Foreign and Commonwealth Office
Burma
Kerry McCarthy: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent assessment he has made of the number of political prisoners in Burma; and what steps he is taking to secure their release. [149978]
Mr Swire: Independent reports indicate that around 200 political prisoners could remain in Burma's jails.
We remain in regular contact with released political prisoners and their representatives. We welcome the creation by the Burmese Government of a committee on political prisoners and note the range of independent civil society organisations taking part. This committee builds on earlier steps by the Burmese Government to grant the International Committee for the Red Cross access to prisoners and prisons. We continue to press for all cases to be reviewed promptly, impartially and transparently.
Kerry McCarthy: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture on the treatment of prisoners in Buthidaung Prison in northern Rakhine State. [150188]
Mr Swire: We have not had any recent discussions with the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture. However, we have regular discussions with the UN Special Rapporteur on the Human Rights situation in Burma, Tomas Ojea Quintana. These meetings cover the full range of human rights issues in Burma, including the issue of political prisoners. Mr Quintana's report on 6 March highlighted concerns about the ongoing practice of torture in places of detention in Burma, and set out allegations that Muslim prisoners detained in Buthidaung prison in Rakhine State after last June and October's violence had been tortured and beaten to death.
On 7 March, our ambassador discussed the plight of Rohingya prisoners in Buthidaung jail with the Burmese Minister for Border Affairs.
We continue to press for full and prompt implementation of the mechanism set up by the Burmese Government for reviewing disputed cases and for the unconditional release of political prisoners with senior members of the Burmese Government, as I did during my visit to Burma in December 2012.
Kerry McCarthy: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the treatment of Kachin men accused of belonging to the Kachin Independence Army by the government of Burma; and whether he has discussed this issue at UN or EU level. [150189]
Mr Swire:
We are aware of credible reports of the arbitrary arrest and torture of Kachin men accused of belonging to the Kachin Independence Army (KIA), most recently raised by UN Special Rapporteur for Human Rights in Burma, Tomas Ojea Quintana, in his
26 Mar 2013 : Column 1078W
report to the UN Human Rights Council. We remain deeply concerned over recent military action and reported wider human rights abuses against civilians in Kachin State.
British officials regularly raise the situation in Kachin State bilaterally with the Burmese Government, through the EU, most recently during a visit to Kachin State from 12-13 March, as well as at the UN, including the latest Human Rights Council session. We also continue to press urgently for humanitarian access to KIA-controlled areas.
Chemical Weapons: Conferences
Sir John Stanley: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what outcomes the Government want to see achieved at the forthcoming Chemical Weapons Convention 3rd Review Conference. [149311]
Alistair Burt: The Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) has proved an invaluable tool to progress our objective to see a world free from chemical weapons. We welcome the progress made to destroy 78% of the world's declared chemical weapons. While completion of destruction is essential, we want the third CWC review conference to also focus on ensuring that chemical weapons cannot return. We want the Director General of the Organisation for the Prevention of Chemical Weapons to be given a clear mandate to enable the organisation to focus more on chemical safety and security issues. We want to see an even greater effort to bring into the convention the remaining eight non-states parties, including Syria; to promote effective national implementation of the convention by all states parties; for the convention and its verification regime to take into full account developments in Science & Technology and, in doing so, promote awareness of the “dual use” risks from chemistry among scientists and engineers.
Cyprus
Oliver Colvile: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what rights the UK has to (a) natural gas, (b) oil and (c) other natural resources off the coast of Cyprus as a result of the British Sovereign Base Areas of Akrotiri and Dhekelia. [150177]
Mr Lidington: The UK claims a territorial sea of three nautical miles for the Sovereign Base Areas and reserves the rights to claim up to 12 nautical miles. The declaration made by the Government in 1960 makes clear the UK’s intention not to develop the Sovereign Base Areas for other than military purposes.
International Organisations
Chris Leslie: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which subscriptions due to be paid by the UK to international organisations in 2012-13 will now not be paid until 2013-14; and if he will make a statement. [150216]
Mr Lidington: All UK subscriptions due to be paid by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to international organisations in 2012-13 have been paid. No payments due to be made in the current financial year have been deferred to 2013-14.
26 Mar 2013 : Column 1079W
Morocco
Mr Mark Williams: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will raise with the Moroccan authorities their policy of criminalisation of calls for self-determination in Western Sahara. [149526]
Alistair Burt: We strongly support UN-led efforts to encourage agreement on a long-lasting and mutually-acceptable political solution that provides for the self-determination of the people of Western Sahara. We support Morocco's commitment with regards to adopting and implementing international human rights standards. We will continue to raise our concerns with the Moroccan authorities on human rights issues through our existing frank and open dialogue.
Mr Mark Williams: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) if he will raise with the Moroccan authorities the concerns of the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture regarding the fact that the allegations of torture and ill-treatment during the almost two years of pre-trial detention of 25 Saharawi civilians tried for their alleged role in the violent clashes that occurred in Western Sahara following the closure of the Gdeim Izik camp have not been investigated; [149527]
(2) if he will raise with the Moroccan authorities the concerns of the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture that 25 Saharawi civilians are being tried before a military court for their alleged role in the violent clashes that occurred in Western Sahara following the closure of the Gdeim Izik camp in November 2010. [149528]
26 Mar 2013 : Column 1080W
Alistair Burt: We welcome the report of Mr Juan Mendez, the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture, and Morocco's openness in allowing him to visit, which indicates a genuine political will to address a continued improvement in human rights. We will encourage and support Morocco in the implementation of the recommendations and continue to raise our concerns with the Moroccan authorities on human rights issues through our existing frank and open dialogue.
