Asked by: Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Labour - Life peer)
Question to the HM Treasury:
To ask His Majesty's Government what action they took in respect of Safe Hands Funeral Plans following concerns raised in 2017 by Fairer Finance and the Funeral Planning Authority.
Answered by Baroness Vere of Norbiton - Parliamentary Secretary (HM Treasury)
The government recognises the difficulty and challenges facing those who have lost money because their funeral plan providers have been shown to be unable to fulfil the promises they made to their customers.
In January 2021, the government legislated to bring all pre-paid funeral plan providers and intermediaries within the regulatory remit of the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) from 29 July 2022. This has ensured that 1.6 million funeral plan customers are, for the first time, protected by compulsory and robust regulation.
The two largest providers that have gone into administration since the government legislated are Safe Hands, with approximately 46,000 customers and One Life, with approximately 14,000 customers. We also understand that some smaller providers have entered administration.
During a wide-ranging meeting with industry in July 2017 to discuss pre-paid funeral plans, some concerns about Safe Hands funeral plans were raised with HM Treasury.
In response, officials advised that such concerns should be reported to the FCA, reflecting the fact that HM Treasury has no investigatory or enforcement powers of its own.
Asked by: Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Labour - Life peer)
Question to the Department of Health and Social Care:
To ask His Majesty's Government, further to the report by the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Brain Tumours, Pathway to a Cure – breaking down the barriers, published on 28 February 2023, what is the expected timescale to develop a strategy for adequately resourcing discovery, translational and clinical research into brain tumours as recommended by the report; and whether they will commit to ring fencing the recommended £110 million for this resourcing.
Answered by Lord Markham - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department of Health and Social Care)
The Department of Health and Social Care welcomes the All-Party Parliamentary Group report, recommendations of which continue to be worked through with the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology, UK Research and Innovation and the Medical Research Council (MRC), and with the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR).
The report recommended action by the research funding agencies on coordinating activities and making funding available. We are taking steps to ensure that funders work closely together to coordinate work along the translational pathway, from the discovery and early translational science typically supported by the MRC, feeding through to the applied health and care research funded by the NIHR.
It is not usual practice to ring-fence funds for particular topics or conditions. As with other Government funders of health research, the NIHR does not allocate funding for specific disease areas. The level of research spend in a particular area is driven by factors including scientific potential and the number and scale of successful funding applications.
Asked by: Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Labour - Life peer)
Question to the Department of Health and Social Care:
To ask His Majesty's Government what policy NHS England has on literature, posters and other guidance with reference to the recording or description of the sex of patients.
Answered by Lord Markham - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department of Health and Social Care)
The Government is clear that biological sex matters and that there are different health needs between the sexes. We have been clear that removing language around biological sex and women has the potential for unintended adverse health consequences. Language used in healthcare settings, whilst being inclusive, should use clear terms that everyone can understand.
As set out in Women’s Health Strategy, we are working with National Health Service bodies to ensure that women are properly represented in communications and guidance.
Asked by: Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Labour - Life peer)
Question to the Department of Health and Social Care:
To ask His Majesty's Government what discussions they have had with the General Medical Council concerning its removal of the words "mother" and "women" from its internal guidance for pregnant or menopausal staff; and whether this reflects advice to doctors on how to treat and describe patients.
Answered by Lord Markham - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department of Health and Social Care)
No specific discussions have been had. Ministerial meetings are routinely published on GOV.UK.
The General Medical Council (GMC) is independent from the Government and its internal guidance is produced for employees of the GMC, not for doctors registered therewith.
Asked by: Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Labour - Life peer)
Question to the Department of Health and Social Care:
To ask His Majesty's Government whether they have reviewed all NHS advice to staff as to the language used to describe female patients.
Answered by Lord Markham - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department of Health and Social Care)
We have been clear that biological sex matters and it is important to use appropriate language that recognises the separate health and biological needs of men and women.
No review has taken place on all advice to National Health Service staff, but we continue to work with NHS bodies to ensure that women are properly represented in communications and guidance.
Asked by: Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Labour - Life peer)
Question to the Department of Health and Social Care:
To ask His Majesty's Government when they last met the General Medical Council; and what was covered on the agenda.
Answered by Lord Markham - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department of Health and Social Care)
The Government meets with the General Medical Council (GMC) on a regular basis.
The Minister of State for Health and Secondary Care (Will Quince MP) last met with the GMC on 19 July 2023. The agenda covered the following items:
Asked by: Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Labour - Life peer)
Question to the Ministry of Defence:
To ask His Majesty's Government whether they intend to accept the recommendation in the report by Lord Etherton LGBT Veterans Independent Review, published on 19 July 2023, to establish a scheme to compensate those who lost their jobs in the armed services between 1967 and 2000 as a result of the discrimination against LGBTQ+ people; and what plans they have to extend or replicate the scheme for former employees of (1) the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, and (2) the Security Services, who similarly lost their jobs as a result of the ban on homosexuality for serving officers.
Answered by Baroness Goldie
Lord Etherton has concluded his independent review and submitted his report and recommendations to the Secretary of State for Defence and the Minister for Veterans' Affairs in the Cabinet Office. The Government will now consider the report and recommendations and decide which Departments are best placed to take action. Defence is committed to responding in full in due course after giving the report due consideration, as per the terms of reference. Defence has accepted the recommendation of a financial award, noting that such schemes take time to establish. Further detail on eligibility will be included in the full response.
Any consideration of compensation, or decision to mirror any arrangements which Defence may put in place, for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO) and Security Services staff dismissed due to their sexuality is a matter for the FCDO and Home Office to consider.
Asked by: Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Labour - Life peer)
Question to the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office:
To ask His Majesty's Government how many staff within (1) the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, and (2) the Security Services, were either (a) dismissed, or (b) forced to resign, as a result of bans on homosexuality among serving officers between 1967 and 2000.
Answered by Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon - Minister of State (Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office)
The Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office do not hold this information centrally and it could only be obtained at disproportionate cost.
Asked by: Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Labour - Life peer)
Question to the Department of Health and Social Care:
To ask His Majesty's Government what is the budget for falls prevention; and whether they have any plans to allocate a portion of that budget to Fracture Liaison Services in order to (1) diagnose osteoporosis early, and (2) prevent hip fractures.
Answered by Lord Markham - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department of Health and Social Care)
NHS England does not have a specific budget on a national level for falls prevention, which is a focus within certain policy programmes, including Enhanced Health in Care Homes. The Department continues to work with NHS England on the consideration and implementation of musculoskeletal policy, including Fracture Liaison Services.
Asked by: Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Labour - Life peer)
Question to the Department for Levelling Up, Housing & Communities:
To ask His Majesty's Government whether photo ID will be required for any recall petition and any subsequent by-election.
Answered by Baroness Scott of Bybrook - Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities)
This is set out in legislation, in the Elections Act 2022, (Commencement No. 6 and Savings) Regulations 2022 and the Voter Identification Regulations 2022. Voters will be required to show photographic identification in order to vote at a polling station for any UK parliamentary by-elections or to sign the petition in person at any recall petitions.