAG) will itself make them attractive group for colleges and training organisations. In addition we announced in the Skills Investment Strategy plans to incentivise delivery of training for people who are unemployed through the piloting of new job outcome payments for FE colleges and training organisations.
Mr Crausby: To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills whether higher education institutions charging more than £6,000 tuition fees for degree courses from 2012 will be required to join the National Scholarship Scheme. 
Mr Willetts: All universities that want to charge a graduate contribution above £6,000 will be obliged to participate in the National Scholarship Programme (NSP). Broad details were announced on Thursday 10 February and information was placed in the Libraries of the House.
To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills whether all higher education institutions charging more than £6,000 in annual tuition
fees will be eligible to join the National Scholarship Scheme from 2012. 
Mr Willetts: Yes. All higher education institutions, whatever they charge, will be eligible to join the National Scholarship Programme, and those that want to charge above the £6,000 threshold will be obliged to participate.
|Next Section||Index||Home Page|