Mr Mark Williams: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what reports he has received on progress made by MINURSO in organising and supervising the referendum on Western Sahara self-determination since the UN Security Council agreed its Resolution 2044. [149529]
Alistair Burt: MINURSO reports each year to the UN Security Council, most recently in document 2/0212/197 dated April 2012 which states
“The stalled political process has meant that MINURSO has not been able to implement a referendum or continue organisational preparations for the transition process.”
Health
Accident and Emergency Departments
Gloria De Piero: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the average waiting time in accident and emergency was in (a) Sherwood Forest Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, (b) Nottingham University Hospitals Trust and (c) England in each of the last four (i) quarters and (ii) years. [149835]
Anna Soubry: The information requested is shown in the following tables:
| Mean and median duration to departure(1) (minutes) for accident and emergency (A&E) attendances(2) (excluding planned)(3) 2011-12 | ||||||||
| Q1—April to June | Q2—July to September | Q3—October to December | Q4—January to March | |||||
| Mean | Median | Mean | Median | Mean | Median | Mean | Median | |
| Mean and median duration to departure(1) (minutes) for A&E attendances(2) (excluding planned)(3) | ||||||||
| 2008-09 | 2009-10 | 2010-11 | 2011-12 | |||||
| Mean | Median | Mean | Median | Mean | Median | Mean | Median | |
| (1)Duration to Departure (in minutes): The time (expressed as a whole number of minutes) between the patient's arrival and the time the A&E attendance has concluded and the department is no longer responsible for the care of the patient. (2) Activity in English NHS Hospitals and English NHS commissioned activity in the independent sector. (3)A& E Attendances: A&E Attendances in HES, relates to the number of recorded attendances. A&E attendances do not represent the number of patients, as a person may have more than one admission within the year. HES A&E figures exclude planned follow up attendances. Source: Hospital Episode Statistics (HES), Health and Social Care Information Centre | ||||||||
Bradford Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust
George Galloway: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps his Department is taking to improve the performance of Bradford Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust. [149383]
26 Mar 2013 : Column 1081W
Anna Soubry: From 1 April 2013 this will be a matter for the NHS Commissioning Board. As set out in the NHS Mandate, the NHS Commissioning Board's objective is to uphold the NHS Constitution rights and commitments, and where possible to improve the levels of performance in access to care.
Breast Cancer: Brigg
Andrew Percy: To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many and what proportion of women in Brigg and Goole constituency with suspected breast cancer saw a specialist within two weeks in each of the last five years. [150156]
Anna Soubry: The information is not available in the format requested. The number of patients urgently referred by their general practitioner for suspected breast cancer, and the number and percentage seen within two weeks, at North Lincolnshire and Goole Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust and Hull and East Yorkshire Hospitals NHS Trust since Q4 2008-09 is shown in the following tables:
| North Lincolnshire and Goole Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust | |||
| Period | Total number of patients | Number seen by a specialist within two weeks | Percentage seen within two weeks |
| Source: Department of Health, Cancer Waiting Times Database | |||
26 Mar 2013 : Column 1082W
| Hull and East Yorkshire Hospitals NHS Trust | |||
| Period | Total number of patients | Number seen by a specialist within two weeks | Percentage seen within two weeks |
| Notes: 1. From 1 January 2009 onwards the definitions and methodology used to calculate these statistics are no longer directly comparable to those used previously. This change means the NHS no longer adjusts the statistics to account for patient choice, where individuals elect to delay their care. 2. All statistics are provider based, and may include patients whose care was commissioned by the Welsh NHS. Statistics in this format were published for the first time from Q4 2008-09. Source: Department of Health, Cancer Waiting Times Database | |||
Cancer: Drugs
Sarah Newton: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the number of people in each strategic health authority area who have received treatment through the Cancer Drugs Fund to date. [150134]
Norman Lamb: Information on the number of patients who have had cancer drugs funded by strategic health authority (SHA) under the interim cancer drugs funding arrangements in 2010-11 (from October 2010 to the end of March 2011) and under the Cancer Drugs Fund (from April 2011 to the end of January 2013) is shown in the following table:
| Strategic health authority | Number of patients funded in 2010-11 | Number of patients funded in 2011-12 | Number of patients funded from April 2012 to end January 2013 | Total number of patients funded since October 2010(1) |
26 Mar 2013 : Column 1083W
26 Mar 2013 : Column 1084W
| Note: (1)Some individual patients may be double-counted where a patient has received more than one drug treatment through the Cancer Drugs Fund. Source: Information provided to the Department by SHAs | ||||
Cardiovascular System: Diseases
Andrew Gwynne: To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what assessment he has made of the potential effect of the reduction of 2013-14 Healthcare Resource Group tariffs for percutaneous coronary interventions against the NHS Outcomes Framework indicator to reduce the incidence of under-75 mortality from cardiovascular disease; [149576]
(2) what assessment has been made of the potential effect of the reduction of 2013-14 Healthcare Resource Group tariffs for percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI) on (a) PCI and (b) primary PCI service provision. [149578]
Dr Poulter: The 2013-14 tariffs for percutaneous coronary interventions are in line with the costs reported by the national health service and so there should be no impact on the access for patients to these treatments and therefore on mortality rates. Prior to publication of the tariffs, the financial impact of the 2013-14 prices was assessed and the prices shared with a wide range of stakeholder groups including hospital trusts, commissioners and with industry. In addition, there is a flexibility available to enable commissioners to provide additional support to 24 hour primary percutaneous coronary intervention services (primary angioplasty).
Andrew Gwynne: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what process the NHS Commissioning Board will use to select (a) the 12 centres allowed to perform renal denervation procedures under Clinical Commissioning Policy A9b2 and (b) the high volume arterial centres allowed to perform highly specialised interventions under Service Specification A4. [149579]
Anna Soubry: This is a matter for the NHS Commissioning Board (NHS CB) as an independent body. We understand from the NHS CB that it will determine potential providers through a process of assessing providers against the requirements of the service specifications.
The service specifications are currently being developed.
Andrew Gwynne: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received on commissioning policy A10b on left atrial appendage occlusion produced by the NHS Commissioning Board. [149580]
Anna Soubry: The Department has received four representations expressing concerns about the draft commissioning policy A10b on left atrial appendage occlusion. The NHS Commissioning Board has confirmed that it has taken these concerns into consideration as part of the consultation process undertaken on the draft policies and service specifications.
Diabetes
Mr George Howarth: To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many people with type 1 diabetes have been diagnosed as having related eating disorders in each primary care trust area in each year since 2008; [149847]
(2) how many people with type 1 diabetes and related eating disorders have been the subject of hospital admissions (a) by hospital and (b) per person for each year since 2008. [149848]
Anna Soubry: The Health and Social Care Information Centre (HSCIC) does not hold information relating to the number of people with type 1 diabetes who have been diagnosed with an eating disorder. The reason for this is that Hospital Episode Statistics do not capture this information as it relates to primary care.
The HSCIC is unable to provide the data to the requested level of detail due to the rules concerning the suppression of small numbers (many hospitals would have fewer than five admissions each year for this combination of conditions). HSCIC has therefore provided figures at a national level.
The data provided are for hospital admission episodes with a diagnosis (primary or secondary) of diabetes and with a diagnosis (primary or secondary) of an eating disorder and is provided for the period 2005-06 to 2011-12.
It should be noted that these data should not be described as a count of people as the same person may have been admitted on more than one occasion.
| Count of finished admission episodes (FAEs) with a primary or secondary diagnosis of diabetes, and a primary or secondary diagnosis of an eating disorder, 2005-06 to 2011-12: Activity in English NHS Hospitals and English NHS commissioned activity in the independent sector | |
| FAEs | |
Epilepsy
Valerie Vaz: To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if his Department will make it a priority to incorporate the epilepsy quality standards into the Clinical Commissioning Group Outcomes Indicator Set; [150153]
26 Mar 2013 : Column 1085W
(2) how and when the new Quality Standards for Epilepsy will be incorporated into the Clinical Commissioning Group Outcomes Indicator Set. [150215]
Norman Lamb: It is for the NHS Commissioning Board (NHS CB) to make decisions on the Clinical Commissioning Group Outcomes Indicator Set.
We understand that the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) published two epilepsy quality standards on 28 February this year and plans to consider potential epilepsy indicators for the Clinical Commissioning Group Outcomes Indicator Set in April.
Following further consideration by NICE and its independent advisory committee on whether there is a need for further work to develop these indicators, it will make recommendations to the NHS CB who will make final decisions about inclusion in the Clinical Commissioning Group Indicator Set for future years.
Health Services: Young People
Mr Blunt: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what system is in place to monitor the (a) results and (b) effectiveness of (i) units set up to care for young people diagnosed with eating disorders and chronic fatigue syndrome/myalgic encephalomyelitis and (ii) other psychiatric and psychological services sponsored by his Department. [149574]
Dr Poulter: Since 2010, the Department has published three outcomes frameworks, for public health, adult social care and the NHS, and these are intended to provide a focus for action and improvement across the system.
The independent Children and Young People's Health Outcomes Forum, which reported in July 2012, looked at the Outcomes Frameworks from a children and young people's perspective and made recommendations, including on children and young people's mental health. Improving
26 Mar 2013 : Column 1086W
Children and Young People's Health Outcomes: a system wide response, published in February 2013, stated that
“DH is investigating the feasibility and appropriateness (according to agreed criteria) of implementing all of the Forum's wide-ranging recommendations on the development of measures for the NHS, Public Health, Adult Social Care and Commissioning Outcomes Frameworks”.
In addition, we have been working to develop the CAMHS (Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services) Minimum Data Set as a key driver to achieving better outcomes of care for children by providing comparative, linked data; that can be used to plan and commission services. The Data Set is currently in its implementation phase and the data have been specified for collection from all NHS organisations from April 2013.
The Children and Young People's Improving Access to Psychological Therapies (CYP IAPT) project which we introduced in 2011 is about transforming mental health services for children and young people with mental health conditions. The project focuses on extending training to staff and service managers in CAMHS and embedding evidence based practice across services, making sure that the whole service, not just the trainee therapists, use session-by-session outcome monitoring which supports collaborative practice with clients and focuses on improving their outcomes. In the longer term the intention is to include CYP IAPT data in the CAMHS Minimum Data Set.
Hospitals: Waiting Lists
Gloria De Piero: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the average waiting time was for an operation in (a) Sherwood Forest Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, (b) Nottingham University Hospitals Trust and (c) England in each of the last four (i) quarters and (ii) years. [149836]
Anna Soubry: The information available is shown in the following tables:
| Average (median) time waited (in weeks) for patients whose treatment required an admission to hospital during the month (admitted adjusted referral to treatment pathways) | |||||||||||
| 2009 | |||||||||||
| February | March | April | May | June | July | August | September | October | November | December | |
| 2010 | ||||||||||||
| January | February | March | April | May | June | July | August | September | October | November | December | |
26 Mar 2013 : Column 1087W
26 Mar 2013 : Column 1088W
| 2011 | ||||||||||||
| January | February | March | April | May | June | July | August | September | October | November | December | |
| 2012 | ||||||||||||
| January | February | March | April | May | June | July | August | September | October | November | December | |
| January 2013 | |
| Note: Data are not collected quarterly, data are collected monthly. Admitted pathways are those completed (patients who started treatment) during the month. Source: Department for Health Referral to Treatment Waiting times return | |
Human Papillomavirus
Mr Blunt: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of a possible link between the rise in cases of Chlamydia but not in other sexually transmitted infections in the 15 to 19 male and female age group and the introduction of the HPV vaccine. [149463]
Anna Soubry: The Health Protection Agency is unaware of any link between the human papillomavirus vaccination and Chlamydia diagnosis rates.
Mr Blunt: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what reports he has received on the data submitted by the manufacturer to the US Food and Drug Administration on the increased risk of pre-cancerous lesions after vaccination with Gardasil; and what steps are in place to monitor cervical cancer rates in the human papillomavirus vaccinated population. [149464]
Anna Soubry: The data were fully considered by European regulators prior to licensing and there were no concerns that administration of Gardasil may increase the risk of pre-cancerous lesions.
Cancer rates are monitored through cancer registries. Given the difference in the age at which most cervical cancers occur and the age of routine human papillomavirus (HPV) immunisation, a reduction in cervical cancer incidence is not expected to be seen for at least a decade or more and is likely to be seen first in the results from the cervical screening programme before cancer registries. For this reason the Health Protection Agency has been commissioned to monitor the early impact of HPV immunisation on type- specific (vaccine and non-vaccine) HPV infection rates and initial results from this programme are anticipated to be published within the next year.
Infant Mortality: Bradford
George Galloway: To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what steps he is taking to reduce the rate of infant mortality in Bradford; [149381]
(2) what assessment he has made of the rate of infant mortality in Bradford; [149382]
26 Mar 2013 : Column 1089W
(3) what assessment he has made of the possible link between child mortality and poverty levels in Bradford. [149460]
Dr Poulter: The infant mortality rate for Bradford, deaths under one year, is higher than in England, with 7.5 infant deaths per 1,000 live births in 2009-11, compared with a rate of 4.4 deaths per 1,000 live births in England for the same period. The higher rate in Bradford to some extent reflects the higher level of deprivation, Bradford is ranked 26 out of 326 local authorities on the English Indices of Deprivation, rank 1 being the most deprived.
We have given a high priority to early year's issues, including reducing the inequalities in infant mortality. The evidence-based Healthy Child Programme is the key programme for pregnant women, mothers and children. It seeks to prevent problems during pregnancy, at birth and in the early years, and help reduce health inequalities. We are increasing by 50% the number of health visitors and doubling the number of places on the Family Nurse Partnership programme to 13,000 by 2015. This programme offers support to at-risk, first-time young parents from early pregnancy until the child is two years old.
Infant mortality is an indicator in both the NHS and Public Health outcomes framework. The transfer of public health responsibilities to local government will improve the responsiveness of public health to local challenges and needs. Public Health England will provide national leadership and nationwide expertise on public health issues, including work on tackling health inequalities in the early years. Infant mortality and child mortality link to poverty, as noted by Professor Sir Michael Marmot in his strategic review of health inequalities, “Fair Society, Healthy Lives” (2010). Child mortality covers deaths from ages one to 17 years. In Bradford, the child mortality rate was 23.6 deaths per 100,000 of people in the same age group for 2009-11. This compares with a rate of 13.7 per 100,000 for England for the same period.
We recognise the importance of tackling poor health outcomes among children and young people. We established a Children and Young Peoples Health Outcomes Forum to consider these issues, and recently launched a pledge to improve health of children and young people, improve services from pregnancy to adolescence and beyond and reduce avoidable deaths, as part of our response to the recommendations of the Forum. The Royal Colleges, health organisations and other relevant bodies have signed up to this pledge.
Mental Health Services: Young People
Paul Burstow: To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how much each local authority in England has spent on (a) Tier 1, (b) Tier 2, (c) Tier 3 and (d) Tier 4 within children and adolescent mental health services in each of the last three years; [150162]
(2) how much each local authority in England has spent on children and adolescent mental health services in each of the last three years for which figures are available. [150163]
Norman Lamb:
Provision for Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services (CAMHS) is included in both
26 Mar 2013 : Column 1090W
the overall financial allocations made to the national health service and in financial allocations made to local authorities through the Local Government Revenue Support Grant.
All current social care grants, including the old CAMHS grant, were rolled into the Local Government Revenue Support Grant (LGRSG) for the Spending review period 2011-15. The LGRSG is the main route by which local authorities receive the majority of their funding for local public service delivery, and is issued via the Department for Communities and Local Government.
CAMHS funding is included in funding provided for on-going personal social services. The funding for all Department of Health revenue grants has been maintained and will rise in line with inflation over the spending review period (£767.02 million in 2011-12, £784.43 million in 2012-13, £804.98 million in 2013-13 and £826.31 million in 2014-15 for ongoing personal social services). Individual elements of funding are not ring fenced. It is for commissioners to decide how to use the resources available to them to best meet the needs of their local populations.
The Department for Education has also made funding available through the Early Intervention Grant to local authorities and schools for a wide range of services for children, young people and families including targeted mental health support in schools. This grant is due to finish at the end of the financial year. From April 2013, this funding is being moved and the majority will be paid as part of the Dedicated Schools Grant as part of changes to give schools greater flexibility to respond to the individual needs of their pupils.
Mid Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust
Andrew Bridgen: To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many representations, letters, emails and other items of correspondence his Department received expressing doubts, concerns or opposition towards Mid Staffordshire Trust's bid for foundation trust status up to 30 June 2007. [149584]
Anna Soubry: Records are only available from August 2005. A search of the Department's ministerial correspondence database has identified one item of correspondence logged before 1 January 2008 in relation to Mid Staffordshire NHS Trust's application to become a foundation trust.
Andrew Bridgen: To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many individual complaints his Department received from members of the public on care and treatment by Mid Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust and its predecessor in each month between 1 April 2005 and 30 June 2007. [149585]
Dr Poulter: Records are only available from August 2005. A search of the Department's ministerial correspondence database has identified 31 individual complaints about Mid Staffordshire NHS Foundation received between 1 August 2005 and 30 June 2007. The following table shows the number of complaints split by month received. These figures represent correspondence received by the Department's Ministerial correspondence unit only.
26 Mar 2013 : Column 1091W
26 Mar 2013 : Column 1092W
| January | February | March | April | May | June | July | August | September | October | November | December | |
Jeremy Lefroy: To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will publish all reports written by McKinsey for Monitor on the Mid Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust between 1 January 2009 and 19 March 2013. [149587]
Dr Poulter: We are informed by Monitor that no reports were produced by McKinsey for Monitor on the Mid Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust between 1 January 2009 and 19 March 2013, with the exception of those written by the Contingency Planning Team which have already been published.
NHS Commissioning Board
Andrew Gwynne: To ask the Secretary of State for Health pursuant to the answer of 25 January 2013, Official Report, column 489W, on the NHS Commissioning Board, how he intends to hold the NHS Commissioning Board to account for fulfilling its statutory duties to (a) promote innovation, (b) give regard to guidance issued by the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) and (c) uphold patient rights to technologies positively appraised by NICE; and if he will make it his policy to issue an annual report on his assessment of the Board's progress. [149577]
Dr Poulter: The Health and Social Care Act 2012 makes it clear that:
The NHS Commissioning Board must publish a business plan each year, setting out how it intends to carry out its functions, as well as to deliver the objectives and requirements set out in the mandate to the Board;
The Board must publish a report at the end of each year saying how it has performed;
The Secretary of State must then publish an assessment of the Board's performance; and
The Board must have regard to National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) Quality Standards.
With regard to the first point, the mandate includes an objective on freeing the national health service to innovate, in order to get the best outcomes for patients.
Regulations also provide that the relevant health body, whether the Board or clinical commissioning groups, must fund drugs and treatments that have been positively appraised by NICE. This right is enshrined in the NHS constitution.
Besides these legal requirements, there will be an ongoing sponsorship relationship between the Department and the Board, which will be outlined in a framework agreement. In particular, the Secretary of State will hold regular formal accountability meetings with the Chair of the Board and the minutes of these meetings will be published. The purpose of these meetings is to hold the Board to account. This includes ensuring the Board meets its duties to promote innovation, give regard to guidance issued by NICE, and uphold patient rights to technology positively appraised by NICE.
NHS: Disclosure of Information
Stephen Barclay: To ask the Secretary of State for Health pursuant to the answer by Sir David Nicholson to Question 187 given in evidence to the Committee of Public Accounts on 18 March 2013, when his Department expects to (a) have identified former staff of the NHS who have been subject to a gagging clause and (b) written to such people to explain that the gagging clause will not be enforced. [150131]
Dr Poulter: The coalition Government have been consistently clear that nothing within a contract of employment or compromise agreement should prevent an individual from speaking out about issues such as patient care and safety, or anything else that could be in the wider public interest in accordance with the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998 (PIDA).
Former national health service employees who feel they may be subject to a confidentiality “gagging” clause are protected under the PIDA regulations. Appropriately drafted confidentiality clauses can be a legitimate mechanism for protecting the interests of both employer and employee as long as nothing in the agreement seeks to prevent, or has the effect of preventing, individuals from speaking out in the public interest in accordance with PIDA.
However, any clause that is in contravention of the PIDA regulations is void and cannot prevent someone from speaking out about issues such as patient care and safety, or anything else that could be in the wider public interest in accordance with PIDA.
Former employees are encouraged to initially seek professional support and advice on their particular case from the Whistleblowing helpline. In parallel, the Department is considering how it may further communicate with employers on the issue of former employees who may have been party to a compromise agreement that may have included a confidentiality clause.
Charlotte Leslie: To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) who will adjudicate in cases where there is a dispute as to whether or not it is appropriate to remove a confidentiality clause from an NHS employee's severance agreement; [150227]
(2) what steps he will take to provide retrospective protection for former NHS employees who break confidentiality clauses in their severance payments; [150228]
(3) whether his proposed banning of confidentiality clauses from severance agreements in the NHS will apply to private sector providers of NHS services; [150229]
(4) if his proposed banning of confidentiality clauses from severance agreements in the NHS will apply in cases in which whistleblowing was not the central reason for the severance agreement; [150231]
26 Mar 2013 : Column 1093W
(5) whether the banning of confidentiality clauses from severance agreements in the NHS will apply in cases in which the £20,000 threshold for referral to his Department is not met. [150235]
Dr Poulter: The coalition Government have been consistently clear that nothing within a contract of employment or compromise agreement should prevent an individual from speaking out about issues such as patient care and safety, or anything else that could be in the wider public interest in accordance with the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998.
The Department has not banned confidentiality clauses per se. Compromise agreements, which include appropriately drafted confidentiality clauses, can be a legitimate mechanism for protecting the interests of both employer and employee as long as nothing in the agreement seeks to prevent, or has the effect of preventing, individuals from speaking out in the public interest.
Although the use and specific content of a compromise agreement is a matter for the relevant employer and is confidential to the parties concerned, some NHS employers have used such agreements that have not been as clear on the issue of speaking out in the public interest as they should be. This has resulted in some staff who have felt ‘gagged' and therefore worried that they would not be allowed to speak out about their concerns after they have signed the agreement and left their employment.
HM Treasury do not sign off ‘compromise agreements' neither does the Department of Health. The Department and Treasury do not see the content of compromise agreements or the confidentiality clauses they may contain. The Department and the Treasury review the business cases that are put forward by employers in support of making a special severance payment. The Department will not support settlements, regardless of the amount concerned, where making such a payment is not in the public interest. This includes any case which may involve a potential whistleblowing issue.
In future, the Government will require that where confidentiality clauses are used in compromise agreements that they include an explicit clause that makes it clear beyond doubt to the individual concerned that nothing in the agreement will prevent them from speaking out on issues in the public interest as covered by the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998 (PIDA).
Former NHS employees who feel they may be subject to a confidentiality ‘gagging’ clause are protected under PIDA. Any clause that is in contravention of the PIDA regulations is void. Former employees are encouraged to initially seek professional support and advice on their particular case from the whistleblowing helpline. In parallel, the Department is considering how it may further communicate with employers on the issue of former employees.
NHS: Interpreters
Andrew Percy: To ask the Secretary of State for Health on how many occasions interpreters have been required for the purposes of treating (a) NHS patients, (b) emergency admissions, (c) maternity cases, (d) in-patient admissions and (e) out-patients in (i) Brigg and Goole constituency and (ii) Yorkshire and the Humber in each of the last five years. [150160]
26 Mar 2013 : Column 1094W
Norman Lamb: This information is not collected centrally. The provision of interpretation and translation services by national health service bodies is a matter for local determination.
NHS: Managers
Priti Patel: To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what measures are in place to remove from post NHS managers (a) that fail to meet performance targets, (b) have overseen healthcare services which put patients' lives at risk and (c) have overseen financial mismanagement of a NHS organisation. [149567]
(2) what measures are in place to prevent NHS managers (a) that fail to meet performance targets, (b) have overseen healthcare services which put patients' lives at risk and (c) have overseen financial mismanagement of a NHS organisation from gaining further employment in the NHS; and if he will consider introducing a barring scheme to prohibit such individuals from working in NHS management; [149568]
(3) what steps he is taking to introduce new measures to (a) remove failing NHS managers, (b) monitor the performance of NHS managers, (c) monitor the financial management of NHS managers and (d) issue sanctions against failing NHS managers. [149569]
Dr Poulter: All those working for the national health service have personal responsibility for the quality of care they provide, with good leadership critical to ensuring that patients receive excellent care. The vast majority of NHS leaders and managers work tirelessly to get the best possible care for the people they serve.
However, the NHS does have systems in place to deal with the small number of managers who fail to meet the appropriate safety, quality, performance or financial standards.
Employers are required to incorporate the Code of Conduct for NHS Managers in the employment contracts of chief executives and other directors. NHS managers are personally responsible for meeting the requirements of their employment contracts. Local governance systems are in place to hold NHS managers to account for the terms of their job role. If there are failures to meet the standards set, it is for the employer to decide what actions to take, including the possibility of additional training and support, or termination of contract.
In support of this, Monitor, the NHS Trust Development Authority and Care Quality Commission work together to provide independent regulatory oversight of the safety, quality, performance and financial management of NHS providers in England.
Monitor has and will continue to have intervention powers in relation to NHS foundation trusts and can remove directors from the board in cases of significant financial or service underperformance.
The Report of the Mid Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust Public Inquiry provides graphic illustrations of lessons that can be learned from failure of individuals, the employing trust and system regulators to put patients first. It recommends a number of actions relating to NHS managers, including a mechanism for barring failing managers. These are being considered as part of the Government's response, which will be published shortly.
26 Mar 2013 : Column 1095W
NHS: Payments
Stephen Barclay: To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many judicial mediation payments were made in each of the last five years by (a) foundation hospital trusts, (b) non-foundation hospital trusts and (c) all other NHS bodies and organisations. [149984]
Dr Poulter: Prior to 11 March 2013. any special severance payments agreed under the judicial mediation process did not require HM Treasury approval, in accordance with existing Treasury rules at that time. Advice received from the Treasury on 11 March 2013 makes clear that Treasury approval is now required in advance of a case going to mediation. Where Treasury approval is given, it sets the upper limit of any subsequently negotiated settlement through mediation.
In addition, prior to 11 March 2013 the Department did not hold information on whether any agreements were made at a judicial mediation or if any payments were subsequently actually made.
Opiates
Ms Abbott: To ask the Secretary of State for Health pursuant to the Government's response to recommendation 19 of the Ninth Report of the Home Affairs Committee, Drugs: Breaking the Cycle, HC 184, what assessment he has made of the level of awareness amongst patients and users of the treatment options for opioid substitution therapy. [149615]
Anna Soubry: As highlighted in the Government's response to the Ninth Report of the Home Affairs Committee, session 2012-13, HC 184, we agree with the Home Affairs Committee that it is for the individual prescriber in discussion with their client to decide which treatment is clinically most appropriate. The response references key documents which provide advice to guide those discussions, including about the provision of information to patients.
Pay
Priti Patel: To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how much was paid to officials in (a) his Department and (b) its non-departmental public bodies in bonuses and other payments in addition to salary in each of the last five years; how many officials received such payments; and what the monetary value was of the 20 largest payments made in each year; [148027]
(2) what allowances and subsidies in addition to salary were available to officials in (a) his Department and (b) its non-departmental public bodies in each of the last five years; and what the monetary value was of such payments and allowances in each such year. [148046]
Dr Poulter: For the Department, information requested about non-consolidated performance related payments (NCPRPs) (formerly known as bonuses), special bonuses and distinction awards for medical doctors, paid to civil servants on the Department's payroll is given in the following tables.
26 Mar 2013 : Column 1096W
| Total annual cost (£) | Total number of awards(1) | |
| (1) A civil servant may be entitled to receive more than one type of bonus within a given year. Source: Department of Payroll Systems | ||
| Highest 20 awards in the Department for each year | |
| £ | |
26 Mar 2013 : Column 1097W
26 Mar 2013 : Column 1098W
| (1 )Distinction awards for medical doctors (2) Contractual obligation—bonus agreed with one individual, disclosed in previous parliamentary questions and other published information. Source: DH Payroll Systems | |
Since 2008, the Department has reduced the cost of overall expenditure on its annual allowances and subsidies. Some of these payments relate to allowances paid on a ‘reserved rights' basis. Current available allowances include such payments as:
Private Office allowance (in lieu of overtime);
Excess fares—for civil servants who are relocated at the Department's instigation; and
Detached duty payments—covering costs of living away from home while temporarily posted to a new location.
Information about the annual costs of allowances and subsidies for the Department's civil servants has been taken from the Department's Payroll System and is set out in the following table.
| Total cost of allowances and subsidies (£) | |
| (1) Data for 2012-13 accounts for payments up to the end February 2013. All other years are the full financial years. | |
The information on the total cost of bonuses and other payments to officials in the Department's non-departmental public bodies, for the years 2011-12 and 2012 to end of February 2013 is set out in the following table. Information for the previous three years andinformation about how many officials received such payments and the monetary value of the 20 largest payments made in each year cannot be obtained without incurring disproportionate cost.
| £ | |||
| How much was paid to officials in non-departmental public bodies in bonuses and other payments in addition to salary | |||
| Name organisation | Type of payment | 2012-13 to end of February 2013 | 2011-12 |
26 Mar 2013 : Column 1099W
26 Mar 2013 : Column 1100W
| (1 )NHS CB: The Commissioning Board became an Executive non-departmental public body on 1 October 2012 and will not be effectively operational until 1 April 2013. The NHS CB is undertaking a significant programme of staff transition and recruitment, and during this financial year most staff have been working on a secondment and interim basis. Therefore it is not possible to give meaningful figures for 2012-13. | |||
The information on allowances and subsidies available to officials in the Department's non-departmental public bodies (NDPBs) is set out in the following table.
Public Expenditure
Chris Leslie: To ask the Secretary of State for Health pursuant to the Budget 2013 Red Book, Table 2.5, which capital projects are no longer proceeding as a consequence of the underspend by his Department in 2012-13. [150176]
Dr Poulter: Table 2.5 of the Budget 2013 Red Book shows the difference between Budget 2012 plans and latest forecast of expenditure for 2012-13. For the Department of Health, the table shows an estimated Capital Departmental Expenditure Limits underspend of £0.8 billion against the Budget 2012 plans.
This underspend has arisen mainly because of savings in central capital schemes (including Connecting for Health) and slippage on capital spending plans in the national health service. No capital projects have been stopped or delayed specifically to achieve this underspend.
26 Mar 2013 : Column 1101W
The Department will set out its spending for the year in detail in its annual accounts in the usual way.
Social Services
Mr Ward: To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) whether his Department has made an estimate of costs associated with local authorities having introduced restrictions on the eligibility criteria for social care; [150135]
(2) what support his Department has offered to help local authorities maintain current thresholds for Fair Access to Care criteria; [150164]
(3) with reference to his Department's White Paper, Caring for Our Future, what steps he is taking to introduce a new assessment and eligibility framework for social care. [150167]
Norman Lamb: Under the current legal framework, local authorities are free to set their eligibility threshold for adult social care services. Local authorities base their own threshold in response to local needs and circumstances. We have not made any estimate of the costs associated with local authorities having introduced restrictions on the eligibility criteria for social care.
The Government have committed to introducing a national minimum eligibility threshold for adult social care. Provisions to this effect were included in the draft Care and Support Bill, and subject to the passage of legislation, this will be introduced from April 2015. The Government will determine the level of the threshold as part of the Spending Review, which we will announce later in the year. Local authorities will be free to set their eligibility threshold at a more generous level but will not be able to tighten them beyond the national minimum threshold.
The Government also gave a commitment in the White Paper “Caring for our future”, that we will develop and test options for a potential new assessment and eligibility framework. A Steering Group involving all relevant stakeholders will be established in the summer. The Steering Group will develop new models and these will be evaluated over a number of years. The Steering Group will then put proposals to Government and we will consider the feasibility of implementing these.
We know that the last Spending Review provided local government with a challenging settlement. This is why we took the decision to prioritise adult social care, and provide extra funding for local authorities to help in maintaining access to services. Since then, we have provided local authorities with additional resources for social care. However, it is ultimately for local authorities to choose how best to use their available funding.
But we cannot improve care and support by putting ever more money into the system. We have already seen examples of local authorities redesigning services to find more efficient ways of working. Many local authorities are innovating and achieving much greater integration between health and care services, thereby improving care for people and optimising use of resources available.
Education
Academies: Finance
John Healey: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what the duties of the Education Funding Agency are in relation to monitoring academies' funding agreements. [146028]
26 Mar 2013 : Column 1102W
Mr Laws: The duties of the Education Funding Agency (EFA) in relation to academies' funding agreements are to provide assurance over the proper use of public funds provided by the EFA through financial assurance undertaken by the EFA itself, or by others. The EFA is also responsible for compliance with the funding agreement by academies and it investigates alleged breaches of the funding agreement, except where they relate to educational matters or where another statutory body is responsible.
John Healey: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what the duties of Ofsted are in relation to monitoring academies' funding agreements. [146030]
Mr Laws: Ofsted does not have a role in monitoring academies' funding agreements; this role is carried out by the Education Funding Agency. Ofsted's remit is to inspect and regulate services which care for children and young people and those providing education and skills for learners of all ages, including academies.
John Healey: To ask the Secretary of State for Education which academies, from which academy groups or chains, have had their funding agreements revoked since May 2010; and what the (a) date of and (b) reasons for each such revocation were. [146031]
Mr Laws: No academies have had their funding agreements revoked since May 2010.
Departmental Responsibilities
Tim Loughton: To ask the Secretary of State for Education which activities in the Children and Young People's Family Division of his Department have been scaled back, ended or deprioritised since September 2012; and how many such activities are planned to be scaled back, ended or deprioritised. [143053]
Mr Timpson [holding answer 12 February 2013]: The Children, Young People and Families Directorate was replaced by the Children's Services and Departmental Strategy Directorate on the 3 December 2012 as part of internal restructuring at the Department for Education.
Resource is now regularly reprioritised according to where the Department is at on the cycle of work and to ensure the Department is run as efficiently as possible. Going forward, the Department's business planning process will determine which activities are scaled back, ended or deprioritised. This is due to complete in the next few months and will be followed by ongoing reprioritisation so that staff resource is always focused where it is most needed.
Tim Loughton: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what advice was given by special advisers at or before the Department for Education Board meeting of 4 October 2012 on scaling back, ending or deprioritisation of activities within the Children and Young People's Family Division of his Department. [143054]
Mr Timpson [holding answer 13 February 2013]: The Secretary of State receives frequent advice from special advisers on the full range of departmental policies, and on prioritisation.
26 Mar 2013 : Column 1103W
Policies affecting children, young people and families remain a priority for me as the responsible Minister, this Department, and the whole Government. On 29 January 2013, we announced our ambitious child care reforms which set out our vision for a dynamic child care market and delivering high quality early education. On 5 February 2013, we also published the Children and Families Bill, which includes reforms to adoption, the role of the Children's Commissioner, family justice, and special educational needs.
Tim Loughton: To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will publish the advice presented to the Department for Education Board on 4 October 2012 regarding scaling back, ending or deprioritising of work within the Children and Young People's Family Division of his Department. [143056]
Mr Timpson [holding answer 12 February 2013]: The Department for Education does not routinely publish board papers.
Tim Loughton: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what decisions were taken at the Department for Education Board meeting on 4 October 2012 regarding scaling back, ending or deprioritising work by his Department on (a) internet safety, (b) relationship and parenting support programmes, (c) children's centres and (d) youth activities. [143057]
Mr Timpson [holding answer 12 February 2013]: At the Board meeting held on 4 October 2012, both the Department's internal Review and priorities for Ministers were discussed. The former considers how best we can continue to deliver the Government's priorities while meeting the challenges of budget pressures. The latter is a key element of the Department's business planning process, and at the end of this process the Department will determine the allocation of resources to deliver its priorities.
No final decisions were taken on prioritisation of work at October's Board.
Education and Skills Act 2008
Mr Raab: To ask the Secretary of State for Education (1) when he plans to bring sections 2 and 4 of the Education and Skills Act 2008 into force; [149052]
(2) when the Government plans to bring Part 1 of the Education and Skills Act 2008 into force; [149053]
(3) when he plans to lay the regulations designated under section 4(2) of the Education and Skills Act 2008 before Parliament; and when he intends such regulations to come into force. [149055]
Matthew Hancock [holding answer 19 March 2013]: Part 1 of the Education and Skills Act 2008 (ESA) places a duty on young people to participate in education or training until they are 18 or have completed a prescribed Level 3 qualification. Section 2 sets out the duty to participate and section 4 sets out the definition of full-time education or training.
We intend to commence the majority of Part 1 of ESA from 28 June 2013 to apply to all young people in England until the end of the academic year in which they turn 17; and from 26 June 2015 to their 18(th) birthday.
26 Mar 2013 : Column 1104W
However, we have confirmed that we will not commence two elements of Part 1 of ESA. These are the duties on employers (in chapter 3 of Part 1) and the ‘enforcement provisions' for young people who do not participate (in chapters 4 and 5 of Part 1). These will remain on statute and we will keep the need to commence them under review.
The legislation makes provision for some elements to be specified in secondary legislation, including section 4(2) on the definition of full-time education. We carried out a full public consultation on the policy that will underpin the regulations and our response is available at:
http://www.education.gov.uk/childrenandyoungpeople/youngpeople/participation/rpa/a00210946/consultation-response
Copies of this report will be placed in the House Libraries.
The regulations designated under section 4(2) will be laid before Parliament in early summer 2013 and will come into force before 28 June 2013.